Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::::::I'd really appreciate a bit more clarity of thought in the replies you provide here. You are wasting my time providing these logically flawed, ill-thought out answers. ] (]) 21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::I'd really appreciate a bit more clarity of thought in the replies you provide here. You are wasting my time providing these logically flawed, ill-thought out answers. ] (]) 21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::I would appreciate you laying off the personal attacks. My thoughts are crystal clear. As are, it seems everyone else's. It could be you are right and we are all wrong, but you know what? A better conclusion is we understand policies and you do not. Go read ] again. ] (]) 21:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
== You need to remove the phrase "whereas in reality no such parasites are present" ==
== You need to remove the phrase "whereas in reality no such parasites are present" ==
Revision as of 21:20, 2 June 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Morgellons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
I marked the current article with the NPOV tag for the following reason: The article has a tone in parts where it seems to imply anyone who investigates or continues to investigates the the Morgellons as a potentially real disease or physical condition rather the simply a psychosomatic or mental condition as idiots and dupes. Here are my main concerns:
1. Take the following quote from the intro:
Despite the lack of evidence that Morgellons is a novel or distinct condition, the absence of any agreed set of diagnostic symptoms, and the existence of an existing medically accepted diagnosis in delusional parasitosis, Leitao's "Morgellons Research Foundation" and self-diagnosed patients successfully lobbied members of Congress and the U.S. government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate the condition.
The above quote seems to imply that since there was no evidence that Morgellons was a real disease at the time congress was essentially duped into pushing the CDC to investigate the alleged disease. The paragraph quoted above seems to be saying that for the CDC to be justified in investigating Morgellons, there would be to be evidence it was a legitimate decease. But since the point of an investigation would be to obtain such evidence, if it exists, this seems to set up a catch-22 situation where you can investigate Morgellons due to lack of evidence it's a legitimate disease but such evidence, if it exists, won't be found unless you investigate the alleged condition. Unless I understand what was being requested from the CDC by congress, they were only asking the CDC to look into whether Morgellons has any plausible foundation as a legitimate disease or not, which is not what the article currently implies. If the CDC was being asked to treat it a legitimate disease despite a lack of evidence supporting that then the paragraph in question would be a valid way to state the facts IMO. T
2. The article talks about dermatologists as if they are all of one mind against Morgellons as a legitimate disease when in fact I know that not be true. The language needs to be clarified so we're clear we're stating what the of the majority of dermatologists/doctors/etc. believe.
3. We need to reword some statements throughout the article that seem imply that any continued research into Morgellons as a possible legitimate disease has reached the level of research into cold fusion (or any other similarly researched to death and now debunked theory). While current research does not support Morgellons as a valid disease, I don't believe that there is a consensus just yet that further research has zero chance of finding supporting evidence, which the overall tone of the article seems to imply. Yes, there are indeed scientists/medical researchers, doctors, etc. who do indeed think continued research in Morgellons is a waste of time and money, much the same way cold fusion research is currently viewed, and we should certainly put that POV into the article but let's not portray is as the consensus view just yet unless you can provide evidence that it most researchers/doctors do indeed believe it has been researched to death and such continued research should be now labeled as psuedo-science.
--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Taking your points one at a time:
1) I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The text is cited to the Washington Post and CDC, which supports the text. You seem to be arguing against the premise of the point, which is neither here nor there ([[WP:NOTFORUM|this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not arguing against points made in the article). The text is easily supported by the references cited and is clear. While you may feel personally that there is nothing wrong with Congress mandating the CDC to spend millions of dollars studying a "disease" that has no evidence supporting it, clearly the Washington Post made a point that the reason why the CDC did the study was not because they felt that there was likely to be a disease, but due to the lobby efforts.
2) I don't understand the suggestion here. We use phrases like "Most dermatologists" and "Many dermatologists". This particular point seems to lack merit.
3) I could find no text in our article stating that further research was a "dead end" like you imply. Please point out which text you are talking about. As such, I have removed the NPOV tag. Yobol (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Mounting evidence for organic cause
I have posted this on the Morgellons page:
Mounting evidence for organic cause
Morgellons is characterised by keratin/collagen filaments growing in skin and associated skin changes mimicking principally those of eczema and nodular prurigo as reported in this F1000 Research publication. There is a large body of the medical and scientific community who state Morgellons is delusions of parasitosis. Since 2011 significant advances have been published, all of which are referenced in this F1000 paper, setting out mounting proof that the disorder is fundamentally caused by spirochete infection. Furthermore it is now know that it is borrelial species, the cause of Lyme disease. The new paper sets out a perspective showing a firm link between Morgellons and Lyme disease and draws on solid argument from psychiatric advice that the necessary factors in diagnosing delusional disease are absent in Morgellons sufferers.
It seems this recent scientifically backed data is disapproved by Yobol and Mastcell. The reasons purported by both do not stand up to rational scientific debate. New evidence should be presented in whatever fashion the author feels apprpriate and given the requisite time for normal debate to ensue - not removed because it is disliked. In this case the quoted articel is waiting for peer review which will be forthcoming.
Quickpeter (talk)quickpeter —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
To Yobol: You are now twisting words for your own gain. The paper summarises 2 years of accepted work available on PUBMED searches and with a swoop of a pen you attempt to annihilate it with jargon such as "undue weight to a dubious primary study" but then you state this is not a medline indexed journal. Sir it is PUBMED indexed and if you check your facts you will find medline indexing has been taken over by pubmed as a result of computer indexing. To Mastcell (btw do you know Yobol) again this statement "undue weight, primary source, and so on" you are not providing an explanation of undue weight (neither did yobol) and what reasoning do you use to insert the words "and so on" for an explanation as to your own personal agenda to remove the passage? To all, in all the halls of science when new data is presented it is seen first by a minority and then this spreads in due course. Just because an article represents a small audience view is no reason to eradicate it from the advances of scientific knowledge as you are trying to do. Fair representation of fact purports that you dont challenge the very limited statement "mounting evidence" that has been put up here about this condition. It is representative of a scientific view accepted by a minority in this case. I hastily point out one of the authors, a dermatologist, has published 109 articles on dermatitis on a pubmed search.Quickpeter (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Quickpeter
Please see WP:MEDRS which outlines the requirements for medical sourcing. Note that WP is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball and so we don't publish articles while review is forth coming. Additionally, and as you should understand after reading medrs, is it not appropriate to use primary studies to contradict metastudies. WP:PRIMARY studies can be used on WP but in a limited fashion, such as to cite basic mathematical attributes or other uncontroversial facts. This, however, is not one of those cases. