Talk:Morgellons/Archive 2

message: A formal request for scientific peer review of this article is initiated.  Anyone deleting it will be referred to the owners of this website.RamyB777 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The owners of this website"? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially interesting in that I am a scientist, and happen to be an expert in this area, and yet RamyB777 seems decidedly unhappy with my editing, and my objectivity. I might submit, in all sincerity, that someone who suffers from this condition is faced with a profound conflict of interest (since it is their own health that is in question), and for them to call for a review is a manifestation of this conflict. When the available scientific evidence is that a condition is based on denial, then - by definition - no one who suffers from it is going to agree with the scientific evidence, despite the desire for justification. I'm perfectly happy to have other scientists, or medical researchers, review the content of this page; I have actually encouraged such participation in the past, and continue to do so. Wikipedia is not, however, intended to serve as a forum for Morgellons sufferers. This page's external links section is already heavily biased towards the pro-Morgellons side of the dispute, and there is thus ample opportunity for interested readers to experience what sufferers are saying about their condition. Dyanega 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with Dyanega. After having researched the matter for a half hour or so, purely objectively, I see that as a wikipedia page this is inherantly going to be disputed. Its a condition whereby denial is effectively the primary symptom, the other symptoms are apparently more a biproduct of the denial. Anyone editing this article who suffers from morgellons is therefore going to be in a conflict of interest, as their own denial will affect what they percieve to be the causes of the illness. I'm not sure what the best way forward for this article is going to be, but it needs some thought, because morgellons sufferes are effectively going to need to be very careful and objective in what they write to avoid bias. Perhaps a section on matter from the perspective of morgellons suffers may be the most appropriate place for them to voice their views. The rest of the article may be better maintained by more objective scientists. After all, if you were gay for example would it be appropriate for you to be writting/ heavily editing an article on the treatment of homosexuals in iran/saudi arabia... unless you were extremely objective about it no it wouldn't be appropriate. Another aspect of this is that wikipedia is not a publisher of primary research. Therefore, if you are writting based on your own experiences, this is a form of primary research. In the case of the above analogy this would be like a persecuted iranian homosexual writting about his experiences in that article... not appropriate is it. Although its a fairly broad analogy I think it conveys the point. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Scientific Peer Review 

message: Im one of these people who suffer from this desease. After more than 3 years im happy to see that something is happening. BakuninXL 10:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for this article! 

