Talk:Morgellons

Archives
Untitled Archive 1 (prior to March 2007) Archive 2 (March through June 2007) Archive 3 (July 2007) August 2007 sandbox version August 2007 sandbox discussion Archive 5 (August 2007) Archive 6 (August to November 2007) Archive 7 (November 2007 to May 2008) Archive 8

New Evidence supporting infectious etiology

Please note that exclusion of a source on the basis of minority opinion is not a legitimate argument on wikipedia because the inclusion of minority point of view is essential to maintain neutrality and maintaining neutrality is supported and considered to be a priority by wikipedia policy. The primary source policy should not be applied to exclude a source when the source is from a peer-reviewed medical journal (particularly if it is PubMed indexed) as the Wikipedia policy states that primary sources can be included when they are reliably published, and the inclusion of peer-reviewed journal articles follows the letter and spirit of this policy. Up-to-date primary sources are considered appropriate sources for actively researched areas; and policy needs to be relaxed in such circumstances where little progress is being made and few reviews are published. If primary sources are not permitted for inclusion then the CDC and Mayo Clinic studies should be deleted on the same grounds. Please note that the magazine interviews and the like should not be included as they are not considered by Wikipedia to be high quality sources – they are not even published studies – and they do not meet the criteria for reliable medical references. The fact that these are included when peer-reviewed sources are deleted shows editorial bias. Before editing and adding new evidence – peer-reviewed and Pub Med indexed, and listed below – that suggests Morgellons has an infectious etiology, I would like to know if Yobol, Mast Cell or any other users intend to undo the edits that include content from the references listed below, and if so on what justifiable grounds? To maintain neutrality, editors should not reject a source due to personal objections to the study’s conclusions. <www.dovepress.com/filament-formation-association-with-spirochete-infection-a-comparative-peer-reviewed-article-CCID><www.dovepress.com/characterization-and-evolution-of-dermal-filaments-from-patients-with--peer-reviewed-article-CCID><http://f1000research.com/articles/2-25/v1> Erythema (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)erythema

First, you may wish to read WP:FRINGE. It is very well established Wikipedia policy that neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to theories or ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. In this case, the overwhelming consensus of medical science is that Morgellons has no basis in objective reality.

Second, regarding the links you provided: Both Dove Medical Press and F1000 are for-profit open source journals, with very little quality control. Anyone with a paper to publish can have it "reviewed" and published online as soon as their check clears; as such, they should be treated with careful attention when determining their reliability. That the papers are indexed with PubMed is irrelevant, as PubMed is merely a database of published articles and makes absolutely no claim as to the articles' quality or reliability. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to revisit WP:FRINGE . It states that “reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner” and “material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source”. Peer-reviewed journal articles certainly qualify as such. Peer-reviewed articles are evaluated by known experts in a particular field of study before the article is published. This assures that an article maintains a high standard of quality, accuracy, and academic integrity. Before attacking the F1000 perhaps you should be aware that – according to Wikipedia – the Faculty members include 7 Nobel Prize winners, 81 Fellows of the Royal Society, 12 Lasker Award winners, 146 members of the National Academy of Science and 104 members of the Institute of Medicine. The F1000, citing a paper on Morgellons written by some of the authors of the papers you are attacking, indicated that the paper was in the top 2% of published articles in the field of dermatology. Furthermore, F1000 Research does open peer-review, allowing for transparent peer-review. I am quite sure that esteemed researchers such as, Judith Miklossy MD, PhD, DSc, who is Board certified in Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Neuropathology; John English, MB, BS, FRCP, a dermatologist at University of Nottingham, UK; or Bernhard Zelger, department of Dermatology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, would appreciate the implication that their approval was bought. Dove Press has guidelines for peer-review and reviewers are advised to provide an objective critical evaluation, and they must be experts on the topic they are reviewing. I already established that Wikipedia policy allows primary sources that are reliably published, especially on a topic like Morgellons where little progress is being made and there are few published review articles. If you take a look at the Morgellons page, as it is now, there are many sources that do not meet the criteria for reliable medical resources according to Wikipedia policy. In regards to Pub Med you may want to visit WP:MEDRES as Pub Med is listed there as a useful resource for writing medically related articles and that WP:MEDRES is intended to complement WP:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Talk page guidelines suggest that Wikipedia users "be positive and should not criticize, pick apart, or vent on the current status of an article or its subject". You are bringing your personal POV about Dove Press into this discussion. Erythema (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)erythema

libel -- TechBear, please note that your statements about F1000 Research and Dove Press are libelous and Wikipedia has a strong policy against the inclusion of libelous material. Erythema (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)erythema

Calling F1000 Research and Dove Press journals "peer-reviewed" is libelous.

• Post-publication peer-review could be legitimate if the reviewers were selected by the editorial staff, and the editorial staff has some respectability.
• Dove Press journals are clearly not peer-reviewed, except possibly for grammar.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to remove the phrase "whereas in reality no such parasites are present"

In the intro sentence to this article, namely:

Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given to a condition in 2002 by Mary Leitao, where sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with parasites, whereas in reality no such parasites are present,

you need to remove the phrase in bold.

This is a point of science: anyone that knows about infectious disease research is fully aware that you cannot prove the absence of an unknown micro-organism. If a study does not find a micro-organism present, that does NOT provide proof that there is no micro-organism. Thus the above phrase extrapolates beyond what is known scientifically.

If you are unsure of this, consult with some infectious disease experts. They will tell you that micro-organisms are extremely difficult to detect, especially new ones, so no matter how many studies do not find a micro-organism in a given disease, this is NOT proof that no micro-organism is present. Drgao (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The current state of knowledge is that there are no parasites. You really have to learn how it works around here, read the links people have shown you, or move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The current state of knowledge cannot comment on whether there are parasites or other microbes or not. The phrase in bold goes beyond current knowledge, and is a fabrication. Drgao (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to look at reference 16. And really stop beating the WP:DEADHORSE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a point of science and logic (you do know about science and logic, I take it): you cannot prove a negative. Therefore what you have said in the article is logically incorrect. No reference you provide can resurrect this; it is a fundamental logical error that needs to be expunged. Drgao (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I also cannot prove there aren't little green men forcing me to edit wikipedia, but I am relatively sure there aren't. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a silly point. If you cannot take this issue seriously, then pass it over to someone less flippant. Perhaps others here with a better understanding of logic will appreciate that the phrase is bold is a non sequitur. The phrase in bold may be what people here think is probably true, but it is not supported by fact or any studies, so it does not belong in Wikipedia. Drgao (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"...it is not supported by fact or any studies..."? Sounds like you have not looked at the references already provided to you. Wikipedia must represent reliable sources, even if we do not agree with them. -- Scray (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Scray, if you don't have sufficient grasp of the finer points of logic (as appears to be the case), then go find a friend who does, and ask their advice. It is not possible to prove the absence of an unknown micro-organism, no matter what the study. All you can correctly say is that such-and-such a study did not find any micro-organisms. So you can correctly say that the CDC-funded study did not find any micro-organisms, but you CANNOT say the CDC study proved there are no micro-organisms in Morgellons patients. That would be a false statement.

If you don't have sufficient understanding of this sort of logic, you should not really be editing a scientific article, because you will end up doing a bad job. Drgao (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on this page have gone far enough. By WP policy, we must aim any negative comments toward edits, not the editor. -- Scray (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not an attack, it's an observation: if you don't possess sufficient ability to follow logic, you are going to make a hash of the issue at hand. At present we have a situation in which there is a blatantly unfounded statement in the first sentence of the article. That should be of serious concern. Yes, my tongue has been sharp in expressing this point to you, but your inability to appreciate this point unfortunately called for it.

If you properly consider the issue I have raised — and if necessary, speak to any acquaintances you have who are more familiar with logic — then perhaps we can proceed in a more friendly tone, which will be better for everyone.

Any mention in this article of the CDC proving that there are no disease-causing micro-organisms in Morgellons patients, or words to that effect, must be removed, or else amended to say that the CDC did not find any micro-organisms in Morgellons patients. The latter statement is acceptable and correct; whereas the former is false. Drgao (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you look for just one instance of the word "prove" or "proving" (your quotes/emphasis) in the article currently? I think you'll then realize there are none. I'm done with you. -- Scray (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When you say, as you erroneously do, in the article that "whereas in reality no such parasites are present", you clearly are telling the reader "that in truth, no parasites are present", as if it is a proven fact. But this is not a proven fact, as you don't know this is true. Drgao (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Scray you are wrong it's not that bad to be wrong but ignoring what the guy is saying and pointing out unrelated facts is just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Psychiatric conditions involving delusional infestations don't involve actual infestation, by definition. The definition of a delusion pretty much explains why this is so. In fact the argument that you can't "prove" a negative (that there are no parasites) is an important dimension of delusion. It is precisely the unfalsifiability of this belief which protects the delusion from ever being disproved in the mind of the sufferer. Essentially it holds the delusional belief outside of the domain of science, where reality can't undermine it. If any physician were likely to even label anyone as having "morgellons" they would have to provide evidence that they screened for parasites and did not find any.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved editor. First of all I want to remark that after reading comments Drgao tone crosses the personal attack line way too often. Additionally, regarding his comments about proving a negative, it is not a valid reasoning, since no negative can ever be proven but we can still say with quite some certainty that the earth is round (even if theoretically all could be an illusion). WP is not about thruth but about consensus in sources and scientific consensus here is that Morgellons does not exist.

Now: I do agree Drgao that the inital lines of the lead are misleading, since it can be understood that Leitao proposed that patients have a delusional belief, while it is the opposite case (she does believe in it). Moreover, the validity of the condition seems to be questioned as proposed by Leitao. It does sound similar to an article I have worked with (See CCSVI), in which a condition was proposed but has not been really accepted. This should be explicited in the lead

I would change the lead to something like: Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition proposed in 2002 by Mary Leitao in which sufferes had XXX as symtoms. While medical consensus is that patients suffer from delusions Leitao and some patient associations have proposed that it is caused by parasites.

I believe a similar wording would make clearer the gap between medical consensus and the history of the term. --Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not the only one here that makes personal comments. I have been told three times already to "move on" by the rather arrogant Dbrodbeck. No editor should tell another to "move on" or "go away", since this is not only an extremely rude comment to direct to an editor, but worse still, Dbrodbeck's comments, thrice made on this page, suggest that he is implying "we don't like strangers around here, and we certainly are aren't going to accommodate them". Dbrodbeck is making the cardinal sin in Wikipedia: thinking he owns the article. Drgao (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate you removing those personal attacks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have struck them. Drgao (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting away from comments about editors and back to the article content: Dbrodbeck's comments are based in Wikipedia content policy and supported by good-quality sources, and they are also in line with consensus regarding this article. Unless a much more authoritative source can be brought to support the proposed content addition, there isn't a good basis to include it in the article at this time. Zad68 14:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well regarding sources: the CDC study that you quote in this article does not appear to be a secondary source. Since a big issue was made above in this discussion page of the need for "multiple high-quality secondary sources" before inclusion in this article can be considered, why then have you included this non-secondary source CDC study? You set rules that you want me follow, but then you go ahead an break these same rules. You are not following your own standards here. Drgao (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I made a specific proposal than nobody has commented: I would change the lead to something like: Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition proposed in 2002 by Mary Leitao in which sufferes had XXX as symtoms. While medical consensus is that patients suffer from delusions Leitao and some patient associations have proposed that it is caused by parasites.--Garrondo (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My fear there is that we are giving weight to the idea that there are parasites. The direction you suggest is ok though I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not plan to edit the article, but just for curiosity: In reliable sources about Morgellons is common that history section indicating the origin of the term? Such description has a lot of detail explaning on how relevant the term has been for the public? From my experience in the CCSVI article this may indicate that the concept has had more "resonance" in the media and patients culture than in scientific circules.--Garrondo (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm against this change of wording, it gives weight to the 'patients' diagnosis, which really can't be valid considering the fact they're suffering from psychosis. --Judgeking (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Dbrodbeck's concerns about giving weight to the idea that there are parasites. I share that concern, and probably there are no parasites in the skin of Morgellons patients.

However, the trouble with the current introductory paragraph to this article is that it focusses on the delusional parasitosis hypothesis for Morgellons, and this delusional parasitosis hypothesis also tends to reject the idea that the fibers and the skin lesions are real (suggesting instead that the lesions are self-inflicted, and the fibers are just from clothes). I think this is unfair, as the intro should also mention the competing view, which is that the fibers and the skin lesions are real and caused by the disease, even if there are no parasites.

What confuses the situation is that some Morgellons patients think that the fibers themselves are the parasites. However, the study I thought would add value to this article found that the fibers were in fact made of human keratin and collagen. This study thus tends to demonstrate that the fibers are real, but are NOT parasites or any form of micro-organism.

The other issue is that although there may be no parasites in Morgellons, conceivably other types of infectious micro-organism might be present, and may be the cause of the disease. The study I mentioned found some evidence of spirochete bacteria in the skin of Morgellons patients, and Morgellons has been previously linked to Lyme, a spirochetal disease. So Morgellons patients may be incorrect about being infested with parasites, but they may conceivably be right about being infected with some other micro-organism like spirochete bacteria. The statement currently in the article: "whereas in reality no such parasites are present" is misleading, because it may make the reader think that it has been proven that there are no infectious micro-organism at all in Morgellons, but in fact the studies show that there is a link to Lyme / spirochete bacteria. Drgao (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Drgao, I don't have a response to your content questions yet, but I just needed to say this was an excellent and productive Talk-page comment. It was focused only on content and made thoughtful use of specific sources, thanks for this! I need to think about what you wrote now... Zad68 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

From the Disclosure section in that paper- "MJM, PJM, and RBS serve without compensation on the scientific advisory panel of the Charles E Holman Foundation". The initials are the authors. I imagine people might find it interesting to google that foundation.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And a recent press release addresses this page with complaints about a specific user. Apparently recent research is not getting traction on this page, and the author of the linked article wants attention drawn to this. Circumstantially, no doubt, the contact given for the foundation is none other than the lead author of the research paper- http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2013/5/prweb10707772.htm. If anyone is interested, you can support the foundation by buying t-shirts! It is partially how that research article was funded, some might notice. I'm sure there are no conflicts of interests here at all.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The authors' disclosure statements have no relevance in determining their suitability as medical references. Furthermore, I agree with Drgao about the parasite statement. Evidence published in reputable peer-reviewed journal articles have confirmed the presence of spirochetes -- this represents a significant minority POV. The fact that the CDC did not find these organisms is not relevant. It just means that they used methodology that was not sensitive enough to detect those particular organisms. This is often the case in medical science. For example Helicobacter pylori was not associated with stomach ulcers, but now we know that this organism is involved. Medical knowledge evolves. New knowledge deserves to be cited. Erythema (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

I would also like to point out that the CDC study did find folliculitis in the skin of patients. Something had to cause the inflammation so the evidence in this paper does not indicate that no pathogens were present. It only means that none were detected in the study. The CDC study did find that patients had cognitive disabilities that could not be explained and that this differed statistically from the general population. If you are using the CDC study as a reference then please read it thoroughly. Erythema (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

Folliculitis, as in irritation of hair follicles commonly caused by friction from clothes and... scratching? As for the cognitive impairments (not disabilities), you seem to have misunderstood the sentence which I will quote for you- "Nearly 60% of case-patients had evidence of some cognitive impairment that could not be explained by deficits in IQ". Could not be explained by deficits in IQ. Case studies in traumatic brain damage clearly illustrate the cognitive impairments caused by anxiety that can be specifically dissociated from physiological damage to the brain. Anyway, I doubt any of this will change the way you feel about the CDC study being sourced on this page, so this conversation is futile.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

reliable medical references

I am repeating myself, but the dominant editors on this topic have repeatedly ignored WP policy and my objections to their misuse of WP policy. There seems to be a lot of confusion about primary and secondary sources, and high and low quality sources. 1) According to WP policy on medical articles, ideally secondary sources should be used. These are medical guidelines, general or systematic reviews (published and peer-reviewed in a reputable journal), professional text book etc. Examples of reliable secondary sources do NOT include TV interviews or popular press (newspapers or magazines). The Morgellons article is over 50% popular press. 2) Having said that -- WP:MEDRS indicates reliable peer-reviewed medical journal articles that are PRIMARY sources CAN be used when reliable secondary sources are lacking. THAT is the case with Morgellons. Dove Press and F1000 articles are peer-reviewed and are published in reputable scientific, medical journals. No, WP:MEDRS does not say a source has to be MEDLINE indexed or even Pub Med indexed for that matter. It only recommends these indexes as good resources for finding reliable literature. 3) Anyone questioning the quality of Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol or F1000 Research should provide proof that they are lacking in quality. You will note that the editorial boards of both these journals are highly qualified professionals who are acknowledged experts in their fields. The editor-in-chief of Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol is Dr. Jeffery Weinberg. He is an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, NYC. As I mentioned before the editorial board of F1000 Research includes internationally renowned experts in their field, including Nobel Prize winners, fellows of the Royal Society, Lasker Award winners, members of the National Academy of Science, and Members of the Institute of Medicine. The F1000 Head of Faculty for Dermatology is Dr Stephen Katz from the National Institutes of Health, USA. I would think very carefully about saying that these people are not capable of putting together a quality publication. Do you actually believe that a newspaper reporter knows more about medicine that Dr Weinberg? Or a reporter from Popular Mechanics can provide more reliable medical information than Dr Katz? Your irrational arguments about these journals shows editorial bias. As a reader of wikipedia, I expect better neutrality. The entire article should be re-examined for NPOV. For the time being how about including the infectious evidence -- that is published in peer-reviewed medical journals? It is a SIGNIFICANT minority POV. Significant minority POVs are considered to be essential for maintaining NPOV by WP policies.Erythema (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Eythema

The problems with these refs have been pointed out to you, if you don't get it that is your problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the problems with your arguments, Dbrodbeck, have been amply pointed out to you, and it you who is slow on understanding. Drgao (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS, and, all of the other policies that have been pointed out to you. This is not a debating society, we have rules, and you do not seem to understand them Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes we have rules, and the rules are not on your side in this case. How do you answer the point made above by Erythema about significant minority POVs being essential for maintaining NPOV? Don't waffle or put up smokescreens, just answer this question.

To quote Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

As it stands, this article is violating the NPOV policy, and even if there is a consensus of crony editors here supporting that lack of neutrality, you are wrong, and what you are doing is fundamentally against Wikipedia policy. Drgao (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is neutral with respect to high-quality sources. -- Scray (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't give me your smokescreen twaddle Scray. The article needs to be neutral with respect to reliable sources. As it stands, it is not neutral with respect to reliable sources, largely because the editors appear to be biased. Drgao (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Drgao, if you wish to succeed here and not get blocked, you'll have to stop violating policy. A very important one is to assume good faith (AGF). Denigrating other editors and accusing them of (what they may view as) your own behavior and motives doesn't help matters. Use more neutral language and discuss content, not editors. Remember this cuts both ways and you are not immune from bias, so don't point fingers. We are all imperfect and we all have to work together here, so we must maintain a collaborative environment. If you can't do that, then please find something else to do. If you're willing to give it a try, then you are very welcome here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I always assume good faith, at least at the beginning, until the behavior of an editor provides evidence to the contrary. Good faith is defined as honesty or sincerity of intention. However, it seems to me that editors Dbrodbeck and Scray and others have not displayed honesty. If these editors were honest and sincere, they would not engage in the deceitful practice of quoting Wikipedia rules that support their polarized, biased views on what material is to be included in the article, while at the same time, not bringing to my attention Wikipedia rules that support the inclusion of the material I have suggested. If they were honest people, they would look at the Wikipedia rules in an objective, dispassionate fashion, and try to do what is correct and right by these Wikipedia rules. If they were honest people, they would say, yes, there are Wikipedia rules that support the inclusion of the material I suggested. That is what an honest, sincere person would do. That is good faith. But no, these editors are very selective about the Wikipedia rules they bring forward, and only mention the rules that favor their views. Dbrodbeck and Scray are apparently quite happy to manipulate Wikipedia rules for their favor, like clever lawyers.

I have been looking for some official way to report editors Dbrodbeck and Scray to Wikipedia administration, on account of their less than honest behavior. Is there an official way to report such behavior to Wikipedia administration? Another question I have is how do you ask for a higher level authority to arbitrate a dispute like the one here? Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy clearly states that "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." So when editors here seem to flout this nonnegotiable Wikipedia policy, they need to be reported, and arbitration is required. Perhaps you can advise on how this can be achieved, BullRangifer.

On your own userpage, BullRangifer, you eloquently write: "Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. One must: Present the facts about each side's POV. Not sell each side's POV as facts." I completely concur.

I agree that I am not immune from bias, and I have my own views and options. But the difference is that I also understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for people's opinions, including my own, but rather is charged with presenting objective, reliable and unbiased material. Thus because I act in good faith, I would never try to suppress a viewpoint that is contrary to my own view in a Wikipedia article, because that would simply be wrong, by Wikipedia's policies. Dbrodbeck and Scray are apparently not mature enough to understand that Wikipedia must come before their personal view and opinions. Drgao (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Another lovely personal attack. If you want to report someone you take it to WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Drgao, AGF is also non-negotiable. You fail to realize that you don't understand our policies well enough yet, and that's why you are failing to AGF and end up attributing nefarious motives to other editors when there are a whole host of other possibilities that are much more benign, and are in fact based on a better understanding of policies. Your comments are a serious violation of several policies and and are indeed personal attacks.

You asked if there is "an official way to report such behavior to Wikipedia administration." Yes, there is. I would certainly love to see you go further with this and see how far you get. Take it to WP:ANI before you do anything else.....and don't comment here again until you've gotten the issue resolved there. Editors here will meet you there because this is not the place to continue this type of discussion. You've made this a very personal matter and your attacks and POV pushing need to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think your tone is somewhat presumptuous and patronizing, BullRangifer, when you say "don't comment here again until you've gotten the issue resolved there". Some editors seem to think they own the place. Dbrodbeck has a similar attitude, having said to me (three times) on this page "move on". It was similarly presumptuous of some editors to rudely delete my edits on this page without even offering any discussion beforehand. If you want polite, civilized behavior, then ensure that you behave that way yourself.

