Talk:Morgellons/Archive 5

message: First,  a request: I would appreciate it if editors would not interrupt my comments to inter-thread responses.  Please, if you wish to reply to a particular section of my comment, add your comment following my signature, and use an italic-quote of an excerpt or other method to refer to the part of my writings you are addressing.
I find it confusing in general when inter-threading is used, and in particular with my comments, I write them to communicate a thought;   inter-threaded replies disrupt the flow of the reasoning I'm trying to convey.   
Thanks for your consideration. --Parsifal Hello 02:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preserving the original meaning of quoted sources  

message: Given there seems to be a movement to restructure the article as more of a description of a disease, perhaps there should be a section on Morgellons treatments, since we have one on symptoms and diagnosis.
There seems to be three primary forms of treatment offered.  Most psychiatris and dermatologists treat Morgellons by treating any underly dermatological condition as the condition dictates, and treating other symptoms with antipsychotic medications. See, Psychiatric Arsenal Has Weapons Against Morgellons Disease , OCD Patients May Seek Help From Dermatologists  and Pimozide at Least as Safe and Perhaps More Effective Than Olanzapine for Treatment of Morgellons Disease,. Other doctors have suggested Cognitive Behavior Therapy, see Cure found for Morgellons disease? .
Doctors and nurses in the MRF treat Morgellons very similarly to the controversial late-stage infectious Lyme disease ( "Most Morgellons patients, if found positive for Chlamydophila pneumonia, a Babesia species or a Borrelia species pathogenic to humans...and given appropriate antibiotics long enough, resolve most symptoms.") , with long term intravenous antibiotics. .  One of the authors of the two original papers on Morgellons has said the rife machine helps in 30% of cases. 
There is also a significant amount of self-treatment, with many web retailers offering various treatments. , and various of these are mentioned on the NMO's (ex-MRF board members) site 
Herd of Swine 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I'll work on it in my sandbox. Thatcher131 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that a treatment section could be potentially harmful since no one knows what causes this disease.  It may encourage sufferers to engage in self medication.  I doubt that wiki wants to encourage that.  Pez1103 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that all disease articles have treatment sections. Thatcher131 17:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The article won't encourage a specific treatment, but rather simply report what treatments are used. See: Wikipedia makes no claim of validity and does not give medial advice. Sancho 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes but most wikipedia articles do have a list of noteable treatments used for most diseases or even controversial diagnoses.  If it lists an anti-psychotic, therapy, and the methods used by the MRF, none of these would encourage people to self-treat as people with morguellons don't tend to want an anti-psychotic or therapy, and the machines etc the MRF uses are quite large and specialised, and equipment most people wouldn't easily be able to obtain.  We could include any other treatments if they're as noteable as these. You could check out the article on Fibromyalgia to see how this could be managed.  It lists the possible medical treatments quite fully (we wouldn't need as much as this as there are less different treatment options for morguellons).  Then it offers one sentence about supplements such as folic acid.  Then it has a section which includes a therapy which has no evidence that it works for Fibro, so the article says so.  And the discussion of treatments there doesn't seem too long.  We already say in this article I think, that they're usually offered antipsychotics (but will probably refuse them.) Of course the treatment of the minor skin ailments would be hard to outline as they may be different in individual cases, but we can see what sources we can find associated with Morguellons, that probably include treating the skin complaints with hydrocortisone or whatever.Merkinsmum 10:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment section 

message: The Videos link should be moved into the regular external link section.  The "In the news" links should be deleted.  Wikipedia is not a news aggregator such as Google News; many significant news stories are already in the citation list. Thatcher131 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, have you clicked on the "videos" link? I believe you'll find it entirely inappropriate for inclusion. Basically the only reason it's there is that the owner of the site kept inserting numerous links and folks got tired of re-deleting them all - that one escaped. Dyanega 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: While I agree that that list of external links should be cut, I think it is better to wait for protection to be lifted, since the page was just protected due to edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, however I started editing the article after the protection and editors from both sides of the dispute have been working reasonably well both on this talk page and on User talk:thatcher131/Sandbox2 where we are discussion revisions to the article.  There seems to be no objections to cleaning up the links section.  If after a second review you still decline, then we can wait (sigh). Thatcher131 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thatcher is a very experienced administrator who can be trusted in this matter. -- Fyslee/talk 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove "In the news" and "videos" 

message: In recent edits, a reference was lost.   After the sentence "Delusional parasitosis is one of the most common diagnoses used for Morgellons patients, and it is the primary source of controversy." at the begining of the Delusional parasitosis section replace the reference mark with the text below.  
