Talk:Morgellons/Archive 3

message: Your cite is a note and comment letter to the editor (weak primary source) signed by three dermatologists in November of 2006 that does not have any wording that comes close to supporting (not verifiable) what you have edited in the article. You are trying to replace verifiable text from stronger more recent second source material from the Mayo Clinic dated May 2007, with text from a weaker older source that is not accurate or verifiable to your cite. Plus, the next sentence states most dermatologists (not most health professionals) view and treat Morgellons symptoms as existing medical conditions or Delusions of Parasitosis (DP) and cites two articles, one of which is the same article you cited to a different web address.Morgellons disease: A rapport-enhancing term for delusions of parasitosis J Am Acad Dermatol., Volume 55, Issue 5, Pages 913–914 (November 2006). As your edit is not accurate or verifiable to a cite (let alone a stronger cite) I am changing it back to the old text.
Ward20 04:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User 66.194.131.130 

message: For future reference:
Subject: RE: Strange List of Symptoms Perplexes Patients, Doctors Psychiatry News December 15, (PSYCHNEWS Feedback Form)
From: "Psych News Temp" <pntemp@psych.org>
To: <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> 
Dear xxxxxxxxxxx:
Thank you for your June 11 query (below):
Psychiatric News is a bi-monthly publication of the American Psychiatric Association. With the exception of certain features, such as Dear Editor letters, and opinion pieces in our Viewpoints Column, we publish original news articles researched and written by Psychiatric News staff "writers." Our writers are professional journalists who follow accepted journalistic standards, practices and ethics in which balanced and objective reporting is foremost.
Although Psychiatric News articles are not “peered-reviewed” the same as original published research itself, all of our articles receive a careful, final review prior to publication by our editor-in-chief, who is a psychiatrist and APA member.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Whyche
Copy Editor/Contributing Writer
Psychiatric News
Ward20 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI Psychiatric News articles 