I agree that AGF is also non-negotiable, or at least should be, and that is why I am trying to reinstate good faith here. As I explained above (and you seem to have missed that), it is a breach of good faith to reduce writing an article to some kind of legal squabble, whereby editors manipulatively use Wikipedia rules to thwart the efforts of other editors. I would like to feel that writing an article was a team effort, in which other editors would help, and would take a fair and balanced approach. But all I get here is "clever lawyer" type approaches, with little effort being made to understand the points I am making. Why don't you consider taking a fair and balanced approach? That is good faith. Drgao (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

'Move on' simply meant that the discussion was pointless, it was hardly patronizing, if you took it that way, well, I cannot control that. Accusing others of article ownership and wikilawyering is yet another personal attack. STOP IT. We don't do fair and balanced here, read WP:UNDUE. If you think the behaviour of some editors here is a problem please take it to WP:ANI. Remember to notify those you have reported. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

When I say fair and balanced, I mean with respect to the rules of Wikipedia, which includes the Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy which you are flagrantly flouting.

Saying my discussion is pointless is itself rude and patronizing. And I have only just begun; I have many more points to make.

In the mean time, have a look at the infectious etiology section of the Multiple Sclerosis article. There seems to be no problem in that article about including information on the possible infectious causes of MS. Many common medical conditions are linked to infectious agents which may play an etiological role. Why is it that the MS article can have a good 12 lines of text detailing the infectious connections to MS, but here you argue against even one line. You rudely deleted the one line of text detailing the infectious connections of Morgellons that I added to the article.

Please explain why the MS article can have 12 lines of text looking at infectious etiologies, but you say you cannot here. Drgao (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that NPOV stipulates that the views must come from reliable sources. It has not yet been established that the proposed source to be used here meets the WP:RS requirement. Zad68 13:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Zad68, that does not answer my question. Dbrodbeck has stated WP:UNDUE as the reason my proposed edit cannot be included. So I want to ask Dbrodbeck why he says my edit would be undue weight, and yet in the MS article they see fit to include 12 lines of text detailing the infectious connections to MS. Drgao (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You would be giving undue weight to sources of questionable reliability. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That does not really make sense, Dbrodbeck. If journal reliability is a concern, then you should say so, rather than talk about undue weight, which is a separate issue. Do I take it then that you have no problem with including 12 lines of text detailing the infectious connections of a disease, provided the sources are reliable? Do I have your agreement on this?

As for the reliability issue of Dove Press, this is of course a legitimate concern. I had a quick look on this list of Dove Press journals, to see how many Dove Press journal articles were cited within Wikipedia articles, and it seems that many Dove Press papers are indeed cited in Wikipedia, as these Google searches (restricted to Wikipedia) on various Dove Press journal names show:

Clin Interv Aging

Clin Epidemiol

Clin Ophthalmol

Clin Pharmacol

Core Evid

And those are just the Dove Press journal names beginning with "C". So clearly other editors have found that Dove Press is fine to cite in Wikipedia. Drgao (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see what Zad, Scray and Techbear have said above about Dove Press. What happens at other articles has little to do with what happens here. Please walk away from the WP:DEADHORSE. Just because you don't seem to WP:HEAR what we are saying is not a reason to continue this. Really, please, this is quite tiring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons is associated with delusional parasitosis. People who make money off Morgellons don't like the information on this page because it essentially undermines their ability to sell snake-oil. An attempt is being launched to try to change the name from Morgellons to Borrelial dermatitis, so as to rebrand it and thus avoid the connection with delusional parasitosis. That, at least, is my prediction. I would be surprised if this does not become an issue on this page soon enough. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are too lazy to properly indent your comments on this talk page (margin indentation is performed using colons ::::), Mr user 137.111.13.200, you'll no doubt be too lazy to think clearly too. (You might also consider making the effort to get a proper username).

I think your above comment is nonsensical and completely off the mark; but if one were to indulge you, and consider the financial side of disease labels, then giving a disease a psychiatric categorization might be construed as profit seeking on behalf of the psychiatric profession, not only in terms of profiting from treating patients using psychotherapy, but also in receiving significant grants to study Morgellons disease from a psychological and psychogenic perspective. The Wikipedia Morgellons article certainly very much caters for the psychiatric profession, and the money they receive through Morgellons study grants and psychological treatments.

In terms of this psychological versus physiological debate, the whole history of Morgellons disease closely parallels the terrible history of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). In the case of CFS, even though CFS is strongly linked to being triggered by infectious agents, there are people in the psychiatric camp who prefer to categorize CFS as purely psychological (specifically, as purely psychosomatic and psychogenic). If you have knowledge of the history of CFS, you will know that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were the chief proponent in categorizing CFS as psychosomatic, and the CDC were very negligent in ignoring evidence of the infectious etiologies of CFS. Thus history is repeating itself with Morgellons disease. Morgellons has been categorized as purely psychiatric, even though the existence of skin lesions and the finding of infectious pathogens in the skin lesions suggests Morgellons has a physiological basis.

If you are ignorant of the terrible history of chronic fatigue syndrome, and the entirely inappropriate psychosomatic label the CDC gave to CFS, I suggest you address this major gap in your knowledge by reading the book Osler's Web by Hillary Johnson, which details the CDC's biased view on chronic fatigue syndrome.

The psychiatric profession are one of the least scientific of all the medical fields, and they tend to proclaim things without offering any empirical scientific evidence. In the case of Morgellons, the psychiatric profession have simply stated without any shred of evidence that Morgellons is a purely psychiatric condition, rather than one caused possibly by an infectious etiology. Now it cannot be denied that Morgellons disease does involve psychiatric symptoms such as psychosis; but many infectious agents do cause such mental symptoms. Indeed, before syphilis (another spirochetal disease) became treatable, asylums were full of patients who had syphilis-caused schizophrenia. From our historical experience with the syphilis spirochete, it should be clear that spirochetes can cause severe mental symptoms like psychosis. So if a disease like Morgellons manifests such psychiatric symptoms, this should be good reason to instigate a very thorough search for infections agents, especially spirochetal infections. Drgao (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"If you are too lazy to properly indent your comments on this talk page ... Mr user 137.111.13.200, you'll no doubt be too lazy to think clearly too." Is yet ANOTHER personal attack, stop it NOW. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My comment was responding to the section, not a comment within the section, the lack of indentation indicated this intention, or at least was designed to. Are there any editors here that are associated with the Charles E. Holman Foundation? Perhaps we can get that sort of declaration out of the way before we proceed.137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons not Delusional issue - Medical article now posted here

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257881/

The lymes bacteria is associated with Morgellons. People are not delusional. I have it, my children have it, my mom has it, my sisters and their children have it. We are of the 10% of suffers that have fibers coming out of our pores and I can show anyone the proof. All I do is put organic coconut oil on my skin and it penetrates deeply to pull out the most bizarre stuff. I am not planting these fibers on myself or my family. I find this entry of Morgellons offensive and it needs to be changed to represent the new information the Dr.s have found the spirochette bacteria in sufferers. So we are not delusional!!76.10.184.168 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So find reliable medical sources from verifiable third-party sources that support your claim. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many published studies that support the idea that Morgellons may be caused by a spirochete infection of the skin, and that support the view that the skin lesions in Morgellons are genuine, and that the fibers growing beneath the skin of Morgellons patients are genuine. These supportive studies include the following:

• Morgellons: a novel dermatological perspective as the multisystem infective disease borreliosis 2013.

• Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease 2013.

• Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease 2013.

• Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study 2012.

• Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease 2011.

• Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown etiology 2010.

• Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series 2009.

• The mystery of Morgellons disease: infection or delusion? 2006. Full paper here

In spite of this abundance of studies supporting the association of Morgellons with a spirochete infection of the skin, several editors on this Wikipedia page have formed a consensus against including these studies on an infectious etiology of Morgellons, for no justifiable reason. These editors prefer to maintain a biased point of view, which suppresses information about the infectious microbial associations of Morgellons, and seeks to present Morgellons as a purely psychological condition in which the skin lesions are not genuine (but self-inflicted by the patients — a ridiculous notion!). These editors are blatantly flouting the neutral point of view policy of WIkipedia (WP:NPOV).

The above-cited studies MUST be referenced in this Wikipedia article, to ensure that all the material on Morgellons is covered in the article. Failure to include these studies flouts the neutral point of view policy of WIkipedia.

These flouting editors always try to give some excuse for not including these above-cited studies, but their arguments and excuses are not valid. Drgao (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you verify that any of those are peer-reviewed and not superceeded by more recent research? Please start by removing those which are not peer-reviewed (F1000 is not peer-reviewed, and not all PUBMED-indexed journals are peer-reviewed). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, Arthur Ruben: all but the first study out the 8 studies I cited above are fully peer reviewed (and the first study will be peer reviewed in a few months, I think). Please note that F1000 journals are actually peer reviewed.

I don't think there is any more recent research; indeed, the first 3 studies cited above were published just months ago.

If you want the details these journal publishers, then let's take each of the 8 above-cited studies in turn:

Studies (1) and (2) above, namely Morgellons: a novel dermatological perspective as the multisystem infective disease borreliosis and Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease, are both published by F1000. F1000 journals are actually peer reviewed: they undergo a process of post-publication peer review. This means that F1000 initially publishes studies under the status of "awaiting peer review", and the studies get reviewed after publication. If you don't see the phrase "awaiting peer review" after the title of a F1000 published study, that means it has been reviewed.

If you simply scroll down to the bottom of each F1000 article, you can see how many peer reviews each study has already received, and you can actually read each peer review there and then.

So by scrolling down to the bottom of the article, you can see that first of the two F1000 studies has received 1 peer review (out of a minimum of at least 3 required reviews) but is not yet fully reviewed (but it will likely be fully reviewed within a few months from now) ; and the second of the F1000 studies has received 3 peer reviews, which means that the second article is now properly peer reviewed.

You can read about the F1000 review process in their document here. On page one of that document, F1000 states that each article will be sent to 3-5 expert referees.

Study (3) above, namely Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease, this study is published by Dove Medical Press, which is an open access and properly peer reviewed journal. See here where once expert comments that "Dove operates a perfectly respectable peer-review system."

Study (4) above, namely Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study, this study is published by the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dermatology Research, which is a peer reviewed open access journal.

Studies (5) and (6) above, namely Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease and Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown etiology are both published by Dove Medical Press, which as mentioned is an open access and properly peer reviewed journal.

Study (7) above, namely Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series, is published by the Journal of Medical Case Reports, which is an open access, peer-reviewed journal.

Study (8) above, namely The mystery of Morgellons disease: infection or delusion?, is published by the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, which is a peer-reviewed, MEDLINE-indexed journal published by Adis (which is owned by Springer).

Drgao, I agree that those are probably the strongest sources available for the microbe theory, and they get close to, but do not quite reach, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. They're primary research, opinion pieces, a letter to the editor, not PUBMED indexed, not MEDLINE indexed, or published in journals that don't quite meet Wikipedia's cutoff. I think that that this research is close to meeting Wikipedia's requirements but - as others have noted here - it isn't quite there yet. I'd bet that within the next 2-3 years there will be satisfactory sourcing that will merit inclusion here, but it's just not quite there yet. Zad68 01:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned, Zad, there is nothing in WP:MEDRS that suggests my above cited studies are unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. These are perfectly good references.

Please also note that the two perspectives of Morgellons — the delusional parasitosis perspective of Morgellons and the skin spirochete infection perspective of Morgellons — are not necessarily contradictory. To an extent, both these two views may well be correct, as I will explain in a moment.

So it is not a case of the spirochete infection view of Morgellons contradicting the delusional parasitosis view; and thus I do not suggest the delusional parasitosis view be removed from this article — I just would like this delusional parasitosis view to be tempered with the information about a possible spirochetal infection being behind both the skin symptoms and the psychosis symptoms of Morgellons.

Let me explain why both views of Morgellons may, to an extent, be correct: Many Morgellons patients suffer from psychosis symptoms, which leads to less than clear thinking, and because of this they can start believing in all sorts of strange things. For example, Morgellons patients may believe they are infested with not only strange parasites, worms or tiny creatures, but also with "nano technology" devices implanted in their skin: some patients imagine that the fibers in their skin are synthetic "nanobots", or that the Morgellons fibers have been created and sprayed into the atmosphere by the government! If you read the often mad sci-fi like theories that some Morgellons patients themselves have about their disease in Morgellons forums, it is very clear that they are unfortunately suffering from a degree of psychosis, and the thing about psychosis is that it can cause people to have all sorts of highly imaginative, crazy science fiction like ideas and beliefs.

Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that many Morgellons patients have not just delusional parasitosis, but also delusions about a nano technology or "nanobot" infestation of their skin! And there are plenty more crazy, sci fi like ideas like that which some Morgellons patients believe in. In other words, there are a whole bunch of strange delusions that Morgellons patients seem to have. Nobody would argue that their belief about having nanobots in their skin is anything but a sign of psychosis. It is common for a person experiencing psychosis to have delusions; delusions are part and parcel of psychosis. Nevertheless, this fact should not confuse the issue that the skin lesions and fibers of Morgellons disease may well be genuine, and may well be caused by a skin infection with the rather ordinary spirochete bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi. Just because some Morgellons patients have psychosis, this does not mean the skin symptoms are not real. Indeed, very much the reverse: it is extremely common to find skin disorders in those with psychiatric disturbances, as this study indicates: Skin disorders in chronic psychiatric illness.

It will be something of a challenge to word this Morgellons article in such a way that it encompasses and affirms both the delusional parasitosis and the spirochete infection view of Morgellons. My suggestion is that the article should not just mention delusional parasitosis, but also detail some of the many other strange delusional ideas that Morgellons patients have (like nanobots), as examples of the type of psychosis symptoms precipitated in Morgellons. But equally, the article must mention that the skin symptoms may well be real, and that infectious agents have been linked to Morgellons. And the article should mention the fact that infectious agents (such as the syphilis spirochete Treponema pallidum) are known to cause psychosis as well as skin symptoms. This is important, because it indicates that it is known that spirochete can cause skin disorders and psychosis.

I'd be very happy to work with the other editors here to create an article that encompasses and affirms both the delusional parasitosis and the spirochete infection view of Morgellons. As anyone who has been following these arguments can see, the situation is very nuanced; so as I say, it will be a challenge to word this article properly and accurately. This is best achieved by means of a cooperative effort of all the editors here. Drgao (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it, half of the patients selected in the study that found spirochetes had already been treated for Lyme disease, and all patients already tested positive for antibodies. That is before they were selected for inclusion in the study. The authors released two papers less than one month apart, the initial paper said that the spirochetes found in the patients could not be determined, whereas the second said they shared similar morphologies to some spirochetes associated with Borrelia. Did the authors suddenly stumble upon a new method of analysis, or were they premature in their submission? A third paper from the same research centre (conveniently funded by donations/t-shirt sales) now flatly states that Morgellons should be renamed borrelial dermatitis. I'm just curious; Are there any editors on this page associated with these papers? 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The repetition is tiresome, but to reiterate F1000 Research is peer-reviewed, as mentioned by others, so is Dove Press. F1000 is open peer-review so you can even see who were the reviewers and their comments. There has also been talk about these journals not being Pubmed or Medline indexed. This is not mentioned in WP policy are being required, but actually Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dermatol. is Pubmed indexed and F1000 Research has been accepted by Pubmed for indexing. These journals are both mainstream medical sources. A look at the CV of editors will support that fact. They are not are not fringe or extreme, and therefore represent a significant minority viewpoint. Significant minority views must be represented for neutrality. Yes, some of the articles that support infection are original research, but so are the Mayo and CDC studies that support the delusional POV. Although, original research is not supposed to be used in WP, exceptions can be made when reliable secondary sources (this means systematic reviews in peer-reviewed journals, not popular press) are lacking. This is the situation with Morgellons. The Mayo studies and CDC study supporting the delusional POV are original research. You cannot accept original research from one POV and not the other and maintain NPOV. From the POV that support the delusional hypothesis, the sources sited are predominantly popular press which are not (by WP:MEDRS standards) acceptable as medical references. The rest of the references supporting the delusional hypothesis that are peer-reviewed are pretty much opinion pieces, and as such are considered low quality sources. Morgellons is pretty new as a medical entity, and it is the subject of active research, so secondary resources are lacking. You cannot maintain a NPOV by rigidly applying rules to one POV while breaking them all for the other POV. Application of WP policy should be applied for both POVs or the entire article should be deleted. As it stands, it violates the NPOV policy -- a principle that is supposedly sacred by wikipedia. It is difficult to understand the reluctance of some editors to objectively adhere to the NPOV policy when it is supposedly the most important principle.Erythema (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

I am in full agreement with Erythema. A NPOV is fundamental to any Wikipedia article. We need to enlist the help of editors that support the NPOV policy.

Have a look at this Stanford University treatise on Morgellons. This Stanford University treatise intelligently adopts a neutral point of view, and rather than make definitive assertions on what Morgellons is or is not, this treatise instead just describes both the Morgellons advocate and the Morgellons skeptic perspectives. This neutrality of presentation is what the Wikipedia Morgellons article needs to have.

TO USER 137.111.13.200: I have no connections whatsoever with any Morgellons researchers, papers, patients or organizations. What motivates me is my utter indignation at psychiatrists' attempts to nullify a real physical disease. It outrages me when psychiatrists claim that a real physical disease is "all in the mind". You will find that it is the psychiatric profession who have been heavily involved in propagating the view that Morgellons is entirely delusional and "all in the mind". Psychiatrists have little evidence for propagating such a viewpoint about Morgellons, but they propagate it anyway. Psychiatrists may publish in apparently learned journals; but that belies the fact that their methods often lack empirical evidence and scientific substance. This lack of an empirical basis to their ideas means that psychiatry can have a tendency to sink into bad science or pseudoscience.

Unethical and unscientific psychiatrists were responsible for undermining the reality of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Originally, CFS was classified as a real physical disease, linked to viral infections; but then several decades ago, psychiatrists began saying that CFS was not real, and that CFS was "all in the mind". These shrinks had no evidence to suggest the CFS was not real, yet they pushed their "all in the mind" viewpoint forward anyway, so that it became the official medical view of CFS. As a result, research into the physical and infectious causes of CFS significantly diminished, and doctors became very reluctant to treat CFS patients, as doctors now viewed their CFS patients' symptoms as being "all in the mind".

So CFS patients then just had to fend for themselves, with little help from the medical profession. This is what happens when psychiatrists decide to propagate a viewpoint that a disease is "all in the mind": it means that research into the physical causes of the disease is cut right back, and doctors abandon their patients. But conveniently for psychiatrists, research into psychiatric treatments for the disease is scaled right up, and they get awarded nice fat grants to study the disease from the psychological perspective, which is of little use if the disease is physical.

Only in the last 5 or 10 years has this "all in the mind" view of CFS become seriously questioned, and the views of these psychiatrists thrown into serious doubt. Nevertheless, the shrinks placed CFS into the wilderness of a psychiatric diagnosis for many decades, and as a result, these psychiatrists seriously damaged the CFS research program. The Centers for Disease Control were also heavily involved in propagating the view that CFS was "all in the mind": for decades the CDC entirely supported the psychiatric view of CFS, much to their shame. What psychiatry, and the CDC, did to CFS patients was a real low point in man's treatment of his fellow man. I have CFS myself, so this is why I know about the tragic history of CFS, and the unethical actions of the psychiatric profession is proclaiming that CFS was not real.

Now history seems to be repeating itself with Morgellons disease: the psychiatrists have again decided to push forward their unfounded "all in the mind" view onto Morgellons disease, and proclaim that the skin lesions are self-inflicted, not genuine, and that the fibers — even though they grow deep within the skin — are clothing fibers.

I am very angry with these psychiatrists, and this is what motivates me to redress the biases in this Morgellons article. I just don't want to see these poor Morgellons patients also being throw into the wilderness of a psychiatric diagnosis, where research into the physical causes of Morgellons gets abandoned. Chronic fatigue syndrome patients have been down that path, and it is a path you don't want to go down. Physical diseases need to be tackled by solid science, not thwarted by psychiatric pseudoscience.

TO USER 137.111.13.200: Regarding your point about "the authors released two papers less than one month apart, the initial paper said that the spirochetes found in the patients could not be determined, whereas the second said they shared similar morphologies to some spirochetes associated with Borrelia. Did the authors suddenly stumble upon a new method of analysis, or were they premature in their submission?" I take it you are referring to these two papers: Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease and Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease.

Tests for infectious pathogens can be broad spectrum or highly specific. When you are trying to determine which pathogens might be present in a disease, you presumably start with broad spectrum tests, and once you have narrowed down to a particular class of pathogen (spirochete bacteria in this case), then you can move on to determine the specific species or genus of spirochete present (Borrelia in this case). Drgao (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Beware of the tigers is a great essay about how to approach editing Wikipedia. If you are angry, want to right a wrong, this is not the place to work out your frustrations. -- Scray (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:Beware of the tigers, especially where it says Wikipedia is not a place for strong views. That is why I am advocating a NPOV, rather than a biased view, which in essence is the same as a strong view. The current Morgellons article strongly pushes the "it's all in the mind" view of Morgellons in a biased manner, and thus the editors who are resisting a more neutral point of view definitely need to read WP:Beware of the tigers. The article needs to be changed to something along the lines of the Stanford University article on Morgellons, which embraces in a neutral fashion the different perspectives on Morgellons. The editors here that are in favor of flouting the NPOV policy need to realize that they are putting their own strong opinions above the NPOV of Wikipedia. Drgao (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

.....that's a page written by undergrads for a class.... not an article by Stanford University.... Sailsbystars (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

When you click on the author link on that page you get this [1]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual author is not really the issue here; rather it is the fact that this Stanford article manages quite nicely to provide a relatively NPOV on Morgellons. That's the reason I gave that treatise as an example. This is what the Wikipedia article should be striving for. We all no doubt have our own points of views on Morgellons, but those individual points of view should not lead to a biased Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article should not take sides in the Morgellons debate, but like the Stanford article, should describe both side in a neutral, unbiased fashion.

My own personal opinion is that the "it's all in the mind" view of Morgellons is most likely nonsense. However, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, my personal point of view should not influence the requisite neutral balance of the Wikipedia article, which must cover in an unbiased fashion the major viewpoints. In Wikipedia, our personal opinions do not count; when I wear my Wikipedia hat, I know it is my duty to strive for a NPOV, and I fully appreciate that the Wikipedia NPOV must come before my personal opinions. Drgao (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually the author matters a great deal. The 'Stanford article' is meaningless, as the source is two second year undergrads. Now, if those two women publish such a thing in a peer reviewed journal and it gets cites, that is another matter, but this is, in essence, someone's blog. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be confused here Dbrodbeck. I will repeat myself, in the hope you will get the point: I am not citing the Stanford article as source, but as an example of presenting material with an unbiased POV. Is that clear, or do I need to explicate further, in a more detailed fashion for you?

I understand just fine thank you. I just think basing our article on the approach of two second year undergrads rather than our policies is not a great idea. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite clearly you don't understand. Myself and Erythema are pointing out that the Wikipedia Morgellons article must be based on WP:NPOV, and that at the moment it is not. Therefore, it seems that although two second year undergrads from Stanford are quite capable of writing a NPOV article, none of the editors here appear to have these skills. How is it that these undergrads can do it, but you cannot? Drgao (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Two editors does not a WP:CONSENSUS make. I am following policy, as are others. Perhaps your interpretation is incorrect, rather than everyone being wrong? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus among medical researchers is that Morgellons is delusional. According to the guideline for fringe theories, the article would be non-neutral to say otherwise. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 12:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no such overwhelming consensus. Where do you get this idea?

If you thought about it, TechBear, you would see that your own argument is logically flawed, and thus is self-evidently false. You are suggesting that the infectious etiology of Morgellons is a fringe idea. However, when you look at the CDC (who are not considered a fringe organization) and their $300,000 study on Morgellons, what was the focus and direction of that study? Answer: the CDC study was primarily focused on testing for the presence of an array of infectious agents in Morgellons patients. Therefore, unless you want to suggest that the CDC is a fringe organization, it clearly follows that the infectious etiology side of Morgellons research is not a fringe theory. Do you understand this, or do I need to explain this to you in more simple terms? Drgao (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It was originally a minority position, bordering on fringe. After the CDC study, it's fringe. What's the conflict? (Furthermore, considering the government research on fringe therapies such as Reiki, I wouldn't expect the fact that something is fringe to significantly affect the amount of government research on it.

So you are saying that when one of the main official disease research organizations of the US government, the CDC, spends nearly a third of a million dollars on a multi-year investigation into the various infectious agents that it considered were possible candidates for causing Morgellons, that in your logic makes the infectious pathogen theory of Morgellons fringe. Hmmm.... Next perhaps you'll be telling me that 1 + 1 = 3, by the same logic. Drgao (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

After the CDC spent "nearly a third of a million dollars on a multi-year investigation into the various infectious agents that it considered were possible candidates for causing Morgellons." and found nothing, it's now fringe, yes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, that remark indicates to me that you are entirely ignorant of the difficulties involved in detecting infectious pathogens in the body. Anyone person here who does not have a good understanding of the intricacies and complexities of microbe detection in the body simply does not have the knowledge base to comment on these issues. If you learn a few things about microbe hunting (which I strongly suggest you do, if you want to contribute intelligently), you will then appreciate that microbes are often incredibly difficult to detect, and this means that when a single study like the CDC's fails to find any microbes in Morgellons, it proves very little in terms of answering the question of whether Morgellons is a microbially driven disease or not.

The fact that you are apparently ignorant of these matters, and appear to have the erroneous belief that a single study like the CDC's can determine whether there are any microbial causes of a disease like Morgellons (or any other disease for that matter) shows that you really know nothing whatsoever about microbe hunting. And I suspect may other editors here are equally ignorant about the ins and outs of microbe hunting and detection.

And yet even with this gaping gap in your knowledge of microbe hunting and detection, you and many other editors here somehow think you are able to edit an article about a disease which, from the outset, has been assumed by many to have an infectious etiology. The sheer temerity of it! You know nothing about microbe hunting and detection, and yet you feel you can pontificate about a disease assumed to have an infectious etiology! Wow! Wikipedia needs to do some qualification checks on its editors, methinks.

But OK, I am sure that at least some of you guys are capable of learning, so let's clue you in a little about the intricacies of microbe hunting. Let's see if you can learn something new. First of all, you need to appreciate that to stand a reasonable chance of finding a microbial cause in a given disease, it can take dozens of studies over decades. And even then, the evidence gathered by these studies often remains equivocal. This is just the way it is: microbe hunting is often very difficult, and microbes can be very hard to find.

To give you an example: researchers have been looking for microbes (including viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa) that might be the cause chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) since the 1950s. There have been innumerable studies over the last 5 decades, each searching for the microbial cause of CFS, and several candidate viruses have been found, perhaps most notably enteroviruses. However even after 5 decades of research, there are still no clearcut answers about whether enteroviruses are the actual cause of CFS or not. They may well be, but we don't know yet. Even now, there are still further studies being conducted on enteroviruses in CFS.

If you decide to educate yourself, and learn a little about microbe hunting and detection in diseases, you will understand that part of the problem is that you sometimes get contradictory results. For example, out of the many studies looking for enteroviruses in CFS patients, some studies have found these enteroviruses, but other studies have failed to find evidence of an enteroviral presence. However, since is it very difficult, technology-wise, to detect enteroviruses anyway (enteroviruses are one of the most difficult viruses to detect), it is possible that the negative studies were only negative due to insufficient sensitivity of the enterovirus detection technology used. Incidentally, Borrelia spirochetes are also notoriously hard to detect, even with the best technology. So if Morgellons is indeed caused by Borrelia, it will take a lot of hard work to prove this to high standards of scientific rigor.

So now that you are clued in just a little bit about microbe hunting and detection, let me reiterate my point: which is that when a single study like the CDC's fails to find any microbes in Morgellons patients, this proves very little in terms of whether Morgellons is a microbially driven disease or not. You certainly cannot draw any strong conclusions from the CDC study. It will take dozens more microbe hunting studies on Morgellons patients before we start to a clear picture about which microbes may be present in Morgellons. But the fact that the CDC spent so much money exploring the microbial theory of Morgellons certainly is ample indication that this is very much a mainstream theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgao (talk • contribs) 04:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

These posts that are 95% commentary on the editor, and not the edits, need to stop. This is not a battleground, and your condescending tone is unhelpful. -- Scray (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not going to comment on your claim that the CDC study was inadequate, but you brought it up as evidence that the infection theory was considered plausible; there are still no studies which support an infection theory. The CDC study was the first which produced a significant result of any sort, and it was a negative result.

At this point, the infection theory is not accepted. This could change, but, at the present time, it's not even a minority theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the CDC study was politically inspired, as is noted in the article. The assertion that it indicates that any theory was taken seriously by the CDC is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not going to comment on my claim, Arthur, because you just don't have the requisite background knowledge to do so. And even the comments you have made here are incorrect: firstly the studies I quoted above do indeed support an infection theory, although these are early days. Surely you must remember that. It was only a few days ago it was discussed, in this very section! Sometimes I think nobody listens here. And secondly, I brought up the CDC study on infectious agent to demonstrate that the infectious theory was not a fringe one, to be precise.

Scray, it is not condescending to point out that editors do not possess the requisite background knowledge. If you are not qualified for the job, this needs to be pointed out to you. Don't take it personally. But I have to say that I am at a loss to understand why editors that do not have the requisite background knowledge in microbiology feel they are qualified to edit this article. It's ridiculous that you are here. I am sure you guys must have your own areas of expertise, but microbiology is clearly not one of them. I think you would be better off going to find a Wikipedia article which matches what knowledge and expertise you do have. This article is not for you. Drgao (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As for your claim: I don't have to comment on your claim, because it's not in a reliable source, nor does it relate to WP:MEDRS sources. It might be the case that we cannot say definitely that there are no parasites, but we can say that none has been found.

As for the references; references 1-7 are not in reliable peer-reviewed journals, per consensus, and reference 8 is in an opinion section of the journal, with Leitao as a co-author. (I wouldn't call it a "letter", exactly, but it's not a peer-reviewed section.) If you have any reliable sources for the infectious nature of Morgollons, you might provide them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are defined by WP:MEDRS, not by consensus, Arthur. Drgao (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And there is consensus that F 1000 and Dove Press are not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Another point that needs to be made: you should not say in the intro to the article that "CDC researchers issued the results of their multi-year study in January 2012, indicating that there were no disease organisms present in Morgellons patients". For the reason I explained just above, this is too strong a statement. But the problem is that editors here seem to be completely ignorant of microbiology and the ins and outs of microbe hunting, and due to this ignorance, you don't seem to be aware that this statement in the article is not really supported by the CDC study results.

This ignorance of the editors here is inexcusable. You cannot edit an article like this if do not possess the appropriate background knowledge. Drgao (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is not even remotely how it works here. It does not say 'Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia only experts in the field (as vetted by certain users) can edit'. This is why we have policies, policies which have been pointed out to you, apparently to no avail. Please stop commenting on editors and comment on content. Please read WP:AGF, WP:IDHT WP:CONSENSUS and the other many links that have been pointed out to you. You have been asked many many times on this talk page and on your own to stop this behaviour (see [2]) please stop this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I will also ask you, Dbrodbeck, to stop commenting on editors (specifically, myself) and restrict your comments to matters related to the article. You have been a nonstop catalogue of moans.

It is important to raise the subject of an editor's background knowledge. You don't necessarily need formal academic qualifications, you can be self taught, but in this article, if you don't have a reasonable grasp of microbiology and various related vitally important related subjects like psychoneuroimmunology, then you cannot possibly be in a position to edit this article.

I am not talking about Wikipedia policy, I am talking about common sense, and even ethics: you would not perform surgery on someone without studying anatomy and physiology, and likewise, your own ethics and common sense should come into play here, and preclude you from dictating what goes on in this article. It seems that the editors here are ignorant of some absolutely essential subjects necessary to tackle an article like this one. And yet for some reason, your own common sense and ethics do not seem to prevent you from editing and making dictatorial decisions in this article.

The reason this article is not very good is because it is edited by people with insufficient grasp of the requisite areas of biology. This is not to say that you don't have skills, knowledge and talent in other areas — I am sure you do — but I would really like to know why you attach yourself to this article if you don't have the requisite background knowledge. Please, I really do want to know this. Why?

And this is a general question to Dbrodbeck, Scray, Arthur Rubin, TechBear, Sailsbystars, (and possibly Zad, though Zad seems better informed than most): what is your knowledge base in biology, microbiology, psychoneuroimmunology and the like? And if you don't have the requisite background knowledge, why you attach yourself to this article?

I think that most of the difficulties in our above discussions can be traced back to your lack of background knowledge. This knowledge deficit means you are unable to properly understand the remarks I and others make. I can tell you, it is exasperating and very tiresome to deal with people that do not have the proper background knowledge, but yet present themselves as authorities in the field, and who presume to dictate policy.

To reiterate: I would really like to know why you attach yourself to this article if you don't have the requisite background knowledge? I would be most grateful if you could answer these questions. Drgao (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Arguments from authority will get you nowhere here, really. I am not 'moaning' I am trying, apparently in vain, to explain to you how things work here. I have rather extensive training in biology and psychology, and I make a killer martini, but that is not important at all. If you think people are behaving inappropriately take them to WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Drgao, you are exhibiting strong ownership behavior by seeking to exclude other editors based on your ignorant claims about their possible expertise/lack of expertise. There are very good reasons why some editors do not disclose their professional backgrounds. We have many experts editing here, but it is their application of policies that weighs strongest. Other editors here are more experienced than yourself in the understanding of Wikipedia's policies and use of sources. Deal with those issues, not anything about the background of editors. The CDC is considered a RS, you are not, regardless of your professional background. If your background is so good and you are published, then you might have a COI and should recuse yourself and stick to making suggestions, not actual editing. I don't know, but that does happen here. Whatever the case, stop attacking other editors. Either take the matter to ANI or shut up about it. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, BullRangifer, please stop this incessant moaning and criticism of my personal approach. I don't claim to be published. I have self-taught myself the biological sciences over the last 10 years, though originally I studied theoretical physics, with some postgrad studies in cognitive science.

Dbrodbeck, I find useful to know people's background, as it helps to create understanding and sometimes even rapport. And it is human nature to want to know about people. The fact you tell me you have extensive training in biology and psychology is of much interest. That is a very good combination of fields, and it should put you in good stead regarding understanding the connections between mental symptoms and biological processes, including infections. Do you have interest in psychoneuroimmunology? A lot of recent research into the causes of mental symptom and mental ill-health has focused on the effects of immune activation in the brain, and how inflammatory cytokines arising from infections can perturb brain function, and lead to symptom such as depression, anxiety, memory problems, and even psychosis and schizophrenia. Morgellons may well turn out to be caused by a microbial infection which creates immune activation in the brain, leading to its characteristic mental symptoms. Of course, that is not something that can be said in this article without a good reference; but it is something editors here ought to be aware of, so that they know the context with which to understand the research being done on infectious etiologies of Morgellons. Drgao (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, I'm pretty knowledgeable about biology, immunology and a few other related fields, as I'm involved in HIV research. But that is irrelevant: at issue is Wikipedia's policies, which are pretty clear on the matter. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Drgao has a point here, although it is quite subtle and perhaps is being misunderstood. Regardless, Morgellons is a controversial issue that has received widespread media attention. Both sides of the argument are given serious consideration by media sources. It is not Wikipedia's place to render judgement about controversial issues but to describe the controversy and accurately represent the argument. Whilst Wikipedia should not present fringe theories as fact or give them equal consideration to accepted facts, the Morgellons issue has yet to be resolved and there are many medical professionals and academics who believe that it is not just a delusional disorder. Wikipedia should reflect this and not prematurely pass judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptified (talk • contribs) /ˈɛptifiɛd/ 05:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting, TechBear. No doubt you know about the neuropsychiatric symptom that infection with HIV can cause — another example of microbe-induced mental symptom.

Agreed that it is about Wikipedia's policies, but what we don't seem to get is agreement on the actual interpretation of those policies. If you can suggest a way in which those policies can be read with objective precision, so that the right course of action in the article becomes unambiguous, that would solve a lot of problems. When both sides of a discussion page dispute present their case, with both sides basing their case on Wikipedia's policies, this creates an argument that does not seem to have a natural mechanism of resolution.

Furthermore, regarding what /ˈɛptifiɛd/ said just above, about people misunderstanding the points I am making: Perhaps this is true, and you have not really listened to and understood the points I have made. If I asked any of you to briefly sum up my perspective, could you actually do this? That would demonstrate that you have understood my perspective. Anyone care to do this, to demonstrate that they have listened to and understood my perspective? Drgao (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Connection between microbial infection and mental illness

In case any people here are ignorant of the connection between infectious microbes and mental illness or mental symptoms, the following articles may be of interest:

• The Infection Connection by Harriet Washington, Psychology Today, July 1999
• Can Infections Result in Mental Illness? by Dr Jeff Szymanski, Psychology Today, Feb 2012

• Nicolson, Garth L.; Haier, Jörg (2009). "Role of Chronic Bacterial and Viral Infections in Neurodegenerative, Neurobehavioral, Psychiatric, Autoimmune and Fatiguing Illnesses: Part 1". British Journal of Medical Practitioners. 2 (4): 20–8. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Nicolson, Garth L.; Haier, Jörg (2010). "Role of Chronic Bacterial and Viral Infections in Neurodegenerative, Neurobehavioural, Psychiatric, Autoimmune and Fatiguing Illnesses: Part 2". British Journal of Medical Practitioners. 3 (1): 301. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Neurosyphilis presenting as schizophrenia-like psychosis

Drgao (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these, they were very interesting. So the general idea is that Morgellons may be caused by a genuine microbial infection, with an unfortunate psychological disorder as a secondary problem, and that it's generally being misunderstood as only a psychological disorder? That really turns the current understanding on its head. I understand the idea but it will of course always require sufficient sourcing for this to result in article content. I know, I know, we're already going over the sourcing in the other sections here. Zad68 00:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Pleased you found them interesting. I have offered some further comments on this subject area in the section just above on this page (see the text beginning with "Please also note that the two perspectives of Morgellons — the delusional parasitosis perspective of Morgellons and the skin spirochete infection perspective of Morgellons — are not necessarily contradictory"). Drgao (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV real issue here

If the main issue debated here is not our professional backgrounds, then the issue that we should focus on is WP policy and adherence to it in this article. We should focus on what we can do to improve the article. The most sacred WP policy is NPOV and this article is anything but neutral. Every word has been carefully chosen and every reference used has been carefully selected with the intention of making this group of patients seem as nutty as possible. The bias is so obvious that even here in this talk page the editors are constantly putting down people who suffer with this affliction and organizations that try to help them. The article violates all WP policy on medical referencing. First there are several original research papers cited. Secondly, there are also predominantly popular press articles cited which some editors argue are acceptable secondary medical sources. They are not. According to WP policy popular press is low quality and should be avoided. The rest are opinion pieces and interviews. Unpublished original research by Dr. Randy Wymore that has not been peer-reviewed is even included. Again, if we adhere to WP policy then the article as it stands is in violation of policy -- repeatedly. Again, it is in conflict of NPOV to insist one POV must rigidly adhere to policy when the side favored by the most vocal editors active on this article have violated all these same policies. There are popular press sources that support the infectious hypothesis and I could argue that these be used as secondary sources, but I know this is not what WP means. In addition, WP policy indicates that when secondary sources are lacking, as is the case in Morgellons then original research articles can be cited. But this means that it must be applied equally to both POVs. For the umpteenth time, by secondary medical source, WP refers to systematic and general reviews, medical text books and the like, NOT popular press. We have already established that NPOV requires significant minority views to be represented. The hypothesis that Morgellons has an infectious etiology is not extreme or fringe. The journals in which the evidence is published are mainstream medical journals. They have been peer-reviewed by mainstream experts in the field of dermatology. Please do not attack these journals further because you know very well that you are wrong. We have repeatedly debated that fact. If NPOV cannot be achieved by applying WP policy equally and fairly to both sides of this debate, then the entire article should be deleted. Either that or at least ONE paragraph that indicates that this disease possibly has an infectious etiology must be allowed. We do not have to give the infectious hypothesis undo weight, but because it is a significant POV it deserves a small mention and policy concerning medical references must be relaxed because secondary sources are lacking and WP policy concerning references has been completely violated to support the delusional hypothesis side of this debate.Erythema (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

WP:FRINGE:

WWikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

This seems pretty clear to me. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear. But the only problem is that the microbial theory of Morgellons is not fringe. If you take time to read WP:FRINGE, and take time to read the section on [identifying fringe theories] you will see that its says: "fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support."

Well the idea that microbes can cause disease is certainly mainstream, and you of all people should agree with this, TechBear, if you say you work in HIV research. And I provided 8 studies above that support the microbial theory of Morgellons, so there is reasonable scientific support. Ergo, not fringe. By contrast, there is only the CDC study that found no microbes.

But repeating this over and over again to you when you never listen gets tedious. Drgao (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The personal attack against me that you put into this page's history is being reported. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 02:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It was not intended as a personal attack, but I then deleted afterwards, as I realized it could be misconstrued as such. As mentioned, I have ADHD myself, and know that some people can have difficulties in comprehension. I would like to get to the root of these apparent difficulties in comprehension. I would really like to know why you are not able to understand the comments being made. Are you too busy to take time to read them? Most of you guys do not seem to respond to thrust of the comments I make, which is a bit rude in itself, and it appears you don't follow or don't understand what I am saying. What is the reason for this. Please explain why you ignore the points being made. Drgao (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not fringe when it is published in a mainstream medical journal. I would agree that theories about nanites and GMO foods are examples of fringe and extreme. They are not evidence-based medicine. Peer-reviewed journal articles from reliable medical journals are mainstream medicine and are evidence based -- regardless of what side of the fence they lie on. Tech Bear, you like to obsfuscate and skirt around the issues without addressing each point that I make. It is pretty clear that you have a COI when you insist on a different standard of policy application when applied to the POV you oppose than that which is evident in the main article. The policy on the main article is in violation of WP:MEDRS, WP: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP: VERIFIABILITY and just about any other WP policy that I have read. Even UNPUBLISHED original research is cited and that is in contradiction to verifiability, and Popular Press such as newspapers and even Popular Mechanics. I could rip the main article apart as it has so many WP policy violations. Either apply policy equally to both sides of this debate or get rid of the article. Check out www.columbia-lyme.org/patients/controversies.html . That is a good example of how to write neutrally about a controversial medical topic. There would be no debate here if the WP Morgellons article was written with similar objectivity. You admit to being a scientist and researcher, so I should not have to tell you this. Your COI is blatantly obvious. Do you have a vested interest in supporting the delusional POV and suppressing the opposition? Drgao and I only ask that the evidence of an infectious etiology be included. No, we do not think it should be given undo weight, but as a significant minority POV it deserves a mention. All we are asking is that the article be changed so that it is from a NPOV.Erythema (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

It appears as though there are no justifiable or legitimate arguments against the inclusion of a paragraph about a possible infectious etiology as no one has made any comments to the above. If there are any then I suggest we go through dispute resolution. If not I plan to write up a paragraph and will add it to the main text in the near future.Erythema (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

I do think it would be very helpful to see what, specifically, you'd propose adding so that editors can reach consensus on the addition. -- Scray (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Scray, go ahead with proposing the content but please put it up for discussion on the Talk page first. As has already been stated, WP:NPOV is talking about views published in reliable sources, meaning WP:MEDRS-compliant sources regarding biomedical information. The Wikipedia policy-based objections to several of the sources brought forward have not yet been overcome. Zad68 03:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I really think that it will improve the article. It will be much more neutral. I very much appreciate your willingness to objectively consider this addition. I will write it up and put it on the talk page first. Again, thanks!199.126.50.231 (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

Erythema, you stated that the editors' professional backgrounds are not relevant in this discussion, but within the context of this POV discussion we have a conflict about including information that may or may not be reliable. In addition, the authors of this information have compiled press releases specifically stating that this wikipedia page is not recognising those studies as reliable sources. The purpose of my question earlier about whether editors here have a conflict of interest was a response to that press release in combination with the pressure to put the results of certain studies on the page. If an author on those papers is trying to get their work into this page, then yes it is quite relevant. It is not merely a question about whether editors have a special interest in a topic, that is to be expected in a number of situations. The question is a matter of whether is attempting to directly insert their own work into a page. Are you associated with that research group, or any of the authors?137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tentative Proposal for a New Introduction to the Article

Following your (most welcomed) invitation to propose some new content in the article, I would like to put forward the following reworded introduction to the article.