message: Let's review this now - we have an anonymous editor who keeps chaging IP numbers, and is deleting and reverting quotes from medical professionals published in medical journals, and replacing them with POV statements. What is there about this that seems like a sincere attempt at collaboration? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support the editing of the introduction to read as if Morgellons is a recognized medical condition. I'm very sorry to say that WP is based upon the principle of verifiability, and use of known scholarly sources. At this point, none of the scholarly sources are supporting the recognition of Morgellons, and they do in fact seem to be universally denying its existence, in no uncertain terms. This MUST be made clear to the readers of this article. NPOV does not now and never has dictated that both sides of an argument are given equal weight - UNLESS they have equal supporting evidence; the present example is not such a case. Persistent attempts to hijack this article to a pro-Morgellons stance are not appreciated. When there are peer-reviewed studies published by researchers who are not affiliated with the MRF, then feel free to add that information. Dyanega 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The side that supports Morgellons is given their citations, and their viewpoint is represented here, especially via the numerous external links to their websites. No independent medical organization HAS formally recognized it as a disease yet, especially not the CDC, which has yet to issue a statement. I have contacted them, and been informed that they are reviewing the inclusion of Morgellons in their database, now that its presence there has been brought to their attention. And, for those of you keeping track, the list of IP numbers the same anonymous editor in Germany is editing from now includes 80.140.107.85, 80.140.110.89, 80.140.109.26, 80.140.116.200, 80.140.105.142, 80.140.82.184, 80.140.101.111, and originally at 134.171.28.83 - that the edits are all nearly identical is plain to see. They do not respond to requests for clarification or justification of their edits (except see what they posted to my user page here), and since the IP address changes with approximately every other edit, it clearly serves little purpose to place comments on their talk pages. I'll keep updating here as the list of IP numbers grows, as it appears this editor will not give up the edit war. Dyanega 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to familiarize yourself with WP:NOT. Websites such as www.morgellons-research.org or rense.com that advertise products and services are generally NOT welcome in Wikipedia. There are many WP users who, upon seeing links to such websites, will remove the links, and with the full support and justification of WP policy and administrators. Dyanega 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: I have edited the present introduction to make it more objective.  Dyanega has been fiercely protective of the article's flagrant bias, so I am posting the first draft here, for comment:
:Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a multiple-symptom syndrome, characterized by skin lesions containing fibers and granules, “crawling, stinging and biting sensations”, pain, and mental and emotional symptoms.
:Dissatisfied with doctors' diagnosis of her two-year-old son's skin rash, Mary Leitao, of McMurray, Pennsylvania, formed the Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF) in 2002. She is currently its Executive Director.
:Leitao tentatively named it after a condition English author Sir Thomas Browne described in his 1690 monograph, A Letter to a Friend: "that endemial distemper of children in Languedoc, called the morgellons, wherein they critically break out with harsh hairs on their backs."  The name is pronounced “More—GELL—uns”, with a hard “g”.  
:The MRF says Morgellons has been reported in every American state, and 15 other countries. Most of the U.S. cases are in California, Texas and Florida.  The cause is unknown, and no diagnostic criteria have been established.
:The National Institutes of Health’s Office of Rare Diseases has a website reference page for Morgellons Disease.  It includes links to the MRF, and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The CDC announced it would launch an investigation in California in August, 2006, but postponed it.  The investigation may begin in 2007.
:A search for Morgellons at the CDC returned no results.  The NIH link to the CDC is to its Division of Parasitic Diseases page on Delusional Parasitosis.  The page provides no information on that condition or Morgellons, but links to the Bohart Museum of Entomology, at the University of California, Davis.
:Some dermatologists, and entomologists at the University of California, believe patients who think they have Morgellons are mentally ill.  The dermatologists recommend treating the condition with strong antipsychotic medications.
Sections to follow would be titled: The Morgellons Research Foundation (brief outline); Symptoms; Diagnosis and treatment (including that of "Delusional Parasitosis" and antipsychotics), [possibly more to come].  The sections References and External links would be retained.
The existing content would be edited for balance.  All necessary and appropriate links and references would be included. 
Please do not edit this draft, or reply within it.  Add your comments below.
-- Mukrkrgsj 02:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment is that you are insulting me, my entire profession, and the medical community, as well - plus insulting the readers of the article. Further, NO ONE in the University of California is calling anyone "mentally ill," or recommending treating anyone "with strong antipsychotic medication". I am appalled that you could even *suggest* something so far from the truth - that is called BAD FAITH editing. I have already requested third-party mediation to keep this article free of bias, and I'm sure they will find your suggested changes as destructive as I do. You should not edit the introduction to remove sourced citations. On what basis are you claiming those citations should be removed? Because they go against your personal bias? This suggested edit is guilty of the very crime you accuse me of. You have a remarkable definition of "objectivity", to be so rude and full of innuendo. Dyanega 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the only text that could be called a definition on that website is NOT the Mayo Clinic's definition. Please note the text: "What are the signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease? The Morgellons Research Foundation lists six primary signs and symptoms of the condition:" In other words, the definition they give is quoting the MRF's report - it is effectively the MRF's definition, posted on the Mayo Clinic's website (in fact, when I contacted their website manager a month ago, they disavowed any direct responsibility for the accuracy of any information on that page which came from third-party sources; primarily, the MRF). This is presumably why the page lists other opinions, and goes on to state "Consider various causes for your signs and symptoms, and follow your doctor's recommendations for treatment — which may include long-term mental health therapy." There is a WORLD of difference between an opinion being quoted and one being validated. The Mayo Clinic's page is, ultimately, a lot like the WP article as it stands. Dyanega 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New introduction

message: Vassyana has opened the mediation process, in response to Dyanega's complaint.  To see and participate in the discussion, go here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Morgellons -- Mukrkrgsj 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation in process