message: Reference 18 (as we speak) doesn't exist.  Could someone try to figure out what it was supposed to be?  (As an aside, why are all the newspaper articles from a "Gazette"?  Is there a correlation between your local newspaper being a "Gazette" and the incidence of the disease/syndrome/??? ?) — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: RF states that he believes a "small percentage" have DP
He makes no mention of skin irritants. He said that he takes this seriously.  My edits reflect what the article states. Pez1103 19:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "My theory, and it is only a theory, is that a small percentage of these cases are delusory parasitosis, but the rest may be the results of something else, possibly pollutants. " — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the DP wiki article -- DP is rare and primarily affects women over 40.  Morgellons, according to RF, is an epidemic, and according to the MRF website, affects entire families.  Pez1103 19:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Delusional parasitosis article  says (and sources agree) that the incidence is higher past age 40, and it's most common in women.  This does not preclude it affecting entire families.  DP also affects entire families.  I'm not sure if Fagerlund's thoughts in an advice column are really notable.  But he seems to be suggesting what is essentially a distinction between "primary" delusional parasitosis (where it is actually "all in their heads"), and "secondary" delusional parasitosis (where there is some other cause).  Secondary is further broken down into  "secondary functional", where the DP is associated with psychiatric condition such as depression, and "secondary organic", where the cause is a medical illness, such as diabetes, or substance abuse.(see )  It seems like Fagerlund, with his talk of pesticides, is suggesting that some cases are "secondary organic" cases of DP cased by pesticides.  It's rather odd that that's all he offers as an alternative, and it seems like he has a bee in his bonnet about pesticides.  Herd of Swine 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The information from the MRF registration data base is not consistent with the DP findings that it is most common among women over 40.  It doesn't seem to me that Fagerlund is suggesting primary or secondary DP.  He clearly says that he does not believe it to be mental illness at all.Pez1103 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't listening to what people are telling you - I have SPOKEN to Richard, he says that many of the people who have contacted him have DP, and he even indicates this in the article! It's called "polite understatement" - the "small percentage" Richard is referring to is, in fact, over 50%, but he understated it in order not to scare away all the readers who do have DP and who mistakenly interpret any objective statements as "someone telling them they're crazy" - Richard told me "I suspect most of the cases of Morgellons are DP, but I won't go so far as to say all of them are. I have never said Morgellons is a real disease." He attributes the rest to various skin irritants, especially pesticides (a common thread among the hundreds of patients who have contacted him) - "from an outside source (pesticides) and in some rare cases, from an infestation of larder or hide beetles in their house.  I have said in my upcoming column that I will continue to look at samples and if I find any insects or mites I will write about them.  I don't expect that will happen." In the column cited here, he said "pollutants". Like I said, he does not appreciate the misuse and misinterpretation of what he wrote, as if it supports the pro-Morgellons position. The column does not say Morgellons is real, does not even IMPLY that Morgellons is real, and does NOT say that he does not believe mental illness is involved. Dyanega 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  The MRF registration does not record the gender or the age of the person registering. So it's perfectly in line with the DP population from that statistical viewpoint.  Herd of Swine 23:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   No, but it does record the names, which indicates gender.  And it does list other family members with the disease.  A large percentage of people with the disease list their children in the household as also having it -- you can assume that the children in the household are generally under 40.    Pez1103 09:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to throw your opinion on this around, do some research into Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy beforehand. Dyanega 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You're wrong again. Kalani's report on the MRF website states: "We hypothesize that this organism is a more complex fungus, algae or a novel parasite" Dyanega 23:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have some concerns that you are proposing a double standard; if a quote from the MRF website can be used in the article, without actual printed citations to back it up, then the UCD website is perfectly equivalent and exactly as valid a source of information. If you wish to remove it, then we can apply the same editorial standard to all the other sources mentioned in the article, and delete everything else which appears solely on a website, including the MRF website. Who did THEIR studies? Where are THEIR years of detailed analysis, and peer-reviewed compilations of data? If you wish to limit sources for this article strictly to books and journals, then that should work just fine, and restore some much-needed balance. Along those lines, it seems that some editors lack a basic understanding of WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. Dyanega 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My primary concern is that they are misusing the word "morgellons" to describe organisms.  This is very inconsistent with the rest of the article.Pez1103 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be inconsistent with the rest of the article, but there's no reason (other than MRF) to believe it's not as common a usage.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I spoke to the director at the Bohart Museum today.  He said that their study consisted of looking at fibers under a microscope.  18:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point? The article cites a similar effort, which you accept as completely credible: "Dr Casey examined many patients skin via a dermatoscope." If you will accept one as credible, then they are both credible. A pediatrician is just as authoritative as to the nature of a fiber as an entomologist - and far less likely to be objective, given Casey's connection to the MRF. (e.g., )Dyanega 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Growing"?! Did I read correctly? Do you have some evidence for this "growing" you're talking about? -- Fyslee/talk 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, and to stop this constant bickering about Casey, she is one of the three members of the research team at OSU that is supported by the MRF's funding (explcitly listed as Wymore, Casey, and Eddy), and she has co-authored (with Wymore) one of the boilerplate pieces used on the MRF's website. It also appears (though I have yet to find any documents confirming it) that the "two physicians" Wymore recruited to obtain fiber samples for the Tulsa police study were Casey and Eddy. She collaborates with Wymore, and is funded by the MRF: that is a rather substantial connection. Dyanega 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entomologists 

message: There was some dispute about the sentence:
:This statement is at odds with a report in Time Magazine from a physician with Morgellons who attempted to send samples from his own body to the CDC, but stated that the agency "blew it off."
As noted in the Time article, the physician was Greg Smith, and he believes he has Morgellons, and he was sending "his own specimens".  It should also be noted that at the time Smith had retired from practice due to "neurological and cognitive problems".  Also at that time he was the "Medical Director" of the MRF, and his wife was the treasurer. .  Simply saying that the CDC "blew off" a physician who tried to send them samples does not tell the whole story. Herd of Swine 00:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it was because he was no longer a doctor, and was collecting samples from his own body?  Why not have Stricker collect and send in samples?  Or would he be disqualified because of his prior faked results? Surely there must be some doctor in the last four years who could have done it? Herd of Swine 00:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greg Smith submitting samples to the CDC 