This is just a tentative proposal, and Erythema may have different or better ideas:

Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a condition named by Mary Leitao 2002 in which sufferers complain of painful skin lesions, fine thread-like fibers growing within lesions, under the skin and protruding out of the skin, stinging and burning sensations within the skin, and a sensation of something trying to penetrate the skin from the inside out. Sufferers may also experience the mental and cognitive symptoms of anxiety, depression, fatigue, and memory and attention deficits. As a result of these skin symptoms and skin sensations, some Morgellons sufferers believe they are infested with unusual parasite which creates these thread-like fibers.

Most medical experts believe that Morgellons symptoms are best diagnosed as delusional parasitosis. Delusional parasitosis is a form of psychosis in which a sufferer has the strong delusional belief that they are infested with parasites, whereas in fact no such parasites are present. A wide a range of medical experts including dermatologists, entomologists, and psychiatrists, view Morgellons as consistent with delusional parasitosis. Many medical experts suggest that the skin lesions may be self-inflicted, and the that the fibers are clothing fibers, legs from flies or spiders, or similar exogenous material.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) investigated Morgellons disease in a multi-year study and found no disease organisms present in Morgellons patients, and found that most fibers were composed of cellulose and were thought likely to be cotton. The authors of the CDC study stated that "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 [whether it represents] wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation."

While no parasite infestation has been found in Morgellons, some researchers believe the skin lesions of Morgellons are real rather than self-inflicted, and believe that the fibers in Morgellons are created within the body, rather than being clothing fibers or similar exogenous material.

I don't know how you feel about placing this info about some experts believing the skin lesions being real in the intro section. If you don't like it there, then it can be placed elsewhere.

However, one change to the intro I suggest you need to make is the removal on the old phrase "CDC researchers ... suggested that patients' sensations were manifestations of "delusional infestation"". Nowhere in the CDC study does it say this, and in fact the CDC study was quite equivocal regarding the two possible alternatives of delusional infestation versus Morgellons being real. Thus I included as verbatim what the CDC study stated in it's conclusion in my new version of the introduction above. So this is more accurate. Drgao (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

References

I agree with Drgao that some of the main text could be written in a more neutral manner. According to WP:MEDRS when citing a primary study you should report on only the findings of the study, but not any of the conclusions drawn in the paper. So strictly speaking, some of the main article could be toned down, but at the moment I am pleased that we are working together to make this article more reflective of an NPOV, so I am prepared to compromise. I hope everyone else is prepared to be reasonable and give a little too.Erythema (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

Sorry my computer seems to have malfunctioned and inserted the text incorrectly and messed up the talk page. How about something like this? I have reported only on the findings of the references I cited and this is consistent with WP policy when using original research. I am not bothering to write in all the references until I know if you all agree with it.

Evidence of a possible infectious etiology

Although not generally accepted by mainstream medical practitioners, recent studies report a possible infectious connection. (refs) Savely and Stricker, 2010, reported an association with Morgellons and seroreactivity to Borrelia burgdorferi. (ref) Middelveen and Stricker, 2011, compared Morgellons to a bovine disease, digital dermatitis, a disease that is associated with spirochetal infection and unusual filamentous projections, and found some similarities between the two diseases. (ref) Middelveen et al, 2013a, in a detailed study of 4 patients, reported that histological sections from dermatological material contained hollow filaments composed of collagen and keratin, and also reported the detection of spirochetes by electron microscopy and silver-nitrate staining. (ref) Middelveen et al, 2013b, reported that, based on PCR detection of Borrelia DNA, the spirochetes they detected in Morgellons dermatological specimens were Borrelia spirochetes. (ref) These studies are at a preliminary stage of investigation and require further investigation to gain mainstream acceptance. Erythema (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Erthema

I've fixed the page mess up. Drgao (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Drgao. Sorry, I messed it up. There does not appear to be any objections to your proposed changes and the addition of the paragraph. There is poster published by the University of New Haven about sequencing the Borrelia isolates. www.newhaven.edu/554191.pdf -- so the evidence of infection will be harder to ignore as the publications documenting spirochetal infection accumulate. Science can't be stopped -- it evolves. Can Drgao and I assume that the other editors active on this article are now prepared to be more objective and neutral in presenting information concerning this disease? If not we should proceed with dispute resolution. As far as I am concerned, to maintain neutrality there cannot be double standards of policy for referencing the 2 sides of this debate. So if we cannot make these modest and very neutral changes then perhaps the entire article should be eliminated. Erythema (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

If you are making ultimatums here then the best course of action would be dispute resolution. Nothing has changed to alter the issue of reliability for the sources proposed. Further, it would clarify the pressure to include these particular sources on the page if you could state whether you have any association with the authors of the studies (as per my numerous requests). While you may find it irrelevant, it is actually quite relevant in terms of conflicts of interest.137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no need for this change, it seems to give undue weight to the opinions of a very few. --Judgeking (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion at the beginning of this section is a modest proposal for a revised intro to the article. I am not aiming for revolution here, just some minor changes. I'd appreciate some comments and feedback on that proposal, which makes no mention of an infectious etiology, but does point out that some researchers believe the lesions and fibers are real.

Later on in the article, in the "Causes and pathophysiology" I suggest an inclusion of a small paragraph along the lines written by Erthema above, which provides some basic details of the Lyme/Borrelia connection. In fact the article already mentions the Lyme connection in the "Symptoms and diagnosis" section, so in fact providing some details about the Lyme connection is nothing new as far as this article is concerned. Drgao (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The studies that this conversation revolves around selected 4 patients who had already tested positive for borrelia burgdorferi antibodies and were then found to have spirochetes in their lesions, the conclusion being that they were scratching like Morgellons patients and therefore there is a connection between the two. The CDC study selected patients who were scratching and expressing symptoms of what had been called morgellons, and found only 1 in 115 tested positive for borrelia burgdorferi antibodies. It seems to me that the difference in methodology combined with the conclusions of each study quite readily explain why the different articles were published in different places. The details of the studies are a matter for secondary sources, which are reviews of the methods and conclusions. It need not be a matter of discussion here. What should be is the value of the sources, and whether they are given the appropriate amount of weight given their contents and whether they are primary vs secondary sources that either confirm other reports or dramatically contradict them.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The CDC study is also original research. The same concerns you have about original research also apply to this study. The detection of spirochetes was limited to testing for Borrelia burgdorferi using the 2-tiered test which has been shown to lack sensitivity and Warthin-Starry staining. Spirochetes are difficult to detect using a Warthin Starry stain as both the spirochetes and human cellular tissue can pick up stain and artifacts are hard to differentiate from the spirochetes. No PCR or immunostaining were done which would have been far more sensitive and specific. In secondary and tertiary syphilis spirochetes are generally not detectible in lesions, so the fact that spirochetes are detectable in Morgellons lesions from 4 randomly selected patients is significant. Seronegativity using the 2-tiered test protocol is well documented in medical literature. Statistically, 1 in115 is significant because it is a rate higher than expected for that of the general population. How do you know that all the patients in the CDC study really had Morgellons and not actual delusional parasitosis. Patients were selected on the basis of going through old Kaiser records looking for patients that had previous delusional diagnoses. Kaiser had a vested interest in not changing the diagnoses of these patients. In any case, can we really be sure the CDC study was a homogenous group of patients? I have no doubt that some patients really do have delusions of infestation. Can we be sure we are not talking about 2 different groups of people with 2 different medical conditions? You have not answered my concerns about the double standards of policy being applied for the 2 different points of view. Most of the references in the current article are not acceptable as medical references according to the wikipedia policy. Popular press articles are not appropriate secondary medical references according to WP. Neither are opinion pieces. As far as possible COIs I have not proposed to do anything biased. I am asking for a NPOV to be represented and this is lacking. My background is irrelevant as I have not behaved on a manner on this forum that lacks neutrality. I have asked only that the same standard be applied to both sides of the debate -- actually, no, I have agreed to let a lot of the "pro delusional" biased material remain intact. But, no I do not have Morgellons. My background is microbiology/infectious diseases, and I work almost exclusively with Staph aureus infections, but again this is irrelevant because what I am seeking is a NPOV. None of you have answered my inquiry about COIs. Do any of you work for the CDC, the NIH or any other organization that supports the "delusional hypothesis"? The fact that you are so resistant in presenting one small paragraph to represent a significant minority POV suggests a COI. I would like to think that we have evolved to the point in history where different or opposing scientific perspectives are fairly represented. Some of the editors on this article behave like the Spanish Inquisition did toward Copernicus and his De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium. We should proceed with conflict resolution, because much of the current article is not acceptable by WP policy. Furthermore, if you read the CDC study more throughly you will find that you have misrepresented it as it does not actually state that these patients are delusional. Even the tone of the article has been carefully manipulated so that there should be no doubt in the reader's mind that the patients are delusional. Much of this could be toned down.Erythema (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

Furthermore this is not a forum for arguing science, and until now I have kept my discussion to wikipedia policy and its application to the Morgellons article and NPOV. However, 137.111.13.200 engaged in this activity before I did, as did many of the other editors in on this forum (repeatedly), thus leaving me in the position of defending my position. So in regards to the serologic testing the CDC study used, the MarDx ELISA kits used in this study use whole cell Borrelia burgdorferi lysates and whole cell lysates are problematic in such applications as allosteric inhibition of the FAB region of antibodies may occur, causing false negative results.Erythema (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema

So I'll respond a bit to drgao and Erythema's queries. First, I'll come out and admit that my knowledge of biological sciences is pretty limited. My highest medical training were CPR and wilderness first aid, which aren't much. The last bio course I took was an intro one in high school. So I freely admit I don't know much about the biological sciences. I'm a practicing scientist in an utterly unrelated field. Fortunately there are some commonalities in all science fields. Dubious research gets published all the time (hence the phrase "publishing in a peer reviewed journal is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for acceptance") in every field. There are several common threads of fringe research that cross all disciplines of research:

1. Fringe research is often published in less well-known journals. The disease associations for Morgellons are published in Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. and f1000research which may or may not have rigorous peer review. The CDC study was published in PLoS One, arguable one of if not the most prestigious medical journal. Multiple other studies have appeared in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the official journal of the psychiatric society supporting a psychological diagnosis.
2. If research is accepted, it will be cited by other people. Hinkle 2011 has 9 citations by other groups. Pearson 2012 (CDC study) has 13 citations by other groups. Middelveen and Stricker 2011("Filament formation associated with spirochetal....") has 7 citations, but of those only two of those aren't self-citations, and those two both disagreed with the conclusion of the study. Lack of favorable external citations is bad.
3. Conversely, excessive self-citation is usually not a sign of a healthy research programme
4. Lastly, when the researchers have to make a press release railing against wikipedia's biases in a desperate attempt to get included in the article, that's usually not a good sign (and that's actually how I came to be interested this article)

So that's how I can evaluate, using objective criteria, how accepted an idea is within a scientific field, even one I don't know much about. So how could you convince me this infectious etiology material should be included? Showing me some citations to their studies from outside their research group by other research groups that support their findings would be a good start, and I think would be fairly persuasive to other editors on this page as well. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Erythema, the assumption of good faith is the default position, and wikipedia benefits from having discussions that weigh the relevance and reliability of sources regardless of the opinions or positions of the editors involved. Facts do tend to speak for themselves. However, it is important that whenever a potential conflict of interest may arise that editors are forthright in declarations about them. In a typical circumstance I would not think to caution anyone about this. However, recently there has been an attempt to specifically target this page and indeed specific editors in a press release authored by the lead author of the study you are trying to insert. If you are indeed associated with any of the authors on that study, or indeed have a more intimate connection with it then it is obviously better to be clear about this. This page outlines this issue- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFCITE#Citing_yourself. If that is the case the article might well benefit from your input and expertise, but in an open manner.137.111.13.200 (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sailsbystars, I appreciate that your approach is a conscientious attempt evaluate the quality of the citations. Let us continue to do this: from my own experience of psychiatry, I know that this profession has the habit of jumping to conclusion about physical diseases without sufficient empirical evidence. Given that that to prove that a disease is delusional parasitosis, you would have to perform examinations of the patients to ensure no parasites were present, just how much examination took place in these psychiatric studies? None, I expect. Thus on questions of microbiology, we cannot rely on the views of psychiatrists, who in general don't know the first thing about infectious pathogens.

But psychiatrists are experts at determining whether a patients suffers from mental ill health or not. So on the question of mental ill health, we can listen to what the psychiatrists say. But on questions of microbiology, we have to listen to the microbiologists. The CDC study was a microbiological one, and they concluded that "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 [whether it represents] wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation." In other word, the CDC said Morgellons might be a newly recognized real disease, or it might be delusional infestation, but the CDC said they were not able to determine which. Thus unlike the Wikipedia article, even the CDC maintained a NPOV on Morgellons.

Some studies have found that Morgellons patients do suffer from several psychiatric comorbidities. Indeed, in one of the F1000 studies they state precisely that: "Although it is not the authors’ belief that MD is primarily a psychotic disorder, it is evident that psychiatric comorbidity is often present in this patient group.". So even in the F1000 studies that are looking for infectious pathogens, they are not denying there are psychiatric symptoms in Morgellons. In general, if you know anything about research into psychiatric conditions, you will know that scientists have been searching for infectious microbial causes for these psychiatric conditions for over a 100 years. The fact that syphilis spirochetes can cause schizophrenia is evidence enough that psychiatric conditions may have infectious causes.

The very important point I am making is that the issues of psychosis and psychiatric symptom in Morgellons patients are entirely independent of the question of whether there is an infectious pathogen causing them or not. We are not denying the psychiatric symptoms of Morgellons at all. We are just talking about adding some information in the article about the microbiology of this disease.

The Dove Medical Press and F1000 studies were microbiological studies, and they found some evidence of a spirochetal infection in Morgellons patients.

However, the CDC study and the Mayo Clinic study found no evidence. So we need to quote all these microbiology studies, both positive and negative, in order to have a NPOV. At the moment, the article quotes only the negative microbiology studies.

Regarding your claims that the Dove Medical Press and F1000 studies cite themselves too often: remember that in spite of the huge media coverage, Morgellons is a very rare disease, and therefore unlikely to receive much in the way of research funding (unfortunately funding is often allocated according to the prevalence of a disease). Thus it is to be expected that there will only be a small community of researchers interested in this disease, due to lack of funding. Drgao (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Drgao, the quote you've been alleging is from the CDC report does not appear on the CDC's webpage about Morgellons (reference #7 in this wiki's article) nor in the Conclusions section of the CDC's study published in PLOS (reference #8). Could you please provide a link to where you are getting this quotation from? 198.199.134.100 (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The quote is from the CDC study itself, published PLOS ONE. If you scroll down to the very last paragraph of the CDC study (which is in the "Discussion section"), you will see it says "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." Drgao (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the Conclusions section of this report and the CDC's summary of the study on their website? If so, could you please explain why they contradict the single out-of-context sentence you've been quoting? 198.199.134.100 (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

How is it out of context?. What part of the context is missing in my extract? You say it is out of context, so you must know what contextual information is missing in my quote.

The conclusion of the study says a similar thing, namely: "No common underlying medical condition or infectious source was identified, similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation." In others words, in the conclusion the CDC are saying that what they found was similar to delusional infestation, and so they are hinting that Morgellons might be delusional infestation. But nowhere do the CDC say Morgellons actually is delusional infestation. Drgao (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not what you claimed earlier. You claimed "in other word, the CDC said Morgellons might be a newly recognized real disease, or it might be delusional infestation, but the CDC said they were not able to determine which". That is not the conclusion of the CDC study; they did not find any evidence supporting the hypothesis that "unexplained dermopathy" (aka Morgellons) is a real disease. What they did find is that the physical injuries that study participants claimed were the result of Morgellons were self-inflicted. What they did find is that the hairs or fibers that study participants claimed were the result of Morgellons were debris from the participants' environments. What they did find is that an unusually high percentage (50%) of the participants had recently abused drugs, which can cause (among other things) delusional infestation, short-term memory loss, and indifference to the cleanliness of the taker's person and environment. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer my question of why you think my quote was out of context. Read the CDC quote again. Tell me what you think they mean. Here is the CDC quote from their PLOS ONE study again for you:

"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 [whether it represents] wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation"

Tell me what you think they mean by this statement. Drgao (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. "We did not find evidence that Morgellons represents a new psychiatric condition separate from delusional parasitosis." However, my interpretation is not relevant; it matches the conclusion of the study. You gave your interpretation above (which I quoted), which is clearly not the conclusion reached by the study. Have you been diagnosed (by yourself or others) as having Morgellons? 198.199.134.100 (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, who the hell are you, 198.199.134.100? Are you the same person as 137.111.13.200 that I was discussing with, or someone different? I am not going to have the same conversation all over again with someone new. Drgao (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm at a completely different IP address, so no, I'm not that other person. I did just now notice your conversation with that person wherein you demonstrated you have a clear bias on this subject. Just because the CDC was mistaken about CFS does not mean they are mistaken about Morgellons. This is not relevant to this Wikipedia article, though it certainly may be relevant to the article on CFS. When the available evidence has some support in mainstream medical science as indicating Morgellons is a real disease, that is the time that the Wikipedia article can report on it. This is Wikipedia's policy on NPOV and it is very clear. Find research that meets Wikipedia's standards before you advocate changing the article again, please. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There are too many people coming and going on this talk page. I am not going repeat my same discussion over and over again. If you have interest in this article, stay and discuss it and improve it. I am not going to keep repeating my same discussion with people who come and go and shown no commitment. Drgao (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, just because you are a single purpose account who has ownership issues doesn't give you special rights. You'll have to explain. If you don't, you'll be ignored, which might be a good idea, since no matter how many editors explain to you how things work here, they don't seem to get through. We have rules and policies, and if your edits violate any of them, those edits won't stick, no matter how long you camp out here. We "follow" the sources at a respectful distance. If that means Wikipedia is behind the curve, well, that's the way it's supposed to be. You are welcome to write a blog or write on some other website if you can't wait. We don't publish original research, do synthesis, or prematurely jump the gun using primary sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your remarks are a little insulting BullRangifer, when you imply that because I have an interest in the infectious etiologies of diseases, this somehow prevents me from being fair and balanced regarding all points of view. I very much support NPOV at all times, putting NPOV ahead of my own views, interests and opinions. So no, I don't have a WP:SPA, in the sense of supporting only one side of things.

There is a less than perfect NPOV in this article. Even the way the CDC study has been a little misrepresented, and cited as if the CDC study only supports the delusional infestation point of view, when in fact, the CDC acknowledged that their study was unable to determine whether Morgellons was a real disease or a delusional infestation. I cannot understand how don't see yourselves that it is wrong to misrepresent the CDC study in this way.

Scray said above: "it would be very helpful to see what, specifically, you'd propose adding so that editors can reach consensus on the addition", and Zad agreed with this. So both myself and Erythema tendered some proposed additions, and we are waiting for Scray and Zad, and of course others here, to comment on these proposed additions. Drgao (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Morgellons 198.199.134.100 (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So, 198.199.134.100, you were biased in your above interpretation of the CDC study, and equally biased (not to mention vindictive) in your write up of the dispute. Drgao (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The CDC study has been reviewed in secondary sources, so we need not interpret the conclusions we can look to those sources. Freudenmann et al. (2012) had this to say about it- "The skin lesions were ‘most consistent with excoriations or chronic irritation,some with evidence of secondary infection’. Solar elastosis was found in 51% of cases. Remarkably, hair analysis in a subgroup of 40 cases showed use of illicit drugs in 50% of cases (opiates and benzodiazepines > cannabinoids > amphetamines> other). This important study showed that Morgellons disease should best be seen as a form of DI." DI being delusional infestation. If there was any ambiguity in the CDC conclusion it was whether Morgellons is differentiated from delusional parasitosis in any meaningful way, as neither involve an actual infestation, or whether there is anything specific to Morgellons that might change the approach clinicians might take.137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The content of comments should be the focus in these sorts of discussions, and the fact that numerous editors (named and IP) are all saying pretty much the same thing (the sources are not reliable enough to be reflected on the page at this time) should give you reason enough to at least consider the more cautious approach of waiting for the primary sources to be addressed in literature reviews (other than reviews by the authors of that primary source). However, there seems to be a high level of interest in who is editing wikipedia and what interests they might have in the process. There was sufficient interest for Marianne Middelveen to author a press release specifically targeting editors of this page.

I'd like to quote from that press release, if I may- "Anonymous editors have no place in cyberspace.".