message: http://www.eblue.org/article/PIIS0190962207001958/fulltext
Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 705-706 (April 2007)
Morgellons disease
William T. Harvey, MD, MPH
To the Editor: The recent editorial by Dr Koblenzer,1 titled “The Challenge of Morgellons Disease,” appears with two referenced letters.2, 3 All authors imply that the term “Morgellons” and the related Morgellons Research Foundation are unwelcome imposters appearing on immutable turf. No author suggests awareness of either the Morgellons origin or the origin of delusions of parasitosis (DP) nor the assumptions and facts underpinning each.
The first approach we considered in responding to the editorial and letters was to address individual points raised by each. Repeated perusal suggested another more relevant approach. Each author provided abundant examples of an expansive medical system constrained by legal and fiscal (insurance) pressures that have resulted in the production of certified practitioners with little awareness of the necessary tools of critical thinking. The result of each is a hollow argument addressing a perceived issue without reference to the genesis, history, or information sources of either DP or Morgellons.
Serious students of the most basic sciences learn early that reality is the singular essence of each. “Truth” in this context is simply a semantic label given to current human understanding of that reality.4 Human truth never reaches reality, but as the Ancient Mariner, drifts forever, perhaps asymptotically approaching what is real. So it is with medical truth. Yesterday's texts are already trash, placing an enormous burden on each of us to look beyond our passed-on guidebooks, created as best they could be with the tools and knowledge available at the time.
Carl Sagan5 captured this essential professional obligation in an essay titled “The Burden of Skepticism.” He saw the essential task of every truth seeker to balance credulity and skepticism equally, impossible without the trait of intense humility in the presence of an unknowable universe. Within such a context, we as physicians must see disease names simply as labels and defined disease boundaries as crude guesses that continually evolve.
What then do we make of texts and distinguished tutors who tell us that all delusional people focused on dermal symptoms: (1) have created the physical signs they show us; and (2) their belief that parasites are responsible for their sickness is the product of a damaged mind? Those who try to freeze the present embrace skepticism of a new idea called Morgellons, but curiously, will cling fervently to a concept held as immutable fact, DP. The truth seeker will question both equally, and gather all that can be known about the assumptions and facts from which each were built. Most importantly, he or she will know the answer is, as always, in the patient and nowhere else.
All we had to do on encountering our first patient with DP was to examine the lesions with a child's portable microscope, query the patient about other signs and symptoms, then use current laboratory tests to characterize all distressing symptoms. Next was to examine others with the same signs, particularly babies, and scrutinize similar lesions unreachable by infant hands. Increasing numbers of similar patients (some not self-diagnosed) holding responsible professional positions successfully made it clear that DP lesions and psychosis were not linked by cause and effect.
As Koblenzer1 noted, inquiry into the history of Morgellons reveals that the term was adopted by a biologist-mother with affected children. When no physician could either name the illness or treat it, she found a placeholder title to aid communication while she sought to find answers. Thus, came the Morgellons Research Foundation,6 with 8263 registrant households.
To anyone willing to look and listen, all patients with Morgellons carry elevated laboratory proinflammatory markers, elevated insulin levels, and verifiable serologic evidence of 3 bacterial pathogens. They also show easily found physical markers such as peripheral neuropathy, delayed capillary refill, abnormal Romberg's sign, decreased body temperature, and tachycardia. Most importantly they will improve, and most recover on antibiotics directed at the above pathogens.
In the final analysis, everything we know is perception. What we perceive is still up to us, even as individual professionals. In the current climate of evidence-based medicine, more than ever, what we use as evidence and how we use it is paramount. Pez1103 09:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not make such sweeping changes to such a controversial article without seeking consensus on the talk page.  I have reverted them. Interested2 14:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  these are hardly sweeping changes.  They are quotes from publications.  They cannot be disputed.  They need to be included.  Pez1103 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not PEER-REVIEWED publications. They most certainly can be disputed if they are presented as sources of information (and, in this case, appropriately so). The credibility of William T. Harvey, Randy Wymore, Rhonda Casey, and Ginger Savely is very much in question, and simply because a reporter quotes them, or they get an editorial printed in an online journal, does not confer validity to their claims. It's no different from asking L. Ron Hubbard to speak about the Church of Scientology - he founded the institution, after all. Wymore, et al., are the people who founded and run the MRF, so they are NOT credible sources; given the tremendous financial incentive, the conflict of interest is as severe as one could possibly imagine. Please do note, that despite all this, the article does in fact still present their opinions. Dyanega 19:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  every derm you quote, every government agency is just presenting their opinion too, but they are cited.  