message: I think that a new section about this issue would be relevant to this article. Pez1103 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Should we then also have a section on causes of disease that we though to be real, and then were found not to be?  Herd of Swine 17:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Uterus Ailment?  Railroad Spine? Tooth Autoinoxication? Phrenology? Miasma?  I think the point is well understood that science changes, medicine changes as out understanding of the world changes.  But it changes based on evidence, and in this case (Morgellons), there is not enough evidence.  You want to add a section to indicate that "it might be possible", well, of course it might.  But just because the status of some other contested diseases changed, that does not give any more weight to your argument.  The evidence is what will decide it.  What's the evidence?  A bunch of conflicting fiber analysis, and a few doctors on the MRF board who are 100% convinced, vs. thousands of dermatologists? Herd of Swine 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Show me the evidence that delusional parasitosis exists -- real evidence, not just doctors opinions. Pez1103 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are countless case studies that show people with DP symptoms, they are examined and nothing is found, they are treated with psychotropics, and they recover.  Here's a few: .  It has been well described consistently for a hundred years. If you say there is no evidence of DP, then you might as well say there is no evidence of ANY psychological disorder.  Borderline Personality Disorder for example, where's the evidence for that?  What about Schizophrenia? Herd of Swine 20:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "not just doctors opinions"? This is one of the most remarkable statements I've seen yet. Wikipedia is EXPLICITLY based on content that states what the authorities in a field have to say. This is a page about a presumed disease, and you now insist that doctors' opinions regarding it are not good enough to be included in the article. That is as blatant a violation of WP:NPOV as one can conceive. Just because you personally disagree with what doctors say does not mean you can edit Wikipedia to reflect your dissatisfaction with doctors. WP is not the place for personal grudges. Dyanega 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: But you also work for them (the MRF), don't you? Herd of Swine 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on diseases which have initially been dismissed as psychological, which were later found to be infectious 

message: This is what wiki says now: 
The foundation raises public awareness of Morgellons via web and media campaigns; conducts letter writing campaigns to the U.S. Congress"; and, "is also committed to raising the funds required to research this medical mystery, and has funded three university research scientists thus far."
I don't think that this reflects the goals and objectives of the foundation.  I quoted what the web says their priorities and concerns are. Pez1103 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you also work for them (the MRF), don't you? Herd of Swine 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgellons Research Foundation 

message: This is important and belongs in the lead. It is a public health statement about the disease from the country's leading authority on emerging diseases.  No one can say that Morgellons is DOP is the majority point of view -- it seems to be limited to "most dermatologists."  No one can say that the belief that Morgellons may be other than psychological is "fringe."  The CDC doesn't spend millions on some fringe theory.  The CDC believes it is an emerging public health concern WITH SYSTEMIC SYMPTOMS. 
 
http://www.fbo.gov/spg/HHS/CDCP/PGOA/Reference-Number-2007-Morgellons/Attachments.html
 
"Morgellons is an unexplained and debilitating condition that has emerged as a public health concern.  Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has received an increased number of inquiries from the public, health care providers, public health officials, Congress, and the media regarding this condition.   Persons who suffer from this condition report a range of coetaneous 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) and some sufferers also report systemic manifestations such as fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision.  Moreover, some who suffer from this condition appear to have substantial morbidity and social dysfunction, which can include decreased work productivity or job loss, total disability, familial estrangement, divorce, loss of child custody, home abandonment, and suicidal ideation.     
As of February 2007, approximately 10,000 families had registered with the Morgellon’s Research Foundation (MRF) and felt they or a family member met criteria for Morgellons as defined by the MRF. Of the U.S. families in the MRF registry, 24% reside in California with geographic clustering in the San Francisco metropolitan area.  
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.   An epidemiologic investigation is needed to better characterize the clinical and epidemiologic features of this condition; to generate hypotheses about factors that may cause or contribute to sufferers’ symptoms; and to estimate the prevalence of the condition in the population; and to provide information to guide public health recommendations.  A contractor is needed who can provide timely services to assist the CDC in the investigation of this emerging public health problem." Pez1103 10:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to parse what the CDC is saying carefully.  It is an emerging public health concern because people are REPORTING these symptoms, they REPORT systemic manifestation.  They make extensive use of the health care system without insurance coverage, so it's a public health concern.  If they actually though there was some rapidly spreading infectious disease, do you think they would wait two years before doing anything?  They are investigating this because of advocates like you, who spend all day calling Senator's offices  until they get sick of you calling and they write the CDC just to stop you calling, and writing hundreds of letters .  The evidence does not justify an investigation, but they will hopefully still get something useful out of it.  Right now they are just being political. The summary above just says "People are reporting these symptoms, and we don't know why", they really add nothing - there are symptoms, there is no explanation.  Many authoritative sources HAVE expressed opinions as to why, and that will be reflected in the article.Herd of Swine 15:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow! what a lot of assumptions!  Didn't you notice that they say that they have been contacted by health officials and physicians?  You need to be careful not to distort what the CDC says.  They are very clear.  Morgellons disease IS an unexplained and debilitating condition that has emerged as a public health concern -- that's what it says.  The quotes are very important to prevent distorting the facts of what they actually say. Pez1103 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DOP does NOT explain the SYSTEMIC symptoms of Morgellons disease.  DOP doesn't cause vision loss, joint pain, etc.  Yesterday, you asked me what source I had to show that these other symptoms exist -- how about the leading health authority in the country -- the CDC.  Sounds less like DOP every day.  Pez1103 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerging public health problem 

message: For several years, anyone who tries to edit this article who does not agree with the DOP party line is attacked, ganged up against and bullied.  DOP is NOT the majority point of view any more.  I've been accused of having a conflict of interest, but I believe that is true of the other editors.  I am recording this because I want a record of the type of inappropriate behavior that is displayed on this board. Pez1103 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with whether editors agree or disagree with ANYTHING. That's exactly the point: WP editors are supposed to be NEUTRAL. The editors whose edits are not welcome here are only those who do not follow WP's guidelines. Have you ever read WP:NPOV? Have you read WP:SOAP? You are editing the article to make it conform to your personal viewpoint, and that of the organization you work for. It is one case where WP policy explicitly allows for personal information regarding an editor to be used as evidence against them. More to the point, you are yourself guilty of the very crime you accuse others of: you decided, today, to post personal attacks on Herd on multiple wiki pages - Herd of Swine keep deleting cited material from the country's leading authority to further his own agenda. He abuses everyone who disagrees with him. It's a nightmare to try to make the Morgellons article have a neutral point of view. The editors gang up on anyone who does not assume that it is delusional -- despite the fact that the CDC has called it an debilitating, emerging public health concern which warrants a multi million dollar investigation. People are dying of this disease and efforts via wikipedia to trivialize the disease HURT SICK CHILDREN AND ADULTS. It is morally reprehensible, and incredibly distructive. Anyone who tries to make the article balance is abused -- there entries destroyed without discussion -- weasel words added. Herd and his cohorts are wiki-bullies. Someone needs to monitor that site or eliminate the whole article. The CDC's response is, in fact, precisely what they are expected to do and say in cases of mass hysteria; your interpretation of their public statements is far from an objective assessment of the situation. Dyanega 22:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks 

message: The CDC section and the MRF sections should be rotated.  The CDC is more important than the MRF to the article. It is also consistent with the lead which discusses the symptoms and the CDC before it discusses the MRF. Pez1103 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  order of sections 

message: On another topic, there are also a lot of duplicate links. If there are links already in the references section, they don't need to be in the "in the news" section. I also found some spam-ish links, including one to the MRF registration page. We should clean these up.Sancho 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate and spam links 

message: The background section (and maybe also the MRF section) is a bit sparse regarding the details of how Morgellons started.  This is covered in many media stories, examples: Psychology Today, ABC and Pittsburgh Post.  The story is fairly consistent, Mary Leitao had a 2 year-old son, he's sick, but Leitao is dissatisfied with the doctors diagnoses, she found bundles of fibers on his lip, and decided it's a new disease, she continues to be rebuffed by doctors, who now find "nothing wrong" with her son, Leitao is diagnosed with Munchausen's by Proxy, she starts the MRF, lots of people register.  
Perhaps a composite version of the story should be included as background? Herd of Swine 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooooh, I didn't know she'd been diagnosed with Munchausens by proxy, that would certainly be interesting to include.Merkinsmum 20:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is it possible that this information hasn't made it into the article? -- Fyslee/talk 21:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added it now.  Note the Munchausens info also comes from Leitao herself : "“They suggested that maybe I was neurotic,” Leitao said, “They said they were not interested in seeing him because I had Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.”" Herd of Swine 22:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for background section 

message: The most recent CDC statement (the RfQ) is difficult to cite - it a a document which must be downloaded - the link I use to access it is  but this link does not function when inserted into the article. The page the link appears on is  but this does not contain the text of the document itself. There is no question that the citation is legitimate, but the problem is a way to reference it. Dyanega 23:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: seems the appropriate addition to the actual cite.  My Internet connection is unstable at the moment, or I'd do it myself.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CDC citation 

message: I think the reference to Jenny Haverty should be removed.  The "study" has not been published anywhere.  She describes about ten different types of fibers of all shapes colors and sizes, and then concludes they are "so similar to each other other that the causative agent may be epidemiologically the same" - which is quoted in the article.   She's also not independent :
:Jenny Haverty, a clinical microbiologist at Marin General Hospital, also believes the condition is real. Her adult daughter began noticing the fibers emerging from various parts of her body in 2003, but she has never had lesions. "It's just disgusting," Haverty said. "It's all over her shower and her bedding. It's pretty frightening. 
Herd of Swine 00:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haverty's findings are given by the MRF in their "research" listings, and it is highly significant that they contradict the findings from their other research teams, which only describe a single type of fiber (Wymore), and fibers inconsistent with Haverty's descriptions (Citovsky and Kalani). Insofar as letting the evidence speak for itself, I'm inclined to present all of the MRF's evidence so readers can see that the evidence is inconsistent even among their own researchers. Dyanega 00:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Jenny Haverty? 

message: In replying to the various comments above, I read through the article again, and I just thought I'd mention, it seems pretty much OK to me as it is now.
I recommend removing the disputed tag and letting it be for a while.  If editors are willing to stop inserting small changes to sway the POV, it could be in a steady state for a while, and editors' time could be used for other topics.
The article as it is does not give a skewed view.  Someone reading it would not assume the disease is "known" to be real, would think it's "probably DP", that there is a small chance that something strange is going on so it's good that the CDC is checking it out.  That seems about right to me. 
The various viewpoints are intertwined in the article and there are not major POV forks or bad style.  There is a variety of references.  Some of the external links would be better as inline references, but that's a minor detail.  Overall, I think it would be a good thing to let it rest.  --Parsifal Hello 09:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replying to my own comment - it's clear from the lack of response to my suggestion, and the following discussion, that editors aren't happy with this article on either side of the fence.  I still don't know why there's a fence at all... --Parsifal Hello 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually fairly happy, at least with the lead section, and most of the first three sections.  The rest still needs some work - especially Morgellons#Theories_and_research, which is an impenetrable mess.  I'm not sure how to approach that.  Perhaps, given the section title, there should be more focus simply on the actual theories, and less on the minutia of the findings.  Like, "Dr. Wymore collected fibers from clothing, carpet, and sporting goods in 4 states ... etc ", seems a little TMI for the article - simply "the fibers were unidentified" would convey the point? Herd of Swine 03:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the theories section needs more organization and trimming - my first thought would be to make a bulleted listing of the different researchers or "opinion sources" (however you want to view them), if only to make it a little easier to read; then work on trimming the content from there. Would that help? Dyanega 03:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: article seems OK as it is