Now, if I may, I'd like to quote Erythema from earlier in this page- "Thanks, I really think that it will improve the article. It will be much more neutral. I very much appreciate your willingness to objectively consider this addition. I will write it up and put it on the talk page first. Again, thanks!199.126.50.231 (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema"

Now, when Marianne said that anonymous editors have no place in cyberspace she might have been talking about when editors remember to actually sign in, when their IP address isn't recorded on the page. I myself often prefer to use an IP because it allows a degree of transparency, where other users can see my geolocation. So, in answer to anyone's accusation that IP comments are intrinsically of lesser value than named accounts, I suggest you focus on the content. That is, after-all, what these pages are for. It is far too tempting to be distracted by other issues.137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

TO 137.111.13.200. Don't you think that we need to separate the issues of delusional parasitosis from the issues of whether Morgellons may be associated with a spirochete infection? These issues are not same thing. The delusional parasitosis is backed up by secondary sources, so we cannot argue with it. But even though the delusional parasitosis conclusion is almost certainly right (in the sense that there are no parasites in the skin of Morgellons patients), Morgellons may still be associated with a spirochete infection, even if there are no parasites.

So we are bound by necessity to maintain the delusional parasitosis conclusion in the article; but that does not mean the article cannot comment on a separate issue of whether Morgellons is linked to spirochete bacteria. This is why in the proposed changes I tendered at the beginning of this section, I suggested using the phrase: "While no parasite infestation has been found in Morgellons, some researchers believe the skin lesions of Morgellons are real rather than self-inflicted,..."

Let me give you a parallel example: in schizophrenia, it is not uncommon for patients to have the crazy belief that the government has planted a miniature electronic implant in their body in order to track them! Of course such beliefs are completely delusional. However, as to the question of whether schizophrenia is linked to a microbial infection, this is perfectly legitimate question, and indeed, a link between schizophrenia and bacterial and viral infection has been demonstrated.

So in Morgellons, we can agree with the secondary sources that the patients do not have parasites in their skin; but it is a separate issue as to whether Morgellons is linked to any microbes. Drgao (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a matter for secondary sources to judge the proposed spirochete connection- the recent series of papers referencing that theory are co-authors of the study which suggested a link, and the methodology of that study must be reviewed in impartial secondary sources. I can express my surprise that the 4 patients selected for the study had already tested positive for antibodies for borrelia burgdorferi, and that two had received treatment for Lyme disease, but that is beside the point. I am not an authority. I just think it better to defer to the peer-review process in this regard. In answer to the analogy of schizophrenia, if a bacterial infection disrupted the neurochemistry of the brain to a degree that someone thought there were electronic trackers under their skin, don't you think it unwise to treat that as a skin condition?137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your schizophrenia analogy point: many Morgellons patients do suffer from psychosis-type symptoms, which can make their thinking process a little strange. And these patients would likely do well taking some antipsychotic medications (especially because, as it mentions in the article, antipsychotics are effective at treating delusional parasitosis at doses as low as one-fifth to one-tenth the dose typically prescribed for schizophrenia).

Even in in the future, if it were (for the sake of argument) proven that Morgellons is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria, it might still necessitate the use of antipsychotics, because there are no effective antibiotics for Borrelia burgdorferi in our medical armory. Patients with Lyme disease know this all too well: hIgh doses of antibiotics like doxycycline can help a bit with Lyme disease, but usually it cannot cure Lyme. Borrelia bacteria are too difficult to eradicate.

Personally, I think that Morgellons patients would be far more likely to comply with taking antipsychotic medication if medical authorities explained to these patients that yes, they may be infected with Borrelia burgdorferi, which may be causing their mental and skin symptoms, but since we do not have any effective antibiotics for Borrelia burgdorferi, it means they need to take antipsychotics in order to treat the mental symptoms caused by this bacterium. (Although it would be interesting to see how much improvement high dose doxycycline would make to Morgellons mental and physical symptoms).

That's why, even if just for the sake of Morgellons patients, if this article acknowledged the possibility that there may be an infectious etiology to Morgellons, but also pointed out that antipsychotics are the most appropriate treatment for these patients, it would probably help convince Morgellons patients to trust and comply with the medical authority recommendations for taking these antipsychotics. I know Wikipedia is not here to give medical advice, but I am just making the point that if these patients' views were not so brusquely brushed off by the medical profession, and if the medical profession acknowledged that Morgellons might be caused by an microbial infection, you would get more Morgellons patients trusting and siding with the official medical view, and accepting the idea that they may benefit from low dose antipsychotics. Drgao (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point, and I think it is well made. However, if an infection is an underlying cause of symptoms that are shared with that of Morgellons, does this mean that anyone with those symptoms and yet who do not have an infection do not have Morgellons? Whatever Morgellons actually is, it has thus far been defined by the symptoms. The CDC study sampled patients by looking at their symptoms, then investigated whether they had any underlying infections. Only one patient tested positive to Borrelia antibodies (and a borderline). The recent study involved 4 patients who all tested positive to those antibodies, who were then screened for spirochetes. That has the chain of investigation backwards, where the sampling of the patients was an overlap of symptoms and an existing infection. I would think a more logical conclusion from the study is that anyone presenting with certain symptoms and tests positive for borrelia antibodies might be likely to have a borrelia infection. I don't understand why you would say they have Morgellons, since the vast majority of people presenting with those symptoms would probably not have an infection (judging from the results of the CDC study). Anyone who thinks they have Morgellons would then be left with no name whatsoever for their condition. The alternative would be to assume that they all have borrelia infections, but that the physiological cause can't be detected. That really doesn't seem to be a defensible approach, though I am not sure anyone is putting that forward as a suggestion.

I appreciate the point that representing Morgellons as possibly driven by an underlying infection might provide a clearer avenue for clinicians to treat the patients with antipsychotics (currently I believe dermatologists treat Morgellons patients, so a referral to a psychiatrist might be necessary in that case), but if that requires the condition to be represented in a way that does not conform to the scientific consensus then the page walks on thin ice.137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Quoting 137.111.13.200: "if an infection is an underlying cause of symptoms that are shared with that of Morgellons, does this mean that anyone with those symptoms and yet who do not have an infection do not have Morgellons?"

That is a good point, but it is not necessarily the case. Diseases linked to infections, like multiple sclerosis or chronic fatigue syndrome, are still diagnosed on symptoms, MRI scans, etc, because a range of different viruses and bacteria are thought to be involved with these illnesses, ie, there may well be more than one microbial cause. So you cannot simply test for one microbe, as more than one microbe may be able to cause the same disease. Furthermore, the same microbe may often cause different diseases in different people! Enteroviruses for example are linked to diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome, and Crohn's disease. The genes of an individual can play a role in what type of disease manifests from an infection. And in some people, the same microbe may not cause any disease at all. So unfortunately, there is often no simple relation that says microbe X causes disease Y.

Also, some microbes are very hard to detect, so tests may come back negative, even if the patient is infected with the microbe. In other words microbial testing may not be a reliable means to test for a disease. The Borrelia bacterium is in fact an example of a microbe which is difficult to detect — some tests for Borrelia (the ELISA test) can be as much as 50% inaccurate: ie, 1 in 2 patients will get either a false positive or false negative result. When testing for Borrelia infection, you need to perform multiple different tests, and then examine all the test results; this then gives you a little more accuracy.

Furthermore, bear in mind that in the search for infectious causes of a disease, just because you find a given infectious microbe within the lesions of a disease, that does not automatically prove that the microbe caused those lesions. It is quite possible that the microbe might be an "innocent bystander" to the disease process, that just happens to accumulate in the lesions, but did not cause the lesions. In other words, don't forget that correlation does not imply causation. This is why researchers use the term association when they find a microbe linked to a disease. The association of a microbe with a disease raises interest in the possibility it might cause the disease, but association does not necessarily imply causation.

So even if the current research looking at Borrelia in Morgellons patients is finally ratified, and the association between Borrelia and Morgellons is established beyond all doubt, this would not yet prove that Borrelia actually causes Morgellons. Once you have established an association between a given microbe and a given disease, it then requires a lot more scientific work to prove whether that microbe actually causes the disease, or whether it is just an innocent bystander that plays no causal role in the disease. So as you can see, there are quite a few complexities — and a lot of hard work — involved with the study of infectious etiologies of any disease.

Though the infectious etiology angle on Morgellons is not only issue to consider. There is also the issue of whether the fibers and lesion are genuine, or not. This is an independent issue to the issue of an infectious cause. Although we must state that Morgellons is a delusional parasitosis (because secondary sources say this), the lesions and fibers might still be genuine, even if there are no parasites. So it would not be contradictory to say that Morgellons patients suffer delusional parasitosis — because there are no parasites in the skin — yet the lesions may still be real; and certainly there is substantial group of researchers who say the lesions and fibers are genuine. Thus I don't think we would be contravening the rules to include the views of the researchers who say the lesions and fibers are real. Drgao (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I thought this edit was an improvement, because it addressed some redundancy in the language and the paragraph continues to represent consensus in the biomedical literature. Just wanted to let others consider. -- Scray (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be an improvement. Drgao (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not bad, I agree that the current wording is awkward, but given the ongoing talk discussion I thought it best to refer to this page. Reading the new wording, it seems to provide better flow to the opening paragraph without straying from the current medical consensus. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my sense - and an appropriate reaction (when there's contention on Talk, it's best to discuss before editing). I just thought that we should, at some point, consider this and didn't want to forget about it. -- Scray (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the edit above was a clear improvement. As it is now, the sentence is awkward and, as you say, redundant. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I think it is an improvement. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Restored - I think this was a nice WP:BRD cycle, so each step was prudent in retrospect. Even though there is ongoing drama (e.g. DRN discussion), I think this edit is balanced and demonstrates that we can improve the article without drama. -- Scray (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this edit does make a non-trivial semantic change to the article. It changes "sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with parasites, whereas in reality no such parasites are present" to "sufferers believe that they are infested with parasites". In the previous, it's made clear that it's a delusional belief. In the current, the idea that the belief is delusional has been removed. People who have the flu believe they are infected with a virus, and they genuinely are infected with a virus. People who suffer from Morgellons believe they are infested with a parasite. Previous wording used to make it clear the belief was delusional; new wording does not. As we have the DRN going I'm unwilling to make a change to the article but just wanted to point this out. Zad68 13:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Zad68, I think I share your view of this problem, so please re-read the lede paragraph (not just the diff) and see whether it's an improvement. The sentence is factually correct, and in context the paragraph is better in my opinion. -- Scray (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood and I did read the whole lead before and after. My take on it is that the wording change does improve readability, but the assertion that the belief is delusional is significantly softened by the change. Again, I'm not going to make any edits along that line at this time, especially as we have the DRN outstanding, but just pointing it out. Zad68 14:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

relevance

I can’t help but notice that there has been a great deal of deviation from what is really the relevant issue on the Morgellons article. What is relevant is making this article better. It needs a NPOV. It is extremely biased. This is very obvious, in both the main article and in this talk page. Much of what I read here is derogatory to the patients who suffer from this disorder. Under attack as well are the reputation of medical journals that publish papers indicating this is not delusional, the authors who publish these papers, and institutions that fund such research. All of that shows bias and is completely irrelevant to the task at hand. What needs to be addressed is the NPOV issue, particularly the fact that there are double standards of what constitutes acceptable medical references applied to the two different POVs of this illness. Both sides of the debate need to be acknowledged. Because the delusional POV is dominant it should be given more weight. Having said that, the infectious POV needs representation as a significant minority viewpoint. There are newspaper articles, TV interviews and the like that support this (the infectious) POV. Much of the current article uses popular press articles as secondary resources. They are not, according to WP, reliable medical references. Some of these need to be eliminated – probably all should be, but fat chance of that with such bias at play. There is an issue with verifiability with such material. For example, the Popular Mechanics article has an interview with “an anonymous dermatologist”. That is not verifiable. You will recall that the 3 most important policies of WP are: NPOV, no original research, and verifiability. There are provisions for original research to be used when secondary sources are lacking as is the case with Morgellons, but it is biased to include only those of which report from the POV you favor. If original research is included for one POV it should be acceptable to include original research from the other POV. Dispute resolution seems to be the best option at this point.Erythema (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

Please read WP:NPOV again, we don't do fair and balanced here. Go read WP:OR again as well, because I think you are misinterpreting it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed Erythema, I want you to clarify whether you are or are not Marianne Middelveen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself. Please address this.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your blatantly obvious attempt at deflection won't work with me. I am not intimidated by bullying. I have never behaved in a biased manner, so who I am is irrelevant. I have been willing to abide by WP policy and have only asked for fair application. In fact I have consistently asked that there be a more neutral POV. All you need to know about who I am is that I have a science background and I am thoroughly disgusted by the lack of application of WP policy to this page and the blatantly obvious bias -- that none of you deny. There has not been one well-argued, reasonable objection to any of my proposed changes. If you want editors to identify themselves then everyone will have to disclose their identities. I suspect many of the editors have CDC, Kaiser or Mayo connections. What is interesting is the obvious bias shown by most of the editors on this page, and their reluctance to show even a small amount of neutrality. The fact that this talk page is a public forum seems to have eluded you.Erythema (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

I have no connection to anyone of those groups. Indeed, if you go to my user page you can see my real name and my employer (who I of course do not speak for). NPOV does not mean fair and balanced, it is not how it works here. If you feel that editors are behaving inappropriately you can bring it up at WP:ANI. You should keep in mind that you have been here for a little more than a month, and that many experienced editors have explained policies to you and/or provided links to policies. You should entertain the idea that maybe you are just wrong in your interpretation. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize what you are saying? What are you talking about when you say that NPOV does not mean fair and balanced? That is not what WP says in WP policy. You are, however, correct when you say that it is not how it works here. It certainly doesn't. WP policy has been completely disregarded on this topic. I may have been on WP for only one month, but I seem to be more familiar with WP policy than some of my fellow editors who have been at it for years. First, NPOV, here's what WP says, Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. Secondly, on-line medical journals have been repeatedly attacked by many of the editors. Here's what WP:MEDRES says about free on-line journals, A Wikipedia article should cite the best and most reliable sources regardless of whether they require a fee or a subscription. When all else is equal, it is better to cite a source with a full text is freely readable so that readers can follow the link to the source. Thirdly, a WP violation of policy that has been repeated throughout the Morgellons article is the continual use of popular press as reliable secondary medical resources. Here's what WP says about that, The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[11] costs, and risks versus benefits,[12] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[13] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[14] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources. Let us stick to the relevant topic: NPOV and the continuous violation of WP policy on this topic. Fourth, I could also go quote the no original research policy, but I've already gone into it in detail in earlier discussions. What is important in this discussion is the double standard of application of this policy. WP policy is that when secondary resources are lacking the use of primary resources is acceptable. However if you really want to maintain a NPOV then it must be equally applied. Erythema (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

Hi, Erythema. The policy on due and undue weight gives a good explanation of why "balanced" isn't the same as "NPOV." In a nutshell, when the overwhelming majority of the medical reliable sources hold one view, it is not neutral to give equal weight to the opposing view, because that would misrepresent the body of medical literature as a whole. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know exactly what I am saying yes. NPOV does not mean we include all opinions equally. It just does not work that way. Please read WP:UNDUE. WP:OR is currently not being violated. Again, really, if you think editors are behaving inappropriately there is a remedy available to you, WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Read the policy. It does not say that minority POVs can be ignored. It says that different POVs should be represented PROPORTIONATELY. This does not mean you can exclude a POV if you do not like it. Yes, the delusional POV is predominant and should therefore be given greater weight, but the infectious POV is a significant minority POV and deserves a mention. NPOV also states that opinion should not be reported as fact and that is prevalent in the Morgellons article. Here is WP policy: Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Due and undue weight. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. I plan to take this to dispute resolution or perhaps WP:ANI, but lack the time to do so at the moment. I am confident that the Morgellons article does not represent what Jimmy Wales had in mind for neutrality when he and Larry Sanger created WP. Erythema (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

I think we need to be more precise and meticulous regarding citing or quoting Wikipedia rules. Editors need to precisely point out, and perhaps better still quote, the rules that they are invoking in their arguments.

So below I quote the relevant rules from WP:WEIGHT that form the basis of the explanation of why we are obliged to include in the article the viewpoint that Morgellons lesions and fibers are genuine, and that Morgellons may be due to an infectious process. In these rules I have quoted below, the bold text added for emphasis is mine.

Due and undue weight

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

From Jimbo Wales:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Of particular note is the advice given by Jimmy Wales that if a viewpoint is a significant minority, you should be able to name prominent adherents.

Well, there is no difficulty at all in naming prominent adherents of the viewpoint that the Morgellons lesions and fibers are genuine: Mary Leitao, who is mentioned in the first sentence of the article, hold this view, and expresses this view in this MEDLINE indexed study. And there are many other studies that express this same viewpoint.

Thus with such a prominent adherent as Mary Leitao, it is clear that this is a significant minority, and thus it is obligatory to include the viewpoint that the Morgellons lesions and fibers are genuine and may be linked to an infection in the article. I see no other interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgao (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The pathogen conjecture for Morgellons remains on the fringe of scientific consensus, so leaving it out of WP current coverage remains due weight per the policies you've cited. -- Scray (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC) I realized we do have some treatment of the pathogen conjecture, hence my amendment. -- Scray (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The significant minority viewpoint of which Mary Leitao is a prominent adherent states that the fibers and lesions are genuine, so we are obliged to represent this viewpoint. This viewpoint also states that Morgellons disease may be linked to an infectious process, so again, as this significant minority viewpoint says there might be infectious microbes involved, the article must also state this. Drgao (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Scray. Calling her view significant is over the top. It is at best WP:FRINGE Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Scray has contradicted Jimmy Wales's own guidance on determining a significant minority viewpoint that needs to be included in the article. Are you also contradicting this guidance then Dbrodbeck? You also appear to be confused about what I said. The viewpoint under discussion is that the fibers and lesions are genuine, and that there may be infectious processes in Morgellons. Jimmy Wales has said that a viewpoint is a significant minority if you can name prominent adherent. Therefore I named Mary Leitao as an example of a prominent adherent of the viewpoint, thus proving the viewpoint in question is a significant minority that must be included in the article. Drgao (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting her view as representative of a significant minority. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had to review the article to confirm that we do give some attention to the pathogen conjecture - a due amount. Nonetheless, I disagree with your (Drgao's) description of that adherent. -- Scray (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What, do you mean this sentence: "Although it has been suggested by Morgellons advocacy websites that Morgellons is related to an infectious disease, such as a tick-borne disease or from plants, these claims have not been substantiated by available evidence or corroborated by physicians independent of these advocacy websites"

That is not due amount, by the rules which says that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" There are many studies that represent the "lesions are genuine" viewpoint, probably just as many as there are studies on the delusional viewpoint, so the "lesions are genuine" viewpoint needs more space.

That sentence does not even provide references the appropriate studies like this one. It should not mention websites, but refer to the appropriate studies. That sentence is also incorrect in saying that it has not been substantiated by available evidence: the new studies finding Borrelia in the lesions provides some preliminary substantiating evidence.

And where did you get this idea that it was an "infectious disease from plants"?. I have never heard that plant theory. It is complete nonsense, there are no references for it, and needs to be removed. Drgao (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the studies that represent the "lesions are genuine" viewpoint are not considered reliable sources. How many times must we go around in this circle with you before you understand this? 198.199.134.100 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You are going to go around in circles forever, because there are no official Wikipedia rules that indicate these sources are not reliable. We need to use Wikipedia rules, not personal opinion. If everyone here truthfully followed Wikipedia rules, we would have no problems. Drgao (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You've had it explained to you by other editors why these studies do not meet Wikipedia's official criteria as reliable sources. If they do eventually become accepted as reliable sources, we will be happy to support the inclusion of their views in the article at that time. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Mary Leitao is a notable adherent to the "fibers are real and not clothing" theory, but the view is not published in WP:MEDRS sources. It's noted in reliable sources (newspaper articles) as her view, and that view should be reported as her view, without any suggestion that it's justified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Next step

We have now talked about these sources enough and for long enough that it's clear that agreement won't be reached at this article's Talk page. There is clearly not a consensus to include the proposed material. The next logical step available to those still interested in including the material is WP:DRN - Dispute resolution. I recommend those interested open a DRN case at this point. I see that there was one previous attempt to use DRN but the requested resolution wasn't appropriate for DRN. DRN should take this dispute if it is framed appropriately. Zad68 02:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I just want to point out that Erythema is most likely the author of the study that editors are being pressured into including on the page. This would not be a problem if a conflict of interest were declared, as per wikipedia's policy. I mention this because such an instated conflict of interest is quite pertinent to a discussion about how the current conflict has arisen, and how it may be resolved.137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly true but not sure what should be done about it... Zad68 03:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A note to everyone here, I have started a Dispute Resolution case here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Morgellons. Everyone who has made more than one comment here about this issue in the past 8 weeks or so has been invited to participate. Zad68 03:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am thankful that Zad68 has started dispute resolution. I had been planning to do this myself, but hadn't the time to look through the process so that I could follow correct procedure. I would like to point out that all I have asked for is that the WP:NPOV to be applied and that the editors of this topic read and apply this policy and other WP policies in an appropriate manner. First that significant minority views be acknowledged, secondly that if the No Original Research policy is applied then it should be applied to all relevant POVs not just those that are favored, and thirdly if WP:MEDRS indicates that popular press is not suitable as medical references this also be applied to all relevant POVs. Speculate all you like on my identity, but it is irrelevant. Ask yourselves if I have behaved in a manner that is not supported by WP policy. I have not asked to do any editorial changes that are inconsistent with WP policy or the spirit in which they were intended. I have behaved in an unbiased and objective manner. If I had violated WP policy in a significant manner, I am confident this would have been pointed out to me and I would have been blocked. I have done my best to read all WP policy and to adhere to it. All I asked for was that a significant minority view be PROPORTIONATELY represented. I am amazed at the response that I have received. I am a new user and WP recommends that experienced users be polite and welcoming. I have been treated in a manner just short of hostility.Erythema (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

I am a regular volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The process there is on hold waiting for all involved editors to give opening statements. I would very much appreciate it if you would either give your opening statement or let us know that you do not intend to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Studies supporting the genuine skin disease view of Morgellons, and studies supporting the delusional parasitosis view

Following a PubMed search on Morgellons disease, and a Google search for peer-reviewed published studies on Morgellons disease, below is a summary of all the published peer-reviewed literature on Morgellons, categorized according to whether the studies support: (1) the viewpoint that Morgellons is a genuine skin disease, or (2) the viewpoint that Morgellons is delusional parasitosis.

As you can see below, there is 1 secondary study, and 9 primary studies supporting viewpoint (1) the genuine skin disease view of Morgellons. And there are 3 secondary studies, and 15 primary studies supporting viewpoint (2) the delusional parasitosis view of Morgellons.

Thus from these figures, it is clear that viewpoint (1) should be given around ⅓ of the article text space, and viewpoint (2) around ⅔ of the article text space, because WP:WEIGHT requires that articles represent all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

At present, viewpoint (1), the genuine skin disease view of Morgellons, occupies at most only a few percent of the text space in the article, and so clearly its allocated space needs to be significantly enlarged.

VIEWPOINT (1) Published studies supporting the view that Morgellons is a genuine skin disease, that may have an infectious cause:

Review studies (secondary source):

• The mystery of Morgellons disease: infection or delusion? (2006) MEDLINE Full paper

Primary studies:

• Morgellons: a novel dermatological perspective as the multisystem infective disease borreliosis (2013).
• Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease (2013).
• Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease (2013)
• Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study (2012).
• Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease (2011)
• Delusions may not always be delusions (2010, Editorial) MEDLINE Full paper
• Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown etiology (2010)
• Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series (2009)
• Myiasis, fillan, and the morgellons (1946) MEDLINE Full paper

VIEWPOINT (2) Published studies supporting the view that Morgellons is delusional parasitosis, and not a genuine skin disease:

Review studies (secondary source):

• Morgellons in dermatology (2010) MEDLINE
• Delusional infestation (2009) MEDLINE
• Delusional disorders in dermatology: a brief review (2008) MEDLINE

Primary studies:

• Delusions of parasitosis (2013)
• Morgellons syndrome: a disease transmitted via the media (2013) MEDLINE
• New findings in delusions of parasitosis (2012) MEDLINE
• Delusional infestation is typically comorbid with other psychiatric diagnoses: review of 54 patients receiving psychiatric evaluation at Mayo Clinic (2012) MEDLINE
• Delusional infestation: clinical presentation in 147 patients seen at Mayo Clinic (2012) MEDLINE
• Delusional infestation with unusual pathogens: a report of three cases (2011) MEDLINE
• Morgellons disease and delusions of parasitosis (2011) MEDLINE
• Psychosis, ivermectin toxicity, and "Morgellons disease" (2011) MEDLINE
• An oral ulceration associated with Morgellons disease: a case report (2011) MEDLINE
• Morgellons disease, or antipsychotic-responsive delusional parasitosis, in an HIV patient: beliefs in the age of the Internet (2010) MEDLINE
• Successful treatment of Morgellons disease with pimozide therapy (2010) MEDLINE
• Intraoral Morgellons disease or delusional parasitosis: a first case report (2010) MEDLINE
• Delusional parasitosis and the matchbox sign revisited: the international perspective (2010) MEDLINE Full paper
• Delusional parasitosis facilitated by web-based dissemination (2008) MEDLINE
• Morgellons disease and the 'tweezer sign' (2008) MEDLINE Full paper

Neutral viewpoint published studies (studies which do not take sides):

Review studies (secondary source):

• Disorder or delusion? Living with Morgellons disease (2009) MEDLINE
• The challenge of Morgellons disease(2006) MEDLINE Full paper

Primary studies:

• Clinical, epidemiologic, histopathologic and molecular features of an unexplained dermopathy (2012) MEDLINE
• Hypnosis in the treatment of Morgellons disease: a case study (2011) MEDLINE
• Morgellons: contested illness, diagnostic compromise and medicalisation (2010) MEDLINE
• Morgellons: disease or delusions? (2007) MEDLINE

Unkown affiliation (these are published studies with no free to read abstract, so I cannot determine their affiliation):

Primary studies:

• Do they understand Morgellons disease? (2009) MEDLINE
• Morgellons disease as internet meme (2009) MEDLINE
• AKA 'Morgellons' (2008) MEDLINE

All MEDLINE indexed studies above are indicated as such. Drgao (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Time for a re-shuffle of those sources.

An oral ulceration associated with Morgellons disease: a case report- "Patients suspected of suffering from MD or DP should be referred for psychiatric evaluation".

Intraoral Morgellons disease or delusional parasitosis: a first case report- The fibres? Synthetic polymer.

Successful treatment of Morgellons disease with pimozide therapy- Pimozide is an antipsychotic.

Psychosis, Ivermectin Toxicity, and “Morgellons Disease”- Patient self-diagnosed with MD, started taking ivermectin (an anti-parasitic which he ordered from a vet, upon the suggestion of an "expert" in MD). Was admitted to hospital for ivermectin poisoning. Symptoms of delusional infestation decreased in response to anti-psychotics.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In the DP column you can add-

Psychosomatic factors in pruritus-Tey et al., 2013. They actually came to this conclusion partially from what Harvey et al. reported in "Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series" 2009, by the way.

Morgellons: contested illness, diagnostic compromise and medicalisation- Fair, 2010. This is from the journal of the sociology of health and illness, and gives a reasonable summary of the trajectory of Morgellons from us vs them, to medical investigation, and now back to us vs them. It touches upon DP as much as Morgellons. Fittingly.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Claiming that the sole "secondary study" of viewpoint one (currently reference #17 in the Wikipedia article) is anything of the sort is absolutely ludicrous. It's relegated to being an "opinion piece" in the journal, it's written by non-PhD-holding medical professionals (including a person who is likely mentally unstable in regards to this issue, as determined by the PhD-holding medical professionals she first contacted about the alleged disease), it makes the claim that a brief mention in a 323-year-old monograph of potentially similar symptoms should be considered the first recorded occurrence of the alleged disease, and it was written two years before any clinical studies of Morgellons published their findings. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, "*Morgellons disease: more questions than answers (2012) MEDLINE" is a letter to the editor of Psychosomatics, and the reply to this letter "Comments on: Stricker and Middelveen" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033318212000874) was printed in the same issue. Neither should be included, as they are not peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense. They are interesting to read, however.137.111.13.200 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"The challenge of Morgellons disease(2006)", listed above as a neutral secondary source, both clearly expresses the viewpoint that the sufferers are delusional and challenges the credibility of the MRF, noting that none of the members are dermatologists. However, it's also not a secondary source; it references no primary sources, as no studies had been done at that time. I'd also point out that it's been repeatedly mentioned that primary sources must be MEDLINE indexed to even begin to be considered as meeting WP:MEDRS standards for reliability, which eliminates several of the articles listed as supporting a non-delusional viewpoint. Some of the remaining articles are clearly marked as "opinion" or "editorial" and therefore do not qualify as a primary source. Another one is from 1946 and so cannot represent current medical thought when so many recent sources are available... it also only mentions Morgellons in reference to the brief 1692 passage (the one Leitao got the name "Morgellons" from), noting that it sounded like acne ("comedones"). Unless I'm mistaken, between what I've had the time to look into and what 137.111.13.200 has been able to look into, every single source listed as supporting "viewpoint 1" is of insufficient reliability and/or not even supporting of that viewpoint. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much 137.111.13.200 and 198.199.134.100 for those corrections — I have reshuffled the above studies at the top of this section accordingly. Though I don't myself think that the study: Psychosomatic factors in pruritus-Tey et al., 2013 should be included, because this is not a study on Morgellons itself. I also think that the study: Morgellons: contested illness, diagnostic compromise and medicalisation- Fair, 2010 should not be included, because this is not about the nature and etiology of Morgellons, but rather about the relationship between patient empowerment and medical authorities.

The review paper: The challenge of Morgellons disease(2006), to me seems neutral, though with a bit of a leaning towards the DP perspective; it says in the concluding paragraph: "Although it is clear that one must always keep an open mind, it would seem to me to be appropriate for the treating physician to wait until the tried and true drugs, such as those mentioned above [antipsychotic drugs], prescribed in an adequate dose, and for an adequate period of time, have failed in a particular case, before one becomes too involved in ascribing a pathogenic function to cellulose fibers and the like, as is currently being suggested." In other words, the reviewer himself is suggesting keeping an open mind, and he is saying: "try some antipsychotic drugs, and if that does not work, then you might get involved in considering pathogenic effects of the cellulose fibers".

The British Medical Journal publication in 1946 of the article Myiasis, fillan, and the morgellons, which speculates that Morgellons may be caused by an infestation of Hypoderma larvae, I suggest is relevant, as it is the first medical publication I could find of that considered the etiology of Morgellons. This article is also important, because it demonstrates that historically Morgellons was considered a genuine physical disease, possibly caused by infestation. No mention is made in 1946 that this disease might be "all in the mind," which is what the current psychiatrists are saying today (and incidentally, the psychiatrists saying this are from the psychosomatic school of thought — psychosomatics being a controversial and some would say disreputable area of psychology). So this 1946 publication stands testament to the fact that the infection/infestation theory of Morgellons has a long history, and that considering Morgellons as a genuine physical disease is the conventional view. Drgao (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The paper Psychosomatic factors in pruritis reviewed primary sources and reported on the consensus that Morgellons is most likely a form of DP. The article wasn't aimed at adjudicating whether there was an underlying physiological cause of Morgellons, since there were sufficient sources suggesting that question had already been answered. It provides an example of a secondary source reviewing literature and expressing a judgement in print about the consensus. Seems cut and dried to me. I don't think this is the place to debate the field of psychosomatics, though. And considering that the consensus is that Morgellons is a form of DP, the sociological history of Morgellons (ie. from 2002) is very relevant to its nature and etiology, specifically as a psychiatric disease that seems to be spread through information.

In the quote from "The challenge of Morgellons disease", it would seem you may have missed the word "although". Although one must always keep an open mind, I think it unlikely that Morgellons has any physiological genesis. Again, seems cut and dried.

Morgellons as it is discussed on this page came about it 2002, the name was taken from a 17th century letter. There are no medical sources which support the assertion that the phenomena given that name and the 2002 condition are related other than by name, which is meaningless. Incidentally, there is an interesting review of Browne by Kellett printed in 1935 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/letter/kellett.html) which gives a reasonably thorough overview of "the Morgellons" as well as the naming issues.137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: It is 2013, there are new pe...

72.253.225.48 posted this comment on 5 July 2013 (view all feedback).

It is 2013, there are new peer reviewed studies linking Morgellons to Lyme disease. Yet, you continue to vilify and demean people who suffer from this by not allowing the new and updated information to be shared as in the Lyme disease case. Shame on you. You lose standing as a source of information when you choose to share propaganda instead.

Any thoughts?

Rodneye9110 (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)I totally agree with this comment since a mainstream practicing dermatologist has diagnosed me with Morgellons and I have received multiple anti-biotic treatments for it then why do you allow the propaganda that it is delusional to be portrayed as fact? I have seen VA psychiatrist in regards to this and they have confirmed that it is a real disease related to syphilis so it does have cognitive and memory loss aspects to it.

Nobody is being vilified. We should wait to see what secondary sources say before we add stuff from primary sources I think. What someone tells any of us is not a reliable source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Were those "anti-biotic treatments" colloidal silver? Rodneye9110 is the latest account to be investigated for being a sockpuppet of the same user (Ryanspir) who created the InLoveNoi account to "mediate" this page's dispute. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:POV

Why was the NPOV tag removed? This article is undergoing dispute resolution for NPOV issues. It should not be removed until the dispute has been resolved.Erythema (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

The current dispute is about whether or not the proposed additions (items not currently in the article) and their cited sources meet WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV standards. If you still have editing privileges here once that dispute is resolved, feel free to dispute the neutrality of the existing article. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would I not have editing privileges? I have done nothing contrary to WP policy. I have examined medical literature. I have done my best to assess the data in a thorough and unbiased manner. I have only asked that all relevant POVs are proportionately represented in an unbiased manner. I have followed WP policy to the letter, as has Drgao. -- unlike others. Erythema (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop accusing others of not following policy. If you believe that others have not followed policy please report them to ANI, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Erythema, I believe in a previous post you suggested that if certain material is not included in the page then the entire page should be deleted. if you are an author of the material you are trying to have inserted in the main page and you do not make a declaration about that then "unbiased" would not be the word that best describes your approach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself. You may be new to wikipedia, but it would appear that you have no intention of following guidelines which serve to protect the credibility of editors when a potential conflict of interest arises, even when these guidelines are repeatedly pointed out .137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "83% protein" arguments

I see a couple of the pro-fringe research editors trying to claim this supports their views. It does not. "Protein" has multiple definitions and does not only mean "animal material", ie: nutritional protein; it can also mean "organic material": material composed of amino acids, as opposed to non-living material. Since the CDC study isn't about the nutrition content of the fibers and also immediately goes on to say that the protein is cotton cellulose, the "organic material" definition is clearly the one that was meant.

As I've mentioned in an earlier edit, if the conclusion of the study does not match your interpretation of a sentence or sentence fragment in the study, you should strongly consider the possibility that you've misinterpreted things. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You may need to check your chemistry texts. Sierraparis (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

Sure thing, brand new account that signs your name after your posts just like a certain fringe view editor. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the directions and thought I signed my post correctly. Please educate me on how I should sign my posts if I am doing it incorrectly. Also, now that I have read the arguments on this article more carefully, please explain how an article in Popular Mechanics and an article can be reference while Faculty of 1000 peer reviewed publications are denied. How do the "rules" apply in this instance. Sorry if I am signing posts wrong. I recently joined so I am new here. If you will tell me the proper way to sign posts, I'm all ears. Thanks! 70.196.2.118 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the Pearson report is a primary report, the main problem with inclusion of "protein (83%)" is that it's a detail buried in the Results section, and for primary report we're supposed to stick to major conclusions that don't contradict secondary sources. That's really where the relevance to our article ends - we don't include it. For those who are curious, I urge you to read the paragraph and not just a phrase, and you'll find it in the Pearson plosone paper as the first paragraph under the heading "Analysis of Fibers or Materials From Non-biopsy Skin Sites". Since this is not going to affect our article I'm not going to quote or debate it further - it's not going into our article for the reasons I've already stated. --Scray (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone that they are supposed to be welcoming and polite to new users. I can't imagine Sierraparis feels welcome. If the non-fringe editors do not want to discuss the chemical composition of fibers then why did they bring this topic up under its own heading? I am very sorry, but I cannot allow such bad chemistry to go uncorrected. The first paragraph under this heading is absolute nonsense, and this is coming from someone calling me "fringe". What is that bit about nutrition? That is sounding very "fringe" to me. There are not multiple definitions for proteins. Proteins are composed of amino acids that are linked together by peptide bonds. Proteins contain, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen. Cotton is composed of cellulose, a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates contain carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. Unlike proteins, carbohydrates do not contain nitrogen. As a WP editor, you are not supposed to insult other editors. Before you call me fringe again, please remember the old saying, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I should not be my job to correct basic biochemistry, so please carefully check our scientific arguments for accuracy before posting, especially if you continue to imply others are fringe rather than scientific.Erythema (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The section was created in response to attempts to change the main page, you can see this by looking at the edit history. The issue here is not that 83% protein is less or more factually correct, and of less concern is that an editor displayed what you perceive as "bad chemistry". The issue is that the reference is from a primary source, and therefore the overall conclusions of the source should be expressed rather than the specifics of the results section. The current state of the article effectively paraphrases this quote from the conclusions section "The fibers and materials collected from case-patients' skin were largely consistent with skin fragments or materials such as cotton and were either entrapped in purulent crust or scabs, suggesting the materials were from environmental sources (e.g., clothing) or possibly artifacts introduced at the time of specimen collection and processing." Do you have any pertinent comments relating to this issue?137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you please inform me of how you would like me to sign my post since I am new here and not familiar with the post signing procedure. I was attracted to this page when I saw the scales of justice on the Morgellons article the other day. When I read the talk page I could not help noticing the remarks about protein and I just had to comment. I did not mean to offend anyone but simply felt that basic chemistry would be useful in your post about the protein. Chemistry is not my major either so don't feel bad. Please tell me how you want me to sign my post because I must have misread the instructions. I have interest in controversial issues of Morgellons wikipedia editing and feel I may be able to make positive contributions to this page. Thanks! Sierraparis (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

I will attempt to answer sierraparis's reference question the best I can. I do not have the answer as to why Popular Mechanics is considered an appropriate secondary medical resource, but I can shed some light on the topic of F1000 research. Some editors argue that this a a pay for publication journal (and Dove Press as well) so they claim that it is not reliable. They have indicated that they believe that when an author pays a publication fee that a paper automatically passes peer-review. This perception is erroneous and it is a false accusation that is damaging to the reputations of these journals. Although these journals do charge publication costs, so do many other reputable journals. It costs a lot of money to publish medical and scientific papers. The cost has to be recovered somewhere. This can come from advertising, from publication fees, or from other sources. Many grant applications will include publication costs, recognizing that publication fees are not unusual. This charge has nothing at all to do with the peer-review process. F1000 Research is an innovative new journal. It has been granted early approval for PubMed indexing, something that normally can takes a journal several years to achieve. Dove Press articles are PubMed indexed. Achieving indexing is important to journals, because if the articles are to be read and distributed, obviously indexing helps. F1000 has transparent, open peer-review. It is a new concept, so that unlike most journals, the reviewers' identities are revealed and their comments are available to the public. Both F1000 Research and Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol have guidelines for peer-reveiwers and these do not include granting approval on the basis of money paid by the authors. There is nothing in WP:MEDRS to suggest that on-line journals charging publication fees are not reliable sources. On the contrary this type of reference is encouraged because it is available to readers. Anyone wishing to know about Dove Press reviewer guidelines can check out, www.dovepress.com/peer_review_guidelines.php and for F1000 Research, www.f1000research.com/author-guidelines . It is my understanding that F1000 Research is an innovative approach to scientific publishing initiated by the F1000, who are largely regarded by the scientific community as an elite, distinguished group of scientists and doctors who are among the best in their fields of study. Please see the wikipedia article on F1000 for more information. Given the prestigiousness of F1000, why F1000 Research is so poorly regarded by some of the editors here is a mystery to me. In fact, citations of any article by F1000 are considered prestigious to journals. Some medical journals like to show case articles published in their journals that have been given a citation.Erythema (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

On the contrary, I know that journals charge publication fees. However, F1000 Research and Dove Press are not regarded by the general scientific community as "prestigious" or even reliable (although F1000, in general, is), and I cannot imagine how the "open peer review" system could possibly work. The explanation given how it does work does not show me how it can work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The financial model of specific publications is irrelevant to this section. The talk page is devoted to improving different dimensions of the article, either keep the conversations on the appropriate topic, start a new topic, or just read what has already been discussed about the topic.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree that the financial model is irrelevant. Erythema seems to claim that editors consider the sources (F1000 research and a Dove Press open access journal) are unreliable because of the financial model. My take is that the sources are unreliable because the review model is faulty, even if nominally "peer-reviewed". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur that the financial model of these Open Access publishers is not relevant.

Regarding the Dove Medical Press review process: long time commentator on Open Access publishing, Richard Poynder, writes the following about Dove: Hill added that while Dove was originally conceived as a traditional subscription-based publisher, the company is currently in the throes of being transformed into an OA publisher. And from Hill's description it would appear that Dove operates a perfectly respectable peer-review system. Indeed, speaking to me Hill emphasised high editorial standards, and said: "I believe that there is a real need for the traditional editorial standards to be applied to the growing number of Open Access publishers." Source: here.

Many Dove Medical Press journals are included in MEDLINE, so clearly the review process of Dove is considered of a high enough standard for MEDLINE. Examples of Dove journals that are MEDLINE indexed include (out of those beginning with C): Clin Interv Aging Clin Epidemiol Clin Ophthalmol Clin Pharmacol Core Evid.

But in any case, we are required to follow the rules of Wikipedia, including WP:MEDRS, and nowhere in these rules does it even suggest or hint that Open Access publishers are not reliable sources. Thus if we are to follow Wikipedia rules, Open Access journals are to be considered reliable sources. And if we follow WP:NPOV, we are required include all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in reliable sources. If people here faithfully followed the rules of Wikipedia, we would have no dispute at all. Drgao (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, this conversation has nothing to do with the topic of this section of the talk page. Refer to previous discussions about this, start a new topic, or engage in the dispute resolution which addresses this and other issues.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons Publication cited by F1000

Further looking for answers to why the peer reviewed publication in Faculty 1000 is going unrecognized by Wiki editors. Am I understanding you corre toy that Wiki has a policy about the review process and that F1000 has not met the mark? While looking around F1000 , I found that this paper on Morgellons was held in high esteem and actually received an award. Have you seen this? http://f1000.com/prime/716597867. Do fringe topics often receive awards such as this? I have concluded, according to many of the experts I have questioned about this, that F1000 actually IS a reliable source of medical information. I am still not sure whether Faculty1000Research editor and chief realize that wiki editors consider this to be an unreliable source or "fringe" but for the article I am writing on this interesting topic, I will try to find out. Sierraparis (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

I will quote from 3 sources, and you can perhaps see at least one of the problems in this situation:

Wikipedia- sources "Use independent sources[edit]

Many medical claims lack reliable research about the efficacy and safety of proposed treatments or about the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find while unreliable sources are readily available. Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentioned in other articles."

Charles E. Holman Foundation website- Donation section "Donate To Help Fund Morgellons Research

As is the case with any research project, financial donations are critical to maintaining our momentum. All donations are tax deductible and 100% of the money goes to research or education, which leads to more research! You can be sure that the funds will be put to good use, especially considering that the majority of people helping with this project have Morgellons Disease themselves. If it is within your means, please consider a financial gift."

Article- Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study- "Conflict of Interest Statement

RBS serves without compensation on the medical advisory panel for QMedRx Inc. He has no financial ties to the company. MJM, EHR and RBS serve without compensation on the scientific advisory panel of the Charles E. Holman Foundation. DGK has no conflicts to declare."

The claims in the article are not supported by mainstream research. The authors of the article are associated with a foundation that explicitly solicits donations to support research in this field. Third-party, independent sources have not been used to support the conclusions of the article. There are documented cases of people self-treating for this condition against the wisdom of the mainstream medical literature, leading to hospitalisation in some cases. It seems unethical to include the material within this context, and in the absence of third-party reviews of the methodologies and conclusions. The latter would have been hastened had the material been published in a journal which utilised orthodox submission and peer-review procedures. The conclusions of the article deviate dramatically from the mainstream consensus, and appeared in a publication similarly outside of the spectrum of sources which usually inform medical opinion. Do you have third-party, independent sources which support the conclusions of the article you have mentioned? Unless you do I don't see any good reason to ignore wikipedia's guidelines in this circumstance.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

University of New Haven Investigates Morgellons

It appears that a team at University of New Haven are also researching Morgellons and from this poster presentation, it looks as though ths is consistentent with the publications authored by Marianne Middelveen. Click here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=693067200709363&set=a.693067057376044.1073741825.100000182692626&type=1&relevant_count=1

How does this work from UNH weigh in as of the unpublished work of Dr Wymore at OSU? Dr. Wymore's work is included in the article so perhaps this input from UNH should be included as well. Sierraparis (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

I will try to verify this tomorrow with UNH. Sierraparis (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

Don't waste your time. This is a great example of crank magnetism. "Chronic lyme disease" is yet another disease found non-existent by the medical community at large, and apparently a prominent topic of research of the only PhD on the poster. Furthermore, it's utterly unpublished. Posters count even less than publications in shoddy "journals." Sailsbystars (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it is a student showcase. As in, to show other students and staff at the university. Secondly, would this be the same Divya Burugu who was co-author of "Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease" Marianne J Middelveen1, Divya Burugu2, Akhila Poruri2, Jennie Burke3, Peter J Mayne1, Eva Sapi2, Douglas G Kahn4, Raphael B Stricker1? I can see why the student poster may well have been consistent with the work of Dr Middelveen.137.111.13.200 (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the way I spend my time is not of your concern. I am shocked by the rude responses such as this one in which you are telling me not to waste my time. I also noticed some accusation of being a sock puppet. What is that? I see that Wikipedia rules suggest welcoming of new users. I will be sure to check with the journals you are labeling as "shoddy" to get their take on your continued degradation of their credibility. Regardless of your rude comments, I feel that UNH Research should be considered as a viable portion of this controversial topic. The number of PhDs in a photo is certainly insignificant. Must you degrade others in order to make your point? For the purpose of my own journalism I will verify the research on Morgellons being conducted at UNH. Thanks to sailsbystars, am seeing more clearly the obstacles to NPOV being portrayed on Wikipedia. Sierraparis (talk)Sierraparis

A poster at a student conference would not meet our sourcing guidelines even remotely. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I may not be able to contribute to a solution then but I am learning a lot. Thanks Sierraparis (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

You're free to spend your time however you see fit. However, I'm trying to indicate that your version of neutral and the wikipedia version of neutral are not one and the same. If you want information included in a wikipedia article, it MUST comply with our reliable source policy and particularly the even stricter guidelines for sourcing medical articles. (and also, the policy on undue weight which is particularly important for this article) Your original link does not comply with those policies and thus pursuing that source further will not persuade established editors towards inclusion. Hence why I indicated it was a waste of time. You seem to want to engage in original research which is a useful practice for academics and sometimes for journalists, but strictly prohibited on wikipedia. Regards, Sailsbystars (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks. My purpose here was to learn more about the controversy surrounding this condition. I had hoped that perhaps sharing some of the information I have found might be helpful to you in reaching a compromise about improving the article by making it more neutral. I do think it lacks neutrality considering all the information have gathered so far. I am actually encountering mainstream dermatologists who are far far more neutral about this debate than wiki editors seem to be. I do hope that, for the sake of those who suffer from this horrible condition, the tides will soon turn. Whether or not this condition is purely psychiatric in origin, I think the current article here is harsh, misleading and detrimental to an already a compromised group of very ill individuals some of whom have taken their own lives due to lack of hope of ever receiving acknowledgement or help from the medical community. After interviewing some of these very distraught human beings who are unfortunate enough to be plagued with such a horrible disfiguring condition, the current article IMO is more degrading than it needs to be. Sierraparis (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

You could make an equally good (or actually even better) argument in stating that Wikipedia has a responsibility to present this condition as psychiatric in origin, because that's what the authoritative secondary sources say, so as not to mislead individuals with the problem into seeking pharmacologic care that will never work because what they need is psychiatric help, with possible drastic consequences if they don't get it. (I hasten to remind every one that Wikipedia is not to be relied on for medical advice.) While I do feel bad for the people who have this condition, Wikipedia does not value personal experience of individuals as sources, or for determining due weight. Zad68 02:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how investigation of the origin of any condition could prevent anyone from receiving appropriate care. Seems that any illness could result in psych issues and especially an illness that is chronic and life altering. Having interviewed several patients with Morgellons, I have yet to encounter one who meets all the criteria of a Delusional Diagnosis. Having spoken to a couple of psychiatrists, I understand that Delusions of Parasitosis is not listed in the DSM 4 or the DSM 5. Many of the patients I have spoken to have zero belief that they have any kind of infestation by parasites. Makes one wonder how they can be diagnosed with DOP when they had nerver even considered parasites to be the cause of their condition. IMO the wiki article is biased and some of the editors here appear to have vested interest in keeping it that way. I predict that secondary sources will soon be forthcoming and I'll be interested in what type of argument you will use then, to prevent the article from depicting NPOV. University of New Haven seems to find the potential for an infectious etiology worthy of investigation. http://www.newhaven.edu/515835/. Sierraparis (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

Thanks for giving us a link to another press release authored by the Charles E Holman Foundation, and most likely the authors of the material you want included in the page.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Due weight

It apparently bears repeating that due weight for any position is determined by secondary sources, nor primary ones. In the case of a WP:FRINGE theory such as the existence of a separate, non-psychiatric cause for "Morgellons", it is instructive to see what the highest quality sources and authorities say (and don't say) about Morgellons.

• The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says, "This comprehensive study of an unexplained apparent dermopathy demonstrated no infectious cause and no evidence of an environmental link. There was no indication that it would be helpful to perform additional testing for infectious diseases as a potential cause." (emphasis mine)

• The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the largest organization of infectious disease physicians in the US, has only one mention of Morgellons on its website. This mention is a link to an editorial in an infectious diseases journal that says, in part, "This extensive study should put a final nail into the proposition that this syndrome has an infectious etiology and that it is associated with the emergence of parasites from the skin lesions." (empahsis mine)

• The American Academy of Dermatology, the largest organization of dermatologists in the US, has no mention whatsoever of "Morgellons" on its website.

• The Robert Koch Institute also does not have Morgellons mentioned on its website.

• Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, considered "the most recognized book in all of medicine", also does not appear to have any mention at all of "Morgellons".

In summary, the highest quality medical sources and authorities either completely ignore "Morgellons" as a separate disease, or explicitly deny there is any infectious cause for it. Clearly, any suggestion that "Morgellons" as an infectious cause falls under WP:FRINGE.

Let's now review other WP:MEDRS compliant sources. In this case, MEDLINE indexed sources, labelled as "Review" by PubMed, from the past 5 years per WP:MEDDATE.

• Dermatologic infestations, from a dermatology journal directly equates "Morgellon" with delusional parasitosis, and does not even mention any possibility that there could be an infectious cause.

• Morgellons in dermatology, from a dermatology journal directly calls "Morgellons" a new type of delusional parasitosis. It acknowledges that advocates have been pushing proposals about possible infectious causes, but flatly denies any real evidence for these proposals.

• Delusional infestation, from an infectious diseases journal also calls "Morgellons" a variation of delusional parasitosis. This review also acknowledges proposals by advocates for an infectious cause, but also note that these proposals lack any basis in evidence.

• Disorder or delusion? Living with Morgellons disease, from a psychosocial nursing journal describes the possibility of "Morgellons" as having an infectious origin, though does not comment on how strong or weak the evidence for this possibility is. As a nursing journal it is also commenting on the existence of a disease, and therefore is out of its normal scope of practice, so is probably least reliable of all sources.

• Delusional disorders in dermatology: a brief review, from a dermatology journal describes "Morgellons" as being within the spectrum of delusional infestations. This review also describes alternative proposals for infectious causes of "Morgellons" as "has not been substantiated."

• An interesting article on a MEDLINE indexed sociology journal here had an interesting take on it from a sociological perspective. It also notes that "the overwhelming majority of medical experts" see "Morgellons" as a form of delusional infestation, and as an example, quotes a dermatologist as saying "‘[Morgellons] is not a mysterious disease … If you polled 10,000 dermatologists, everyone would agree with me [that Morgellons is DP]’" (or delusional parasitosis).

Clinical textbooks are also considered reliable sources under WP:MEDRS.

• The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychosomatic Medicine: Psychiatric Care of the Medically III, published by a division of the American Psychiatric Association, directly equates "Morgellons" with delusional infestation

• Pediatric Psychodermatology: A Clinical Manual of Child and Adolescent Psychocutaneous Disorders, a textbook published by Walter de Gruyter, also equates "Morgellons" with delusional infestation.

I could not find one high quality secondary source that states that "Morgellons" has an infectious etiology. Given the clear overwhelming consensus in the medical community that there is no infectious cause to "Morgellons" (and indeed, most high quality sources don't even seem to think it exists as a separate entity at all), it is incumbent on those who want to add material about a possible infectious source to cite high quality secondary sources. They have yet to do despite weeks of protestations by WP:SPAs. Yobol (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, there is a secondary source that suggests Morgellons may be linked to an infectious etiology (specifically Lyme disease), which is this paper:

The mystery of Morgellons disease: infection or delusion? (2006) MEDLINE Full paper

Secondly, the issues here are not just whether Morgellons has an infectious etiology, they are also about whether Morgellons is a real physical disease or not, and whether the fibers found under the skin in Morgellons are genuine or not. As I stated above, regarding these matters there are two opposing viewpoints among researchers:

VIEWPOINT (1) is that Morgellons is a genuine physical skin disease in which the fibers are genuine, and that may have an infectious cause.

VIEWPOINT (2) is that Morgellons is delusional parasitosis (ie, the physical symptoms are all in the mind), and thus not a genuine physical skin disease.

The secondary source I cited supports the idea that Morgellons is a genuine physical skin disease, and also supports the idea that Morgellons may have an infectious cause. (But even if Morgellons turns out not to have an infectious cause, it can still be a genuine physical skin disease).

I have also listed many primary sources above that support the idea that Morgellons is a genuine physical skin disease that may have an infectious etiology.

Thus given that there is a very significant body of research supporting the idea that Morgellons is a real physical skin disease, and supporting the idea that Morgellons might have an infectious cause, this viewpoint needs to be included in the article, if were are to provide a NPOV.

I also draw you attention to the very large $300,000 CDC study on Morgellons in which the authors concluded that ""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 [whether it represents] wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation." So the CDC have clearly stated that they have not been able to determine whether Morgellons is a genuine physical skin disease (viewpoint 1), or whether Morgellons is delusional parasitosis (viewpoint 2). Thus if the CDC have not been able to decide which, this article definitely needs to present both views. Drgao (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Savely/Leitao source is not reliable for two reasons: 1) it is too old per WP:MEDDATE (now going on 7 years old, instead of the 5 as suggested by WP:MEDRS) and 2) it is not authored by an independent source as required under WP:FRINGE (see here), but by the people who created the term (Leitao) and those who were promoting it as a real illness under the organization known as the "Morgellons Research Foundation". As you can see from the high quality secondary sources I have provided, there is no real controversy about Morgellons - it is, or is a form of, delusional infestation. Listing a bunch of low quality primary sources does not, and cannot, change our Wikipedia article. WP:MEDRS specifically says we cannot use primary sources to rebut high quality secondary sources. I have yet to see anyone provide any high quality secondary sources that meet WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE that state Morgellons is "real" or has an infectious cause. If you have them, bring them forward.

As to the CDC study, the study was not designed to determine whether it was a new condition or not, so it is not surprising that it could not conclude it. The fact that numerous secondary sources directly equate "Morgellons" with delusional infestation, or completely ignore it altogether, and you choose to ignore them and focus on cherry-picked insinuations from primary articles speaks volumes as to whether you are here to summarize the high quality secondary sources (as we should be doing) or here to push an agenda based on cherry picked data and innuendo. Yobol (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The primary and secondary sources you provided are not high quality, as they are strongly connected to the psychosomatic school of thought in psychiatry. This makes your secondary sources a little unreliable, as psychosomatics is a controversial area in which researchers do not properly adopt the scientific method of proving assertions by empirical evidence, but rather just speculatively make their assertions without solid evidence. For example, have any of these psychosomatic researchers actually proved that the skin sores in Morgellons are self inflicted by scratching as they claim? It would be easy enough to prove this, using cameras, say, that would observe Morgellons patients scratching their skin and creating the lesions themselves. But no; these psychosomatic researchers do not provide any empirical evidence for this or any of their assertions; they just make assertions based on their opinions. That is not science. So your references are not very reliable, given that they are based on speculation, and not empirical evidence.

If you can show me the empirical evidence in your sources that prove that Morgellons is a delusional infestation, then that would be acceptable; but the psychosomatic researchers in your sources have just speculated that Morgellons is a delusional infestation. That's not science.

Also, the fact that your secondary sources say that there is no controversy about Morgellons, and blankly state it a form of delusional infestation, again shows that these sources are not very reliable. The $300,000 CDC study on Morgellons remained open and undecided as to whether Morgellons was a real physical disease or a delusional infestation. Thus how are the secondary sources you cited able to go further than the CDC conclusion? What further evidence do your secondary sources have that allows them to blankly conclude a delusional infestation, when the CDC was not able to come to that conclusion? Well, I tell you: they do not have any further evidence, so your secondary sources just speculate that it is delusional infestation. Speculation is not the same as hard empirical evidence.

The Savely/Leitao paper may be 7 years old, but they were spot on with their analysis, and this paper is as correct as ever. Savely/Leitao indicated a link to Lyme disease (ie, Borrelia burgdorferi infection), and the latest research has validated this link, by finding Borrelia burgdorferi in the skin lesions of Morgellons patients. Thus with Savely/Leitao we have this very astute secondary source that has also been backed up by more recent primary sources. So this source stands, and it means the view Morgellons is a real physical disease, that may be linked to an infection, is backed up by a secondary source.

Your point about the Savely/Leitao paper not being independent because Leitao created the term "Morgellons" is wrong on two counts: firstly, Leitao did not create the term Morgellons; it has been in use for hundreds of years, and was mentioned in 1946 in this publication (full paper here), which incidentally speculated in 1946 that Morgellons might be caused by an infestation, which shows that the infestation/infection view of Morgellons goes back a long way. Secondly, even if Leitao had created the term Morgellons, it is irrelevant: many researchers coin terms in the various fields of science, but that does not make their publications not independent. Drgao (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

When you get to the point in the argument where someone calls major medical organizations like the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Academy of Dermatology or major textbooks like Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine unreliable or of poor quality, you know you aren't dealing with someone who shares an objective reality on what is reliable or high quality. When reliability is decided by the conclusions the sources come to, rather than things like their reputation in the relevant scholarly community, against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and frankly, common sense, there is no point in continuing the discussion, as the level of agenda-driven Wikilawyering and POV pushing has reached insurmountable levels. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You are misquoting what I said. I said that the secondary sources you cited are strongly influenced by psychosomatic research. Psychosomatics is primarily interested in diseases whose symptoms are "all in the mind", or produced by the mind. Therefore it is not surprising that these sources support the delusional infestation, "all in the mind" view of Morgellons. It is what you would expect from psychosomatic researchers. It is unfortunate that we do not have any secondary sources from a neutral camp. Drgao (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

F1000 Research

I have noticed some editors throwing around words like "prestigious" with regards to the new "journal" F1000 research, so it might be useful to get an independent assessment of F1000 research.

Bloggers with impressive credentials have written a number of articles about F1000, though one stood out in particular. Whole post is worth a read, but the money quote, "Responsible researchers should therefore approach every paper from F1000 Research as if it has never been through peer review, and before using it in their research they should essentially review it themselves." (emphasis mine)

Perhaps we shouldn't be using this source as reliable to challenge the medical consensus? Yobol (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back Yobol. What was actually said was that the F1000 is a prestigious group of experts in their field. The F1000 and F1000 Research are 2 different entities. The F1000 Research was proposed by the F1000 as an innovative way to publish. Their feeling was that peer-review should be transparent. There seems to be a consensus, even within this Talk group, that the F1000 is a prestigious group. If you don't believe me please read the Wikipedia entry on this subject and if you think it is not accurate you can edit it. There is debate on blogs and such about F1000 Research and this is probably because it is a novel concept, but even those blogs agree that reviewers for F1000 are reputable scientists. Furthermore papers do not get approved status until they pass peer-review. In any case, I agree with Drgao that blogs are not good sources of information. The reliability of F1000 Research peer-review should be evaluated by what the F1000 say in the reviewers' guidelines. There is nothing in the guidelines to suggest they want anything other than objective assessment.Erythema (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no desire to argue endlessly with WP:SPAs in a vain attempt to change the opinion of someone who is here to drive an agenda. I am just providing information for neutral parties without an agenda to see. They can take it or leave at their choosing. Yobol (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dove Press Reputation

One of the hallmarks of a reliable source on Wikipedia has always been articles should be based on sources with "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What is the reputation of Dove Press?

A review published in The Charleston Advisor called Dove Press a "predatory" publisher, noting "It’s clear that Dove Press, like the other publishers we review here, are mere vanity presses."

Other sources have been equally as harsh, with some pretty embarrassing details like authors adding their children as co-authors to published articles.

Perhaps we shouldn't be using this source as reliable to challenge the medical consensus? Yobol (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Understatements of the year! Very appreciated, Yobol. Zad68 02:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This, and the info on F1000 is very helpful, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So why are so many of Dove Medical Press's journals MEDLINE indexed, if Dove are not reliable? Perhaps the editors here criticizing Dove need to contact MEDLINE, and explain their views to MEDLINE. Drgao (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