Delusions of Parasitosis versus Morgellons Disease: Are They One and the Same? Ginger Savely, RN, FNP-C and Mary Leitao, Director of the Morgellons Foundation, ADVANCE for Nurse Practitioners,Vol. 13, Issue 5, Page 16 (5/1/2005)
This is a technical change only. Thanks. Thatcher131 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix reference 

message: We have been working on a sandbox version at User:Thatcher131/Sandbox2.  Per the discussion at User talk:Thatcher131/Sandbox2 please change the opening sentence to read
Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given to a condition characterized by a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms. Sufferers report crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; finding fibers on or under the skin; and persistent skin lesions (e.g. rashes or sores). 
Also, please change the last two sentences of the "History" section to read
The first scientific article to discuss Morgellons was co-authored by Leitao and R. B. Stricker, a member of the MRF's Medical Advisory Board and was published in July, 2006.Savely VR, Leitao MM, and Stricker, RB. The mystery of Morgellons disease: infection or delusion? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2006;7(1):1-5 .
The MRF has since received reports of Morgellons from all 50 US states and 15 nations, including Canada, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands, and states that they have been contacted by over 10,000 families.
The reference change fixes an omission of two authors names on the study; the change in description of the MRF's registry is consensus at the sandbox talk page. Thanks. Thatcher131 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've disabled the editprotected request. When the new version is ready, feel free to re-enable it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit requests 

message: I suggest that the material attributed to the Tulsa Police Department should be removed, because it is not available from a peer-reviewed scientific source. I don't challenge the good faith of the writer in Psychology Today who reported on that work, but I doubt that she reviewed the micrographs or the boiling-point data herself.  This is very minute, technical stuff that could easily be misinterpreted by someone who didn't do it frequently, such as a practitioner in the field.  By having peer reviewers, you get other people who are used to micrographs and boiling points to look at your fiber data, and see if it was legit. Most worrisome, the fiber material collected by Wymore arrived in Ziploc bags from patients all over the country, not from doctors.  When the Tulsa P.D. said they didn't recognize the fibers, did that conclusion apply to ALL the material sent in?
In place of the material that I think should be removed, there could be one or two sentences commenting on some of the steps that Wymore took to follow up, and some of the other groups who helped him in his investigation, and in that case a brief mention of Tulsa P.D. would be appropriate.
The follow-up on actual patients by Rhonda Casey, an MRF-affiliated osteopathic physician,  is more believable than what Wymore did, since she collected fibers from patients and checked their symptoms at the same time. Because of her connection with MRF, it would be good to have peer reviewers to be sure her work is neutral and unbiased. There is still no reviewed publication of this work. EdJohnston 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The finding of the Tulsa police were in the psychology today article and the primetime live special.  You cannot impose a different requirement (needs to be peer reviewed) on this information that is inconsistent with the rest of the article.  Casey has no affilation with the MRF, never did.  Pez1103 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the Casey material could really be described as a "follow-up", but it's interesting that she seems to be describing the patients as ALL having something like "foot drop" or "sagging mouth", which is not really described anywhere else. That seems a little out of keeping with other observations, and not even mentioned by any the CDC sources - it's almost as if she describing something different. Should it be kept to show the varied observations and theories, or removed as unverifiable? Herd of Swine 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Casey has a connection to the MRF, in that she worked directly with their then Director of Research, Randy Wymore, and is the co-signer in the MRF's letter to physicians . Herd of Swine 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that the Tulsa information should be included in the article. It has been important in the reporting on this matter, whether it was scientifically done or not, and thus would merit inclusion on the basis of being cited by reliable sources, in this case the national media. Exactly where and how to include it, however, is another matter. John Carter 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhonda Casey's online CV doesn't list any scientific publications that have appeared under her own name. This is curious; I assume she has some. I could not find any of her work in Pubmed, typing "Casey R"[Author], though I found a lot of other people named R. Casey.  She is an osteopathic physician rather than a medical doctor, but you would assume she would still show up somewhere in the literature. At least, she must have written internal reports since she participates in research projects. If she has no peer-reviewed publications, or very few, then I vote to omit the Casey material from our article, especially since our article doesn't say she had the help of a medical doctor in her informal study of the Morgellons patients.  