These cites need to be added.  The derms quoted have seen a handful of patients, Dr. Harvey and Casey have seen hundreds of patients.  Their opinions certainly have more validity. Pez1103 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, Mary founded the foundation.  Wymore no longer works for the foundation and Dr. Casey never did.  The Tulsa police department have no conflict of interest.  I don't believe that Dr. Casey still sees Morgellons patients anymore.  Dr. Harvey is the chairman of the MRF, but as of July 31, he will no longer be seeing patients.  He will continue to research Morgellons disease and speak out for the cause -- despite the fact that he receives NO compensation from the MRF and never has, nor has Wymore or Casey.   Pez1103 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text:   And why in the world is Schwartz cited?  What criteria does that meet?  He's obviously off his rocker -- it's only there to mock the disease. Pez1103 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You violate WP policy repeatedly (the archives show this quite clearly), and then try to lecture people on proper use of citations? The opinions of these people have ZERO credibility as far as WP is concerned; read WP:COI again, please. Dr. Casey works with Dr. Wymore at Oklahoma State, and the Tulsa Police Department has never actually issued any reports I can find; we evidently only have Wymore's word for it that such analyses were performed, only his word as to where the fibers originated, and only his word as to what the results were. I am especially puzzled by your claim that the chairman of an organization could receive "NO compensation" for his services, and if Wymore and Casey are not being funded by the MRF, then why does the MRF's own home page say that they are funding their research at Oklahoma State? If you are mistaken about the latter - as is plainly evident - why should anyone believe your claim regarding the former? You do realize that having one's research paid for qualifies as "receiving compensation"? The number of patients they've seen has nothing to do with their credibility. What would give them credibility is if a doctor who was NOT allied with the MRF or NMO would examine so much as a SINGLE one of these hundreds of patients, and CONFIRM the diagnosis. After all these years, this has not yet happened. Does this not bring their credibility into question, if not one dermatologist can back up their claims? As for Schwartz, his credentials and credibility are as respectable as those of several other participants in this little drama, especially Stricker, Staninger, and Savely. One can only wonder why you would conclude that he is "obviously off his rocker" and not say the exact same thing about these others. Dyanega 23:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I was saying that Wymore and Harvey were never compensated for their positions at the MRF.  The MRF has contributed a few thousand dollars towards the research at OSU, but it is my understanding that did not go towards Wymore's salary -- but to cover expenses of the lab and to pay for a lab assistant.  It is my understanding that Wymore has always volunteered his time, as did Casey.  How do you confirm the diagnosis of a disease that has not yet been recognized?  Casey has no link to the MRF, why dismiss her observations??    Pez1103 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware that the cost of running a lab typically exceeds a person's salary? Are you aware that Casey's work is supported by this same money, because she works in the same lab? You can confirm the diagnosis - which has been stated by the MRF - by having someone NOT affiliated with a Morgellons-based organization state "Yes, I have examined a patient myself, and found unidentifiable colored fibers emerging from their flesh". It's been five years now, thousands of self-reported Morgellons patients, and not ONE confirmed case - unless you count Schwartz and Staninger, who have completely different theories regarding what Morgellons is, and you have already expressed that you do not consider such theories credible. Please note, too, that there is a world of difference between "I have examined a patient myself" and "Dr. So-n-so sent me a sample he claims to have been taken from a Morgellons patient". Dyanega 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  The police did speak directly to reporters and confirmed these findings.  they are quoted directly in other articles.  (I believe that they were quoted on Primetime live, but I'd have to go back and check.)  The reporters aren't going to take wymore's word for it.  Pez1103 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this should be simple to address, by locating a quote or document from a named individual in the Tulsa Police Department. I've dealt many times with reporters, they do not always check every source, especially when the person they are talking to claims to be an authority. You are assuming that reporters are not going to accept Wymore's claims without proof, but this is a common practice for reporters, as evidenced by the recent international news fiasco about honey bee "Colony Collapse Disorder" being linked to cell phones. Again, if you can find something issued by the Tulsa Police, then you are welcome to include the citation in the section where this case is discussed. Let me ask you: if the quote, when located, proves to be of the nature "Dr. Wymore gave us a sample he claims to have been taken from a Morgellons patient", do you admit this would not represent independent confirmation? Dyanega 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New publications for research section 