MEDLINE indexes a number of journals with dubious reputations including Homeopathy and Medical Hypotheses (the former being specifically disallowed as an independent source per WP:FRINGE); as with most things, MEDLINE indexing can be a good general guideline but specifics can be tricky. Since the Dove Press journals that published the material about "Morgellons" aren't even MEDLINE indexed anyways, this would seem to be a moot point. Yobol (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What we need to do here is to look at WP policy and to apply it. There are provisions for relaxation of the No original research policy when secondary sources are lacking. Morgellons is such a situation. Original Research has been used in the main article to support one POV, so for NPOV minority POVs must be fairly represented. That cannot mean double standards of policy application. Now about references: There is nothing in WP policy saying that Dove Press is not reliable. There are no lists of accepted and rejected journals. All the policy says is that medical references should be in peer-reviewed medical journals. There is no mention of journals having to be PubMed or MEDLINE indexed, so indexing is not relevant. As Drgao mentioned before there are many Dove Press articles that have been cited in Wikipedia, so if they are not acceptable references then they should be removed from all articles. There is nothing in Dove Press reviewers' guidelines suggesting that they want anything but an honest and objective evaluation. On-line journals have been repeatedly criticized, yet WP policy favors them because they are accessible to readers. If you say that Dove Press is not reliable or reputable please show some hard evidence. What you are presenting as evidence in terms of lack of reliability is just opinion. Please substantiate your claims. WP policy seems to take a dim view of unsubstantiated statements that are harmful to individuals or organizations. There is nothing in WP policy that indicates a medical journal must first meet Yobol's (or Dbrobeck's, or Sailsbystars's etc. for that matter) approval in order to be considered reputable. There is, however, policy that states that popular press articles aren't appropriate medical references. I shouldn't need to remind anyone that plenty of these have been used in the Morgellons article. Why don't we take a break from debating and give the dispute resolution process a chance. We are repeating the same arguments.Erythema (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia's guideline regarding MEDLINE is not "include anything with a MEDLINE index", it's "do not include anything that does not have a MEDLINE index". MEDLINE indexing is part of the minimum requirements for consideration to be a reliable source, not the totality of the requirements. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong there. There is nothing in WP:MEDRS that says MEDLINE is the minimum requirements for a reliable source. Drgao (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a primary source that dramatically contradicts the consensus, the fact that it is not indexed in MEDLINE isn't even the primary issue here. That it isn't indexed in MEDLINE however means that the likelihood of researchers in the field reading it is decreased, which means it will take longer for a third-party review to take place, which is what is required for inclusion in this area. This is not a context where primary sources are lacking: two very large studies investigated this and found no infectious aetiology. The source being discussed contradicts existing findings, and possibly for methodological reasons. I just don't understand the rush here. What is wrong with waiting for a review of this from a secondary source? Any argument that says these findings are important enough to be included in the article as an alternative explanation than that given by the medical consensus should also means that the primary sources will be reviewed by a secondary source. So if you don't have faith that a review will take place then is that because no-one cares about it? If so, then why should it be included?137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, 137.111.13.200. The above is real discussion. It is reasonable and makes sense. Although I would like to see a small mention of the infectious hypothesis, so that significant minority POV is represented, what 137.111.13.200 said is a reasonable and objective argument. However, the CDC and Mayo studies are both primary sources too, and I have concerns about the quality of many of the references used in the article as it is now, especially the popular press articles. I believe that many of the references are not appropriate secondary sources and this is causing questionable neutrality. If the infectious evidence is not going to be included then the wording of some of the text needs to be toned down significantly and text supported by inappropriate references should be deleted. One example is Dr Wymore fiber studies. These are unpublished primary studies, they have not been peer-reviewed. We have no idea of what methodology he used and have no way of knowing the reliability of his data. Also although the CDC and Mayo studies were large, there should be a qualifying remark to the effect that these are primary studies. There are also many opinion pieces used as references and these are used to make unsubstantiated statements. If other significant POVs are not included at this point then the article needs some work in regards to NPOV.Erythema (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The CDC and Mayo studies have been reviewed in secondary sources. The CDC study is mentioned also because it is relevant to how the medical community/government reacted to lobbying. That sets up the inclusion of the conclusions of the CDC study for an additional reason, which makes any attempt to remove it or de-emphasise it moot. It is ironic that the study that at one time was being used to indicate legitimacy for Morgellons ended up suggesting it is not due to an infection, but irony isn't a good enough reason to direct references to a study from one of the most recognised medical bodies in the US.137.111.13.200 (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You did not address the issue of the other references cited in this article, all the popular press in particular, especially the Popular Mechanics with an interview with an anonymous dermatologist, and the interview with Randy Wymore reporting unpublished primary research. Such sources are poor quality evidence, not acceptable medical references, and are not verifiable. Do not try to tell me that WP:MEDRS policy accepts these sources as medical references, because it specifically says secondary medical references are peer-reviwed review articles published in medical journals, medical textbooks and medical guidelines, and it is repeatedly stressed in WP policy that popular press articles are low quality references. Again, if different significant minority views aren't represented and double standards are applied then the entire article must undergo a thorough evaluation for NPOV and reliability of evidence presented.Erythema (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the section about the role of the internet on Morgellons? As in, the role of the media? Where coverage of Morgellons is actually feeding back into the incidence? These aren't medical references because this section is related to sociology. Though it does indeed end up relating to the medical community: imagine if you work treating people with Morgellons, and the more people hear about the bugs under everyone's skin the more people start coming to your practice, and the more people donate to the foundation you are associated with. Gee, it is almost worth writing a press release to get your work displayed in as many prominent places as possible. Let's play more "what if", if there was an underlying physiological cause of Morgellons then it is likely the CDC and Mayo studies would have picked it up. If Morgellons is a form of delusional parasitosis then sufferers would be extremely resistant to the suggestion that they suffer from a delusion. To the point of self-medicating and poisoning themselves, or using sharp implements to "remove" the parasites, or killing themselves, rather than seeking psychiatric help. Am I drawing the issues into sharp enough relief for you?137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this is nothing to do with the role of the media or the role of the internet on Morgellons. The pro-delusional infestation editors are using the most shoddy references to support their medical claims. For example, the article currently states that the "fibers may also be peripheral nerve endings". But where does this specific piece of medical information about nerve endings come from? From a review study on MEDLINE perhaps? Or a primary medical study that investigated the nature of the fibers in Morgellons? No, in fact the source of that statement comes from unsupported speculation in a newspaper article in the Dallas Observer! Talk about shoddy, inappropriate sources! Drgao (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem confused, Erythema raised the reference to Popular Mechanics, which is in the "Role of the internet" section. Honestly, this adversarial attitude is getting tiresome, and it is doing nothing to raise the quality of the page.137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The psychosomatic psychiatric view of Morgellons is on shaky grounds scientifically

The people saying that Morgellons is psychiatric in origin tend to be psychiatrists of the psychosomatic school of thought. Psychosomatics is a controversial branch of psychology that makes the rather unscientific assumption that if no causes have been detected for a given disease, then the symptoms of that disease may be "all in the mind", or produced by the mind.

Psychosomatic researchers do not take into account that a cause may not have yet been found: psychosomatic researchers instead say "if a cause has not been detected, then we think the disease must be all in the mind, or produced by the mind". That is the assumption these psychosomatic researchers work with.

The main trouble with this psychosomatic assumption is that it is not empirically testable, and therefore it is not scientific. You cannot test whether a disease is all in the mind, or produced by the mind. Science requires that hypotheses or theories be empirically testable, otherwise they are not considered scientific theories. Therefore psychosomatics is not very scientific, and it is unsafe to accept the conclusions of psychosomatic researchers as true.

The "authoritative sources" that this article completely panders to in fact derive from a group of unscientific psychiatrists of the psychosomatic school. Most people are easily fooled by psychosomatic ideas, and fall for these psychosomatic "theories" hook, line and sinker.

Note that closely related terms for psychosomatic diseases include functional disorders, and somatoform disorders.

Psychosomatic researchers in the past have claimed that the diseases: irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), interstitial cystitis, and chronic fatigue syndrome were all psychosomatic functional disorders — that is, diseases being "all in the mind", or produced by the mind. These days, thank goodness, researchers are veering away from these unscientific psychosomatic "theories", and in fact all of these diseases have now been linked to microbial infection. Indeed, if you look at the irritable bowel syndrome Wikipedia article, you see that although it classifies IBS as a functional disorder, the article also lists all the various pathogenic microbes that have been linked to IBS.

Thus unlike this Morgellons article, the IBS article has a NPOV, because it includes the research on the pathogenic microbes linked to IBS. Drgao (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't get to say that it is 'on shaky ground'. We need reliable secondary sources. Your view, or mine, of psychiatry is a non issue. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not a forum for the general discussion of a topic, but a place to discuss additions to the article, citing specific sources. Please refrain from derailing the improvement of this article with digressions like this. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Equally, Dbrodbeck, if you do not have reliable secondary sources that say Dove Medical Press or F1000 are unreliable, please refrain from making assertions that they are. It is hypocritical to demand secondary sources for what I assert, but then not provide secondary sources for what you assert. Drgao (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In my case, the opinion that psychosomatic research is on shaky ground is not just mine, but can be found in secondary sources such as Angela Kennedy's book: Authors of our own misfortune?: The problems with psychogenic explanations for physical illnesses. Drgao (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There are sources above, you have to click them is all. (As an aside, the 'source' you have provided is a self published book, which is not useful here). Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the Wikipedia rules that say a self published book is not valid? Drgao (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB. The source is useful about itself, that is about it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Also:

• As far as I can determine, Kennedy has absolutely zero formal scientific or medical training.
• The book itself does not mention Morgellons at all.

That is really all that needs to be said about the author and the book - not useful for this article. Zad68 12:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I accept that the book is not directly useful for the article — but it might possibly be of interest to some of you guys, just to indicate that psychosomatic research is not without its controversies, vis-a-vis the unscientific axioms of psychosomatics. Psychosomatic psychiatry has been a disaster for a number of diseases, in terms of biomedical research programs being abandoned because the shrinks proclaimed the diseases were "all in the mind." If ever a disease gets categorized as psychosomatic by the shrinks, then sadly, research into any physical causes for that disease may be cut right back. Drgao (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way 198.199.134.100, if you are reading this: you misrepresented my views on Morgellons in your dispute page opening comment. You said that I "sincerely believe Morgellons is a non-delusional condition." In fact, that is incorrect; my views are much more nuanced, and if you care to read all that I wrote above on this page, you will discover what my views actually are. Not that my personal views matter for the purpose of this article. But you should not be misrepresenting my views in your dispute page comments. I suggest you amend your comments. Drgao (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

More specifically, I suggest you reread the "initial ground rule" for the mediation, especially the fourth one. I'll assume good faith that you forgot about that, instead of assuming you fully understood the rules and were trying to trick me into being removed from the mediation. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should read initial ground rule number three, which says: "Do not comment about one another. If you wish to comment or complain about another user's conduct, motivations, identity, or anything else, take it to an administrator (I'm not one, by the way)". So you already broke that rule. Drgao (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Those ground rules were written after I wrote my opening statement, which should be blatantly obvious to you. If you want to continue this off-topic childishness, don't do it here. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are opposing something that doesn't exist. The clearest definition of psychosomatics is given in the description of the journal of Psychosomatics- "Psychosomatics has been dedicated to helping its readers achieve excellence in the clinical care of patients with medical and psychiatric comorbidity". That psychiatric pathology interacts with physiological pathology is, as you yourself have represented, not new. Nor does it necessitate the absence of any underlying physiological illness. The wording on the page incorrectly uses the phrase "psychosomatic illness". This is not a medical term, and should be replaced with either "somatoform disorder" or the more general "psychiatric disorder". Why does the IBS article discuss microbes? Because they were found to be involved in IBS though medical studies. If you still have to ask why the Morgellons page doesn't represent an underlying cause of Morgellons symptoms it is because two major medical studies have not found any underlying physiological causes.137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

When researchers look for the microbes that are linked to diseases, it is not unusual to have some studies with negative results, and other studies with positive results. For example, studies examining the link between enteroviruses and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) have had varied results: this study found enteroviruses in CFS patients, but this study did not. However, although there were contradictory results, the Wikipedia article on the pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome still mentions the enterovirus link to CFS, but states that the studies have be contradictory. This is what we should say in the Morgellons article: we need to say that some studies have found a link to Borrelia bacteria, but other studies have not. That is an accurate description of the current state of affairs. Drgao (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that if we say "some studies have found this, some have found that", who are we to be saying that? We should cite reliable secondary sources who are equipped to make those judgements. That way we don't have to make judgements about whether to include studies with poor methodology, we can use the reviews of experts to do that for us. When they are lacking we perhaps can be tentative about primary sources, though in this case there are ample secondary sources indicating that there is no specific underlying infectious aetiology, with some recent studies with dubious methodology contradicting that. Seems like we should defer to experts and wait for a third-party review. Isn't that an accurate description of wikipedia's guidelines?137.111.13.200 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We have various secondary sources that both support and that refute the idea that Morgellons is a real physical disease that may be linked to microbial infection. The secondary source that supports the real physical disease linked to microbes viewpoint comes from the medicine/biology camp of researchers; the secondary sources that support the delusional infestation view of Morgellons comes from the psychosomatic camp of researchers (psychosomatics in primarily interested in diseases whose symptoms are "all in the mind", or produced by the mind). Therefore it is not surprising that the former camp supports the real physical disease linked to microbes view, and the latter camp supports the delusional infestation, "all in the mind" view of Morgellons. It is what you would expect from these camps, given their area of expertise. We don't really have any secondary sources that come from a neutral camp. So all we can do is detail the views of both camps. Drgao (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about a totally different topic here, Morgellons has been found through two large medical studies not to be related to an underlying infection, and this has been expressed through numerous secondary sources. Whatever axe you have to grind about "psychosomatics" is irrelevant.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken there: as I have explained before on this page, finding no microbes in a given disease does not conclusively prove that the disease is unassociated with an underlying infection. This is like sending a spacecraft to Mars, and concluding that there is no life on Mars just because that one spacecraft did not find any signs of life. You cannot say that. In other words, you cannot prove a negative. However you can prove a positive, and so the fact that recent studies have now found a link between Morgellons and Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria says far more than those studies that found nothing. Drgao (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

And as we've explained to you before on this page, the studies you're referring to are published in journals of laughable quality, by researchers with clear bias on the issue. As such, the information in those studies does not belong on Wikipedia. If and when studies supporting the disease hypothesis begin to be published in reputable sources, the stance of the article here can be revisited. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Those journals meet WP:MEDRS standards. I can find no rules in WP:MEDRS that would exclude those journals. Can you?

And as I point out in this section: the studies you support (the viewpoint 2 studies) are very biased: they are strongly influenced by the psychosomatic camp of researchers, who often unscientifically assume that any unexplained disease symptoms are either all in the mind, or produced by the mind. So this is a terrible bias in the way these psychosomatic researchers view diseases; their approach has more than a tinge of pseudoscience.

The $300,000 CDC study on Morgellons concluded that it was not possible to tell if Morgellons was a real physical skin disease, or a delusional condition. The CDC said there was insufficient evidence to decide. Yet these pseudoscientific psychosomatic researchers that you support did not care about the lack of evidence, because they just went ahead and speculated about the nature Morgellons, saying without evidence that it is delusional. So the $300,000 CDC study actually contradicts your secondary sources. Drgao (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"you cannot prove a negative". Oh no, I understand perfectly. There may well be a teapot somewhere out there in space. I'm not sure why $300,000 is so important here, but the conclusion of the study is "No common underlying medical condition or infectious source was identified, similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation." What about a different approach: How about I select 4 patients who have Borrelia burgdorfi antibodies, find that they shockingly have an association with Borrelia burgdorfi, then claim that since they are itching too they have Morgellons and Morgellons is thus caused by Borrelia burgdorfi? I'd be laughed at, but I'd make the case that my results should be jammed in this page. Someone would probably argue that my methodology and conclusions should be reviewed by third-parties before it was included here, but I'd probably still argue. Maybe if I had more money I'd do a better job. Maybe a constant reference to a study that was well-funded sets up a David and Goliath dynamic, making people sympathetic to my cause. Whatever, that has nothing to do with this issue, which relates to adequate and reliable sourcing!137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

TO 137.111.13.200. I suggest you read the study in question again, because you have completely misunderstood it. Contrary to what you said, that study did not select four patients who were already known to have Borrelia burgdorferi antibodies. Rather, in the study the researchers selected four Morgellons patients at random, and then found that these patients have antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. You will be laughed at if you keep making mistakes like that! Drgao (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore, instead of making facetious "teapot in space" comments in response to the information I provided above on the inherent difficulty in definitely proving that there are no infectious pathogens linked to a disease, you might be better off reading this article on identifying and confirming an infectious cause of a chronic disease. Once you have more knowledge about pathogen hunting, you might be able to have an informed discussion on the subject. Drgao (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article in question again, specifically the part where it states that the "randomly-selected" patients' histological reports had been previously detailed in "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3544355/#!po=16.6667", which in turn states that two of the patients had been used as case studies a year earlier in "http://www.omicsonline.org/2155-9554/2155-9554-3-140.php". They dropped the third patient from that particular study and didn't use him in the more recent ones, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact he had been diagnosed as having delusional parasitosis. I'll give the authors the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that "randomly-selected" was perhaps a typo, and that they really meant to type "cherry-picked".

The teapot in space wasn't a response to any information you provided, since you didn't. It was a response to the fatuous argument that because you can't prove a negative then you must entertain every alternative notion as being as likely. Your criticisms of my apparent ignorance about pathogen hunting are misplaced- it seems you want to be criticising the $300,000 CDC study, and the Mayo study, and pretty much every other respected researcher in this field who doesn't agree with your particular interpretation of what constitutes "evidence".137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually it would be interesting to find out whether patient 2 was actually Cindy Holman of the Holman foundation. Maybe SierraParis can shed some light?137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

TO 137.111.13.200. I have had another look at the study: Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease, and it seems I misread this study myself. So the mistake is in fact mine. It would appear that the authors of the study started out with four Morgellons patients that were also previously tested positive for Borrelia. In this study, they did not test for a general Borrelia infection, but rather they specifically tested the tissue extracted from the skin lesions, and found that this skin lesion tissue was infected with Borrelia.

So what this study has in fact demonstrated is that in a Morgellons patient who is also known to have Lyme disease, this patient will likely have Borrelia in the skin lesion tissue (thus suggesting that Borrelia could be the cause of the lesion). However, what the study did not prove is a general association between Morgellons and Borrelia infection. What I would like to know is if there is a such an association between Morgellons and Borrelia: that is, do all Morgellons patients have Borrelia infection? Or did these four patients in the study with Morgellons just happen to have Borrelia as well? It seems that researchers needs to go out and test a few dozen Morgellons patients and see it they all have Borrelia.

The study mentions that the CDC probably did not do a good job of selecting Morgellons patients in their cohort, as the CDC did not have confirmed clinical evidence of Morgellons disease in the patients they tested. So the CDC may not have been actually testing true Morgellons patients when they tested them for Lyme. Furthermore, they say that the CDC Lyme testing may have been clinically insensitive. Thus the fact that the CDC did not find Borrelia infection in their tests may not really prove anything.

I know this discussion is somewhat academic now that TransporterMan has determined that the studies published in F1000, Dove Press, and OMICS cannot be included in this Morgellons article, but I just wanted to fully understand this issue. Drgao (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The personal hitting below the belt is sinking a bit low, don't you think? WP policy protects the right of editors to have anonymity. Why don't you stop insinuating who's who? Now you are sinking even lower -- trying to guess the identity of patients in medical studies. That is downright unethical. As I have said before, as long as editors are not behaving in a biased manner why should you care about who they are? TransporterMan has made a decision so why not give it a rest? If this work is reproducible then it will be repeated and given time will be cited in a secondary source.Erythema (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Post-publication review: cuts both ways. If the "randomly-selected" patients in the study included the founder of the foundation that partially funded the study, then I would have thought that might have been mentioned in the conflicts of interest declaration. Perhaps you can explain why the third case-study patient was not included in the follow-up studies, if not due to the diagnosis of delusional parasitosis. These are questions about the methodological rigour of the studies discussed. Not appropriate?137.111.13.200 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Drgao- Stricker and MIddelveen have two points- they think they are better qualified to detect borrelia than the CDC, and that in "true Morgellons" the fibres are coming out of unbroken skin, that were the points they made relating to the CDC and Mayo studies. It seems then the onus is on them to work out what those fibres are. Most studies have found them to be clothing and hair. They don't seem to realise that through their targeted and limited patient-selection they are less likely to have sampled a representative group of Morgellons patients than either the CDC or Mayo studies.137.111.13.200 (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In their study Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease Stricker and MIddelveen have done precisely that: they used various analytical techniques including electron microscopy to analyze the fibers, and they found the fibers are made of human keratin and collagen, produced by a type of cell in the skin called a fibroblast cell. Keratin is of course the main structural component of hair, nails and skin. Stricker, MIddelveen, et al think the infection of the skin may have made these fibroblast cells go awry, and produce much more keratin and collagen than they would normally. It is not unusual for infections to alter body physiology and metabolism.

My guess is that the number of Morgellons patients in these studies is limited because of cost considerations (they seem to have a small budget), and perhaps because true Morgellons is very rare. Because of the Internet phenomenon of Morgellons, perhaps most people who think they have Morgellons do not. I believe the CDC study used self-selected Morgellons patients, which may not be the most accurate way of defining your study cohort. Certainly Stricker, MIddelveen, et al should try to get larger cohorts in their studies. Drgao (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Investigative Medicine

With all the discussion of determining credibility of medical journals, I have a question to ask. How does the Journal of Investigative Medicine weigh in as far as being a reliable source of medical information? Sierraparis (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Sierraparis

When they're merely reprinting the abstract of an article that actually appeared in a non-MEDLINE indexed journal, not very. You're referring to the article "Morgellons Disease: Analysis of a Population with Clinically Confirmed Microscopic Subcutaneous Fibers of Unknown Etiology", already listed among the sources in Drgao's list above, correct? 198.199.134.100 (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That was an abstract for a presentation, the abstract was not peer-reviewed by the journal and doesn't meet the standard for inclusion as a medical source. Since we are keeping it informal, here is a review of the article that this abstract eventually related to http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2010/05/13/bad-science-done-badly-its-bad/. And in that spirit, here is a finding of scientific misconduct against Rapheal Stricker in the 90's http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not93-177.html. Enjoy.137.111.13.200 (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa... I was not aware of the earlier research misconduct by Stricker.... I mean, I'm not too surprised to see shoddy research, but actively lying about results is something else entirely. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We are supposed to discuss if we should include new content and evaluate the NPOV status of this article, not the reputations of individual researchers. Furthermore, this group of researchers involved in detecting spirochetes includes a professor of medicine, psychology, from Stanford University; a professor of medicine, pathology, from UCLA; and a professor of biology from the University of New Haven. Are you going start ripping them apart too? Focus on the main issue of discussion and stop sidetracking. This is not the National Inquirer, or is it?Erythema (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Under WP:RS, and even under WP:MEDRS, there are two reputations relevant to whether a source can be included: the reputation of the journal, and the reputation of the authors. In some cases (although rarely under WP:MEDRS), a publication by an impeccable researcher in a questionable journal might be included. In this specific case, it appears that the reputation of the journal is not even relevant, as the sourced material is from the abstract. It them seems appropriate to touch on the reputation of the researchers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Claims of the Internet Role are Lacking Evidence

These claims are made citing just two scientific sources buried in a slew of unscientific hearsay from popular opinion magazines and newspapers. These sources and their opinions do not provide evidence that this syndrome is spread through the internet. It merely adds to the point of view of the editors who wish to keep this article from being presented with a NPOV. The article should have all these controversial sources removed. I propose that we do just that. Stick with ALL the scientific papers, including those a few editors keep trying to shut out of the paper. You show how biased you are by excluding them and including junk like this. If you wish to go around demeaning people who suffer from this because in your dermatology or psychiatry practice you refuse to recognize the possibility of another syphilis type infection then do so in those newspapers and opinion magazines but don't do it here.72.253.225.48 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)72.253.225.48 (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If anyone speaks french and has access behind the paywall this article seems like it would be helpful for expanding the section. It appears to be a review article on the subject. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources that agree with the mainstream medical view of this condition are not controversial, nor do they violate NPOV. The mainstream view is determined by secondary reviews of primary studies, all of which should meet Wikipedia standards. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh good then where are your secondary reviews of primary sources verifying scientifically that it is spread through the internet? Without that these media pieces are simply opinion and can be moved down to the media section.72.253.225.48 (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that piece from Misery (!) is an abstract from a conference, not a valid source. The Popular Mechanics article was quoted in a secondary source, in a paper specifically outlining the interaction between the "unscientific hearsay" found in poplar media and Morgellons (Morgellons: contested illness, diagnostic compromise and medicalisation- Fair). It is in the further reading section, I have no idea why it hasn't been used in this section.137.111.13.200 (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)