EdJohnston 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I believe that the PT article says that Casey is a pediatrician.  Are you implying that Casey should be excluded because she works with someone who used to be an unpaid volunteer on the MRF scientific advisory board?  Regarding Casey's observations of neuro symptoms, this is consistent with the MRF defintion.  It is also consistent with the CDC's RFQ which says that they will be testing subjects for neuro symptoms.  Imposing the requirement that Tulsa police or Casey's observations must be peer reviewed to be included is inconsistent with the rest of the article and wiki rules as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pez1103 (talk • contribs). 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Casey is listed as the head of a pediatrics department, but she is an osteopath. (Read her CV). That is not a disqualifier but it does change her credentials somewhat. Her (indirect) connection to MRF is a large enough issue to be disclosed as a conflict of interest when submitting a paper to a medical journal.  However, curiously, she does not seem to have any such papers. Wikipedia does have a provision in our policy that we sometimes accept less-formal writings by recognized experts, i.e. we can use their personal web sites as a source for certain information even though not formally published. I don't see that Casey has any recognition by her scientific peers, at least as expressed in reviewed articles, for her ability to diagnose neurological diseases.  Herd of Swine has already noted above that her observations of 'foot drop' and 'sagging mouth' don't accord with the other reports of Morgellons. We seem to be just passing along anecdotes at this point, since there are no scientific papers to refer to. EdJohnston 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please stop making false claims about Rhonda Casey's lack of involvement: Several osteopathic physicians were prominently featured in an ABC News Primetime episode, which aired on 8/9/06, as part of its Medical Mysteries series regarding the research of Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences on Morgellons Disease. ... The OSU-CHS research team includes: Rhonda Casey, DO, assistant professor of pediatrics; Stephen Eddy, DO, associate professor of family medicine; and Randy Wymore, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology.. Do you dispute this? Casey works in the newly-inaugurated "Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences' Center for the Investigation of Morgellons Disease" under Wymore, who is its director. Do you dispute this? The Center receives money from the MRF. Do you dispute this? Casey, therefore, is receiving money from the MRF. Do you dispute this? Dyanega 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you stop attacking me personally and instead focus on the article?  The MRF gave start up funding to OSU before August 2006. There is no proof that they gave money to OSU since then.  The Center is very new.  You would have to show that the MRF gave money to the Center.  I know that you have no proof of that.  Casey also observed fibers protruding from beneath the surface of the skin -- what kind of degree do you need for that? 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am focused on the article. You are making and suggesting (or denying) changes to the article based on things which are demonstrably untrue. I am attacking the things you are saying, not YOU, and I am entitled to do so. There is proof - cited directly above - that Casey works with, and for, Wymore. She publishes reports for the MRF with him, as a matter of public record. There is proof that Wymore has been receiving money from the MRF and - evidently - is now generating his own funding. Even if you discount the money trail from the MRF to Casey, because you claim the Center is too new to have directly received any of the money sent from the MRF to OSU (which is a pretty minor technicality, since the money went to Wymore, who is the Center's director), she is still getting money from doing work on Morgellons, and is thus NOT an unbiased source. I would also like to point out the POV double-standard in your claiming that one does not need a degree to observe fibers, when you vigorously challenge the word of a prominent dermatologist who says he has done biopsies on Morgellons patients and NOT observed fibers. Dyanega 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, looking back at the article history, you did not challenge Dr. Craft's statements directly - you simply juxtaposed them with Casey's, specifically worded as if Casey's findings REFUTED his. That was an earlier article version, and this juxtaposition has been removed. What you challenged directly was the opinion of the researchers at UC Davis, and their qualifications for making statements about fibers based on examination using a microscope (quoting you from above on this talk page): "I spoke to the director at the Bohart Museum today. He said that their study consisted of looking at fibers under a microscope." - that is no different from what Casey did, and as you said yourself, doesn't require a degree. You have also just contradicted yourself again; above, you wrote: "Casey has no affilation with the MRF, never did." and NOW you say "I don't know if any portion of this went to Casey". If you DON'T KNOW, then why are you here, arguing about the edits? As for what I'm suggesting, it's quite simple: editors are supposed to make note of sources that may not be reliable, especially when dealing with fringe science. People whose research funding - whether it's 300 or 30,000 dollars - is based on the premise that Morgellons is an "emerging infectious disease" are not what most people would consider objective, reliable sources as to whether or not Morgellons is an emerging infectious disease! ESPECIALLY when their "research" is not peer-reviewed. Making such things clear is part of what WP editors are responsible for, as part of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc. As for Dr. Uppal, some of the quotes attributed to that individual are certainly interesting: IT IS NOW SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THAT THE MORGELLONS DISEASE IS A MIXTURE OR COMBINATION OF MANY DIFFERENT PARASITES IN THE FAMILY OF CLM (Cutaneous Larval Migrans) PARASITES.  This new information, along with confirmation from about 15 Infectious Disease Doctors from the Southern United States concludes that the Morgellons Disease (improperly named) is in fact, CLM.  The CLM main worm infection is Strongyloides (s.ratti), a microscopic THREADWORM maggot- like worm parasite that lives in and on infected animals (mostly rodents) and now humans with poor immune systems or people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  This skin parasite multiplies by the millions daily.  This infection is both internal and external to not only the skin, but also the muscle tissue and body organs.  This CLM Skin Parasites infection has also been linked to Lyme Disease and all other IMMUNOSUPPRESSED health disorders.  It's origin has been linked to So. America, Africa, Asia and other third world countries.  These STRONGYLOIDES parasites in the infection are joined with WHIPWORMS, HOOKWORMS, AND other PINWORMS, states Dr. Uppal of TAMPA, FL. I assume that you are requesting that this information be added to the article? The problem is that this is a for-profit enterprise that Dr. Uppal appears to be involved in, but maybe we could add the parasitic worm theory to the list if we can find a citation for Dr. Uppal's opinions (or the "15 Infectious Disease Doctors") outside of this commercial site. Dyanega 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More personal attacks?  As has been stated before by other editors -- why so much hostility directed at people who don't believe that Morgellons is DOP?  I still don't think that Casey is affiliated with the MRF - she was never on any board.  The MRF gave money to OSU research.  My understanding is that the money went to Wymore's lab to cover the cost of the labwork.  I think that we are just arguing semantics.  Someone already mentioned her affiliation in the article so why do you keep bringing this up?   I didn't juxtipose Noah with Casey -- Ward did before I started editing.  I did challenge the significance of UC Davis' comments, they dismissed the fibers as textile based on a visual examination.  When I spoke to them, UC Davis said that they were very interested in Tulsa's findings that Morgellons fibers are not textile at all, and they said that they would follow up.  You cannot compare an entomologist comparing fibers in a bag with a doctor who is seeing the fibers coming out from beneath the skin surface or who find them underneath the skin surface.  The fact that the fibers are underneath the skin is pretty darn meaningful. Casey's findings are relevant because of where she found the fibers.  She didn't try to determine the composition of the fibers.  She sent them to the Tulsa police who determined that they were not textile.  Pez1103 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have I ever said that I think Morgellons is DOP? That is NOT my opinion. Herd does not believe that Morgellons is DOP, either, and you have directed hostility towards him. You have also - once AGAIN - made a statement that is contradicted: "She sent them to the Tulsa police who determined that they were not textile." According to the reports, it was Wymore who sent samples to the Tulsa Police. There is nothing anywhere to indicate that the Tulsa Police ever examined samples from Casey - or are you claiming that the samples Wymore sent to the Police were ones Casey gave him? Dyanega 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to remove the Tulsa Police Department data: not peer-reviewed 

message: Someone put a tag that this article is about a current event.  It's really not, so I'm removing it.  It's not a news story that was on the news this evening or anything.  If this is in response to the CDC asking for quotations, that just means they're deciding who is to carry out this not yet started study.  This may be of pressing interest to those monitoring the CDC actions on morgellons, but it's not a crucial, current event to readers.  Also any new information, such as from the planned study, won't be released for some months, maybe years, who knows.  It's not going to be updated with that info any minute.Merkinsmum 02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now fully protected (see the section below), so I don't think you can remove it at the moment. But even so, I added the tag because some of the edit warring was specific to the CDC RFQ, which was less than a week old. That is a current event. See the template talk page for more discussion as to what a "current event" is. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: current event tag lol

message: I've upgraded the protection on this article to full protection; it'll run the same span of time.  Please open an article content WP:RFC or enter mediation to resolve the differences.  Although the editors here are unlikely to win each other to their respective points of view, you may achieve a good encyclopedic treatment of the disease.  A few points to bear in mind:
*WP:NOT#Not a soapbox - this article is not a venue for advocacy either for or against the idea that Morgellons is a disease.
*WP:NOT#Not a battlefield - editors should be able to collaborate even when they disagree.
*WP:NPOV - Wikipedia does not attempt to give a definitive statement on the legitimacy of Morgellons.
*WP:NPOV#Undue weight - Wikipedia's function is to present information according to the proportionate weight each viewpoint carries among notable experts.  That means more space goes to whatever opinion predominates among the experts.
*WP:V - controversial statements should be supported with line citations and should remain as close as possible to the content and spirit of the sources.
*WP:OWN - no individual or clique controls the article.
Best wishes sorting things out. DurovaCharge! 02:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has protected the page.  Wonder who asked for that?:)Merkinsmum 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  Probably Pez1103, considering m:The wrong version.  LOL.  In any case, it was the same Admin who semiprotected it, so it may not have been requested at all.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean m:The Wrong Version? (not going to delete anything, as I'm not sure). Herd of Swine 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Close enough.  I thought there was a shortcut to it. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't receive any specific request for page protection.  But given the amount of activity on both this article and the talk page, it seemed best to give everyone a few days to come together. DurovaCharge! 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: The start of the lead devolved today from:
:Morgellons (also called Morgellons syndrome) is a name given by biologist Mary Leitao to a mysterious condition characterized by non-healing skin lesions and fibers found in and on the skin, as well as several other physical and neurological symptoms similar to known medical conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome. There is controversy regarding the nature of this condition. The medical literature largely regards Morgellons as being a manifestation of delusional parasitosis. 
To
:Morgellons (also called Morgellons syndrome) is a name given by biologist Mary Leitao to a mysterious condition characterized by a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). In addition to skin manifestations, some sufferers also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision.  Unexplained Dermopathy There is controversy regarding the nature of this condition. Dermatologists largely regard Morgellons as being a manifestation of delusional parasitosis
The long list of symptoms serves to take focus away from the fibers, which are by far and away the most discussed aspect of the disease .  I can see removing the reference to chronic fatigue syndrome (which only has about 90% of the secondary symptoms of Morgellons), but surely "other physical and neurological symptoms" would suffice?  A long list of symptoms clutters up the lead, and is included later in much more detail.
Then on the change from "The medical literature largely regards ..." to "Dermatologists largely regard".  This was discussed before.  But is based on all the available medical literature (that was not written by board members of the MRF) relating Morgellons to either a combination of existing illness, or delusional parasitosis.  This includes dermatology journals, the American Journal of Psychiatry, and the 2007 Atlas of Parasitology.  There are also copious quotes in the media about "most doctors" regarding Morgellons as being, or incorporating, delusion. See .  Hence, I suggest the reference to dermatologists be replace by a more general reference either to medical literature, or doctors in general. Herd of Swine 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point but I think the mention of dermatologists makes it more clear and specific. Morgellons is said to be a skin problem, so the reaction of dermatologists would be important to know. Also I wish something could be done about the word 'mysterious' in the opening sentence, because the question is 'mysterious to whom?'  There may not actually be a specific disease process (not an actual parasite, bacterium etc.) in common to the people who believe they have Morgellons. So the question is, is there a neutral way of referring to an 'alleged disease' that hasn't yet been recognized?  I hope this isn't revisiting an issue you have discussed many times before.  EdJohnston 03:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An aside regarding the term "mysterious": I see your point, but then again...  the term is used by many of the references.  Using my browser search on the article page, I count 10 uses of the word "mysterious", not including the initial lead, and if I add "mystery" as well, the total is 15, not including the lead.  Those are all in the referenced quotes or the titles of the references - not in the Wiki article text itself.  The condition may turn out to be psychological, or it may turn out to have an organic cause,... but either way, it does appear to be "mysterious" at least for now until science figures it out. Considering that term is used by so many sources, it seems appropriate to include it in the description in the intro (even though it sounds a bit strange).   --Parsifal Hello 05:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Multiple chemical sensitivity is probably the closest subject on Wikipedia to Morgellons.  It is subject to the same problems, advocates editing to advocate a position backed by no evidence, and rejected by the medical establishment.  The article is not too bad though, and the lead works reasonably well.  Note the usual long list of symptoms, the majority of which are shared with Morgellons (and CFS). Herd of Swine 04:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another subject with similar problems is Aspartame controversy. It too is an alleged condition fueled by the efforts of one single woman who is a super activist. (She worked in a doctor's office at one time, which seems to have made her a medical expert - in her own mind.) She has thus gotten thousands of people to believe in her delusional theories (don't ever get on her mailing list or try to discuss with her, you'll regret it!). Such ideas are contagious within a certain subset of the population who are already susceptible to conspiracy theories. Their activism can then place such a burden on the health care system and on politicians that politically motivated actions akin to the current CDC investigation are necessitated. Never underestimate the power of one deluded activist. -- Fyslee/talk 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: These two articles do give some ideas for revising the lead. Multiple chemical sensitivity avoids the word 'mysterious' completely but uses the passive voice, saying '..is described as..' Aspartame controversy is the most neutral of all, saying "Aspartame has been the subject of a vigorous public controversy..." which I think is a very good style. At least this way of saying it doesn't go forward and define a syndrome, which is basically just a list of symptoms that someone made, regardless of any actual disease process that caused them. It's cheering that aspartame is so far just the 'subject of a controversy' and not even a syndrome. EdJohnston 05:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point Ed, but then again, those articles don't even have one reference using that word (I checked).  Yet this article has 15 references that call it either "mysterious" or a "mystery." Do you see something inherently non-neutral about the word "mysterious"?    I'm not taking a position on whether it's a physical disease or psychological,... but it does appear to be a mystery that 10,000 people perceive fibers in their skin and science has not been able yet to confirm or disprove it.   I don't know about those other articles, but in this one, the mysteriousness of the condition is one of the core factors of the article.  What I mean by that is: we're not deciding if it's a disease or a delusion, we're writing about what others have said about it, and lots of sources - including topmost respected source  American Journal of Psychiatry used that word to describe the condition.  I don't mean to make a big deal of this, but likewise, I don't see why it's a problem to include that word.  --Parsifal Hello 06:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe (and I could be wrong since I can no longer access this article) that this article in the American Journal of Psychiatry relies on two letters to the editor of a dermatology journal as a basis for this assertion.  These letters were already determined not to be appropriate for inclusion in the Morgellons article. Pez1103 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Historically, with almost every single new disease, doctors have dismissed the idea that there was a new disease -- this happened with lyme, lupus, MS, AIDS, etc.  Doctors diagnose known diseases. I think trying to dismiss Morgellons based on this is shortsighted.   Pez1103 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My sincere apologies. I remembered incorrectly what the article had said. It did mention "dermatology literature", not "medical literature". In addition, though, I am not trying to dismiss Morgellons. I was just trying to report that people have said that medical literature (now, dermatology literature) largely regards Morgellons as being a manifestation of delusional parasitosis. Saying what other reliable sources have said about the subject is exactly what Wikipedia should do (in a balanced way, of course). This doesn't dismiss the condition. It leaves it up to people to decide what they want to think about Morgellons. Sancho 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead section 

message: I know Fyslee will agree with you, Herd.  I'd like to suggest leaving it out for now and returning when the rest of the article is more settled and it can be unprotected without a new flare-up.  Nothing that happens here or in my sandbox is permanently binding; my goal is to improve the style and clarity of the article (since I write this way all the time) and act as a buffer and moderator between the extremes.  I can see some potential value to expanding Mary's story as long as it is done carefully. Thatcher131 05:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that Thatcher's statement. Whether or not the material on Mary's story should end up in an ideal version of this article, developing this material now would only polarize the discussion. Sancho 05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the interest of moving on and out of respect for Thatcher's good intentions, I'll go along with that. -- Fyslee/talk 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section break for convenience

message: Hi I was wondering, when is the page going to be editable normally again?Merkinsmum 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the protection expired this morning.  Everyone please play nice, now. Thatcher131 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: page protection for ever?:)

message: I have started the treatment section along the format I have been thinking about.  Every fact tag I added I believe can be replaced by a citation or news story that I have copied and printed out, but I don't have time to do it at this instant.  I will get to it soon.  Some of these will be known to you so add them if you want. Thatcher131 23:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't appear that any of Ward's comments above were addressed.  Even Dr. Stone, the president of the Derm assoc. said that anti psychotics don't always work.  Where are the controlled studies which show that they are effective treatment for Morgellons?  Pez1103 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any, of course, because the majority of doctors believe that Morgellons is another name for DP.  There are controlled studies on antipsychotics for DP, which I will be happy to cite.  As I have written it, it makes clear that current medical consensus is to treat for DP. Caveats such as side effects, or that it doesn't always work, may of course be added. Thatcher131 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   The article still does not address the fact that anti psychotics are not always an effective treatment for Morgellons, as Dr. Stone stated.  It also does not include the article that Ward cites above, "Nasty disease -- or is it delusion?", describes a fairly good case history of one patient. "Almost every doctor he saw diagnosed him with delusional parasitosis....Miller agreed to take anti-psychotic medication for a few months, but it didn't help,...To prove that I wasn't crazy, I had to go into a psychological program. A psychiatrist and several therapists all agreed that I wasn't crazy, that I did have a physical disease,...he's been taking the antibiotics and anti-parasitic and anti-fungal drugs, and he said his health has improved."  Pez1103 00:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather not describe individual case stories in the article.  I could for example cite the poor guy who died (I have his article but not with me) who believed he had Morgellons and was giving himself all kinds of dangerous self-treatments but also was a heroin user (drug abusers frequently suffer from formication).  It seems reasonable to say that antipsychotics do not work for all patients, and to say that some patients report improvement on antibiotics and antifungals. Thatcher131 00:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Antipsychotics don't always work for schizophrenia either, this does not imply anything other than the drugs don't always work.  A broad based approach is often used for psychosis. Herd of Swine 00:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there is the letter about one doctor preferring pimozide because of it;s antipruritic effect, and there is a cite that says Olanzapine is better than pimozide because it has fewer caridac side effects and does not require as much routine monitoring, so I thought that would make an interesting counterpoint.  I'll flesh it out. Thatcher131 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment section 

message: Corrected that more than one person wrote this article and the article asserted things not Stricker for better NPOV. Added dates to establish time line. Took out however which may inject some expectation while it is not needed. Added that Dr harvey has reported these findings. I will correct the references when I have time. On the topic of references. a lot of references are available to link to at legitimate medical information servers. Links to PubMed only give abstracts. Is there any reason not to link to the full text if it is available from a legitimate source?Ward20 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's really a legitimate source and not a copyright violation, then leave the cite and the PMID as they are but add a link to the full text.  (You need to keep the full cite in case the text link someday goes dead.) Thatcher131 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ward20 was referring to this , which is actually the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology's web site, which is certainly the preferred link here.  There are a few full-text articles on there , , and this note about the Harvey letter:. Herd of Swine 04:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatcher131 and Herd of Swine, thanks for the information and clarifications, we may not agree on things, but we are collaborating. I appreciate that.Ward20 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacterial hypothesis