message: The following text was posted in the main article, and now moved here by me --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text moved here from main article 

message: I've just reedited the Introduction, and the Delusional parasitosis sections.  IMHO, the new text of these two sections is the clearest and fairest since I happened upon this article, and began tentatively editing for clarity and brevity on March 21.
Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mukrkrgsj (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments? You remove true statements and replace them with false and misleading ones, and ask for comments AFTERWARDS, especially after just reading the rules about giving "undue weight" to minority viewpoints? That's an insult to myself and every honest editor in Wikipedia. Maybe we'll just let the mediator sort this out, if you can't restrain yourself and play by the rules. Dyanega 08:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edits

message: I apologize for my extended absence. I was offline for a few weeks and I'm getting back into the wiki swing of things. I am checking in to see if the comments left on the informal mediation page are still an accurate representation of how people view this article. Additionally, I would like to pose two questions to the editors here. What do you most disagree with in the recent edits of others? What do you most agree with in the edits of the same people? What points are you willing to compromise on? Vassyana 06:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear you're alive and well, Vassyana.  When you read the comments posted during the month you were absent, you'll see that I'm in favor of formal arbitration, rather than any further informal mediation. Mukrkrgsj 08:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have ever argued with someone whose primary debating skill is to accuse you of the offenses that they themselves commit, then you'll understand what it is I disagree most with in Mukrkrgsj's recent edits. There is not one iota of good faith evident in his edits, nor any sign that he is willing to acknowledge WP policies (because they're "only guidelines"), nor that he has an objective appraisal of the facts surrounding this condition or the people involved. Consider, for example, the attempt to replace the NPOV phrase "Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a controversial medical condition, described as..." with the POV phrase "Morgellons or Morgellons disease is..." - which is explicitly the sort of misleading edit that WP policy sternly warns editors to avoid. He has repeatedly misrepresented what the medical and scientific community say (and what I also say) about the connection between DP and Morgellons, by implying that the viewpoint is that all Morgellons patients have DP - this is false. I have compromised considerably in allowing numerous edits to stand that involve questionable sources, and undue weight being given to minority views. I welcome any third-party review of the situation as it stands - examination of the edits first and foremost, especially in regards to WP policy regarding NPOV, minority viewpoints, and what constitutes a reliable source; secondary consideration might be given to the contents of the talk page and mediation page (it's the article that counts here, because that's what people read). Dyanega 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone involved in mediation or arbitration can see the difference, and that's what matters at the moment. You were fully aware that there were ongoing attempts at mediation, and yet you went ahead with substantial edits that were precisely of the exact nature that represents the core of the dispute! Since the mediation has begun, I have restricted my edits to very minor changes, in the spirit of good faith, but you did not return the courtesy. I will remind you, as well, that it is a matter of public record that a large number of your edits in the not-so-distant past were NOT blocked or deleted or reverted by myself; as long as you limit things to statements of verifiable fact, and maintain NPOV and adhere to other guidelines, I am not going to interfere, and the record shows this. At one time in the past, you did in fact propose an edit here prior to making any changes; I objected, and no other opinions were offered, and the edit did not proceed. That is, in principle, the way any alterations or additions to a disputed article should proceed, and it would have been a lot less contentious had you followed that example - not by making the changes first, and then asking "How do you like it?". If, for example, you had simply wished to reorganize the sequence of paragraphs, many such changes in placement would have been fine - but the additions and alterations to the text were NOT acceptable, especially not in light of the dispute. Dyanega 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Vandalism is a serious accusation, Mukrkrgsj.  Do you have any evidence at all to back it up, aside from your personal opinion of Dyanega's edits? I suggest that this article be locked as-is until such time as this dispute can be resolved. -Interested2 19:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be willing to accept that solution, thought I await Dyangea's opinion on it before rendering my final decision on it. --Interested2 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the page? That hardly serves the public interest, and I rather suspect that even a temporary removal of the page will lead to the creation of POV forks and additional pages; there is no reason this cannot be summarized all in one article, and maintained objectively. Dyanega 06:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current state of things 

message: I reiterate that the two quotes above from JAAD and Psychology today should be added to the research section to balance it out and the quote from Schwartz should be removed.  I am seeking agreement from someone NEUTRAL on this. Pez1103 10:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Placing large chunks of text such as you proposed adding is unacceptable (it is exactly the sort of "undue weight" issue that violates WP policy - which you have already circumvented by placing these on the talk page rather than simply placing links TO them); there is no problem with referring to at least the second of these in a footnote, or extracting a single sentence quote here and there. Any inclusion or quotation of Harvey's letter must be balanced by specifying - as is done presently with regards to the original Morgellons opinion piece - that it is in fact a letter to the editor, and NOT a presentation of research, and you must also include recognition of Dr. Harvey's affiliation with the MRF. In a courtroom, he would be considered a "hostile witness" and the jury would be notified. Maybe you can come up with a specific suggestion for an edit, and place it on your personal talk page (if it is still large) before proceeding with changes to the article. As for the quote from Schwartz, there is no objective distinction between allowing his theory as to what Morgellons is to appear in the article, and allowing the MRF's theory as to what Morgellons is to appear. They are both significant minority theories (approximately 7 people is not effectively any different from a single person, when compared to the majority). To remove Schwartz's theories and leave the MRF's theories would be exercising a double standard. Dyanega 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By neutral, I meant not Dyanega 204.115.33.49 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Section 

message: Six weeks ago, before I happened upon this article, I had never heard of Morgellons.  After reviewing the article, its sources, and this discussion--and some active participation in the discussion--I have one major question:
What is it about Morgellons, and its support group the MRF, that inspires so much anger and hostility?
What is it about an almost unknown medical condition, that reportedly affects an unknown number of unidentified patients, including children and infants, that makes some editors demand that Wikipedia ruthlessly condemn them as fakers and loonies?
I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice, without even a hint of justification for it. Mukrkrgsj 03:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't condemned anyone (outside two of the other editors of this article) for anything - I've "condemned" you for failing to follow WP:NPOV and other policies (likewise Pez1103), and I stand by my assertion. You have accused me of the same thing in turn, which is why a mediator was invited in - if nothing else, to sort out who here is not adhering to the rules. The "justification" is that you're violating WP rules! Could that be any simpler or more straightforward? You seem to be hell-bent on interpreting it as attacks on the MRF, or on Morgellons sufferers, but it's not about them - it's about how you are trying to edit the article to promote a minority viewpoint, using unreliable source information. It's not prejudice about the topic itself, it's frustration with editors who don't follow the guidelines that editors are supposed to follow. Dyanega 08:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why so much anger and hostility?

message: :I hope that you do not consider the points I have raised to be bitter, mean-spirited or hostile. I assure you they are not intended that way, nor do I believe that any of the editors on either side of the issue have such intentions. Your third paragraph above, probably goes to the heart of the matter in the use of the words, 'unknown' and 'unidentified'. The article's greatest weakness is that it is about something that is recognized as real by a very small group, and is proactively denied by a very large group that includes many, if not all of the recognized authorities in the field. 
:Any new thing will have difficulty gaining acceptance in any field of study and until it does will have an even harder time finding a place in Wikipedia. WP is not about promoting or proving or publishing new ideas. It is a record of what is proven or published by accepted authorites in the field. 
:Regarding the assertion that some editors condemn those afflicted as loonies or fakers, I think you are wrong. I believe that insisting that mainstream views of the situation should receive the most weight here is an attempt to follow the guidelines and policies and does not imply a heartless attitude towards anyone. All current, published and verifiable information on this topic seems to confirm that many of these people are suffering from something already in the literature and that many of these cases may be psychosomatic in part or in whole. Whether or not this is true is something that only time will tell. 
:Another point to consider is that Wikipedia is not about Truth. This may seem odd, but it is the case. If Dr Harvey were to study every Morgellons patient and prove conclusively that it was in fact a concrete disease whose symptoms included the exact ones claimed and to further find and identify the causative agent and develop a treatment that in all cases resulted in a dramatic and complete cure, the information would still not be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia until it had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia is not about proving or promoting anything. That is left to others, whose methods satisfy our guidelines.
:I have a suggestion for the parties most involved in this dispute, both pro and con. Leave this article for awhile. Take it off your watch list and don't look at it for two weeks. Drink some tea and eat some cookies whenever you are tempted to come back here.
:During that time I will make an attempt to modify it in such a way as to preserve both sides and satisfy the guidelines for NPOV. I would probably make it much shorter, cut the number of external links and reduce the 'heat level' in general. I will of course welcome any one with a neutral interest to help me with this. Passionate beliefs and the willingness to stand up for them are important but they can get in the way of achieving consensus and seeing a middle ground. I think a deep breath,  an assumption of good faith and a hot cup of tea are what is called for here.
:If at the end of that time and a look at the article you still feel that it is biased or that others are not acting in good faith and you cannot accept the article it can be reverted and taken to formal arbitration. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 04:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem is that Wikipedia does not have "formal" arbitration of articles. The process you are referring to, Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration will not judge the content of the article, but the behavior of the editors involved. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I was initially in support of immediate formal arbitration, I feel that killing sparrows makes a fine point.  KS, I support your idea.  --Interested2 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mkrkrgsj, I am disappointed in your response. You seem to assume bad faith, a lack of objectivity and possible collusion with another editor on my part. If this editorial dispute is taken to arbitration I doubt this stance will serve you well. A few weeks time, giving other editors a chance to improve the article, is not an unreasonable approach to the current situation, which has been ongoing for months. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A proposal from Killing sparrows

message: Per my concerns listed above I have remove the links. I feel that any additions to this section need to be justified per the external links guidelines. I will also look at the 'In the news' section and evaluate them per the same guidelines, I think many are redundant. If there is reference to 'many media reports' in the main article, some of these could possibly be added as reference to that statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 06:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. -- Fyslee/talk 06:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links removal 

message: I have no personal experience with Morgellons, but I saw the photos of affected skin on the Morgellons Research Foundation website. Could Morgellons be caused by microfiber blankets, etc? Microfibers are extremely thin artificial fibers that are being used to make blankets, clothing etc. It's a booming business, and pretty new. If you have fibers that are extremely thin, then naturally their ends will be extremely sharp.
For a while I was sleeping on a torn mattress, with the foam rubber showing through. I noticed that some of my own hairs worked their way deep into the foam of the mattress, just as a result of the repeated rubbing caused by my natural movements during sleep, or while resting on the mattress.
Similarly, could it be that people are getting microfibers under their skin, by repeated rubbing caused by their natural movements against blankets while sleeping or resting, or something similar with microfiber clothing?
Does anyone have experience with both Morgellons and microfiber blankets or other products? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.100.198.155 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could Morgellons perhaps be caused by MICROFIBER blankets, clothing, etc? 

message: As I see it, the exchange between Dyanega and myself has shown he is more inclined to believe Morgellons is DP than I. More importantly, we may have been discussing some the heart of the dispute.  
He has talked about similarities of Morgellons and DP and I about differences.
We (and others) have discussed/debated the various levels of proof required for medical and scientific research vs. levels of proof required for WP and public information.
It seems to me information on Morgellons (and the forms of information dissemination) is diverse and rapidly changing. IE. researching for my replies yesterday I found The CDC Delusional Parasitosis page has been removed and a response to an inquiry of the CDC as to why the information was removed (that probably should be in the article). I found on YouTube some fascinating videos reporting to be Morgellons' fibers. But as Dyanega pointed out, chain of custody and discussion of scientific method is lacking. However, NIH investigators may have some compelling things to look at if they get off their ass.
The proposal is: we incorporate in the article in a neutral way reasons for the dispute similar to the topics above. That way viewers of the Morgellons WP article are shown more insight why the article is controversial. Ward 24.6.34.203 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floating an idea 

message: X-Originating-IP: [XXX.XXX.XXX.XX]
Subject: Peer review of Morgellons disease article for Am J Clin Dermatol
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:14:40 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Peer review of Morgellons disease article for Am J Clin Dermatol
Thread-Index: AcepcsTwPlHI+Fj0ThasL2F/2iSlVA==
From: "Olney, Roger" <>
To: <>
Cc: "<>,<>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2007 02:14:40.0509 (UTC) FILETIME=[C55052D0:01C7A972]
Dear Mr XXXXX
 
Thank you for your e-mail.
 
As stated in the journal under 'Aim and Scope', 'All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts', and I can confirm that this was the case with this article.
 
I hope that is helpful to you. On that point, it wasn't clear from your e-mail why you would be interested in this information and I wonder if you would mind letting us know the reason for your request on this point.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Roger Olney
Editor
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology
Ward24.6.34.203 04:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation "The Mystery of Morgellons Disease: Infection or Delusion?" is a peer reviewed article.  

message: Under Morgellons theories and research
What is, "reporting on Ms. Leitao's plight" doing in here? it does not make sense to me.
"The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reporting on Ms. Leitao's plight, noted that Dr. Randy Wymore, Oklahoma State University assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology, and former MRF director, recruited two Oklahoma State faculty physicians who tweezed fibers from beneath the skin of some Morgellons patients."
Ward 24.6.34.203 06:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure what is wrong here, something out of context. 

message: Marc, consider removing link to Morgellons Research Organization because of a number of items.
1. they sell products there
2. there will be objections to too many links talking about disease vs DP.
3. The external links section should be small according to WP, and I believe The New Morgellons Order at http://www.cherokeechas.com/index.htm is a more scientific and neutral link than Morgellons Research Organization.  
-----------------------------------------
Dyanega, I can't find on the page "The Mayo Clinic page specifically states "According to the Morgellons Research Foundation...")".
I found these three attributes to the MRF on the page:
The Morgellons Research Foundation lists,
the Morgellons Research Foundation doesn't, 
The Morgellons Research Foundation reports. 
:Exactly - the information on that page came from the MRF, and the Mayo Clinic people compiled it into that webpage. The SOLE source of information for the descriptions of Morgellons there is the MRF. Note also the comment below. The Mayo Clinic page is a secondary source, the MRF is the primary source. Dyanega 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of recent edits 

message: I removed the paragraph of George Schwartz, he's been disbarred for peddling narcotics and he self-published his book. He's a fringe figure on the Morgellons story, and his inclusion (and his speculation about parasites and global warming) adds nothing to the article. Herd of Swine 22:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed George Schwartz 

message: Belongs in Nature Medicine news article which is it's source.
:It still cites the source. Dyanega 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His citation is included with the other citations from the MRF, as is appropriate, not in the paragraph discussing medical opinions (his is not a medical opinion). Dyanega 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you really want to move Randy Wymore? 

message: The "morgellons" article is no longer about a multisystemic disease
with marked dermal manifestations. It has become a place for badly vetted, quack psychiatric ideas to metastasize. The entire article needs a complete rewrite, starting
with all the current information that is known about the disease. The psychiatric
quackery discussion should occur in a page called "Morgellons Controversy" just
like the  opposing ILADS vs. IDSA viewpoints are featured in a "Lyme Controversy"
page.
Please note that the CDC's effort to study Morgellons occurs within the CDC's "National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases" NOT the "center for delusional parasitosis and quack psychiatry"
http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/
The above site was created 6/12/2007.
Perhaps the people that keep defacing the wiki with a bunch of psychiatric quackery need to take a look at the current state of affairs in the Morgellons world. Here is an excerpt from the aforementioned CDC page:
............
Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")
Introduction
Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received an increased number of inquiries regarding an unexplained skin condition that some refer to as “Morgellons.” Persons who suffer from this unexplained skin condition report 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.
The etiology of this condition is unknown, and the medical community has insufficient information to determine whether persons who identify themselves as having this condition have a common cause for their symptoms or share common risk factors.
To assist in learning more about this condition, CDC plans to conduct an epidemiologic investigation and has convened a multidisciplinary working group to provide guidance on the design of the investigation. The goals of the investigation are to better characterize the clinical and epidemiologic features of this condition and to generate hypotheses about factors that may cause or contribute to sufferers’ symptoms.
............
It is my understanding that the CDC task force is now
headed by a veterinarian. When's the last time you took
your pet to a veterinarian concerned about parasites
and came back with a diagnosis "your dog is delusional"??
Actually, if the psychiatric quacks had their way, they'd
want the vet to accuse the pet owner of "munchhausens by proxy"
People bandying around psychiatric
terms should actually know something about psychiatry. What
would the entomologist that keeps defiling this wiki know
about psychiatry?
NielsMayer 17:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NielsMayer, you move was highly inappropriate, and has been reverted.  We welcome constructive edits and discussions regardless of your own point of view, so long as the edits conform to the neutral point of view. I hope you can contribute to the article in a way that fits with Wikipedia policy, since you obviously know quite a lot about Morgellons. Herd of Swine 17:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the center is headed by a vet72.231.181.60 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgellons moved to "Delusions of Parasitosis and psychiatric quackery" 

message: The "Morgellons" page is complete garbage and needs a rewrite. The current contents of "Morgellons" best fits under the rubric of "Delusional Parasitosis and quack psychiatry." The page is a completely one-sided piling on of half-baked psychiatric nonsense in an attempt to distract people from a real disease... this is reminiscent of the decades of accusations against Gulf War Veterans suffering from "Gulf War Syndrome" as malingerers and headcases, which prevented or delayed treatment in hundreds of thousands of people from getting proper treatment for a mycoplasma infection.
Is wikipedia really the place to promote misinformation that leads to non-treatment or treatment delays in people suffering from a real disease?
Howcome the bogus psychiatric viewpoints are presented as medical facts, rather than the opinions of doctors and psychiatrists who receive big-pharma kickbacks for needlessly addicting patients to expensive, non-generic psychotropics like Zyprexa and Risperdal. Meanwhile, opposing viewpoints from within the psychiatric community are censored on ths wiki: e.g., http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/11/24-b
Please note that the CDC's effort to study Morgellons occurs within the CDC's "National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases" NOT the "center for delusional parasitosis and quack psychiatry"
http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/
The above site was created 6/12/2007. Perhaps the people that keep defacing the wiki with a bunch of psychiatric quackery need to take a look at the current state of affairs in the Morgellons world. Here is an excerpt from the aforementioned CDC page:
Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")
Introduction
Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received an increased number of inquiries regarding an unexplained skin condition that some refer to as “Morgellons.” Persons who suffer from this unexplained skin condition report 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.
The etiology of this condition is unknown, and the medical community has insufficient information to determine whether persons who identify themselves as having this condition have a common cause for their symptoms or share common risk factors.
To assist in learning more about this condition, CDC plans to conduct an epidemiologic investigation and has convened a multidisciplinary working group to provide guidance on the design of the investigation. The goals of the investigation are to better characterize the clinical and epidemiologic features of this condition and to generate hypotheses about factors that may cause or contribute to sufferers’ symptoms.
It is my understanding that the CDC task force is now headed by a veterinarian. When's the last time you took your pet to a veterinarian concerned about parasites and came back with a diagnosis "your dog is delusional"?? Actually, if the psychiatric quacks had their way, they'd want the vet to accuse the pet owner of "munchhausens by proxy"
People bandying around psychiatric terms should actually know something about psychiatry. What would the entomologist that keeps defiling this wiki know about psychiatry?"
NielsMayer 17:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NielsMayer, cutting and pasting the same large block of text (above) is not a very useful response.  The CDC group is not headed by a veterinarian, they say "The working group consists of experts in chronic diseases, dermatology, environmental health, epidemiology, infectious diseases, mental health, and pathology". I think you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and I recommend you read Wikipedia:NPOV before proceeding. Herd of Swine 18:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My disagreement with "speedy removal" of move from Morgellons->Delusions of Parasitosis and Psychiatric Quackery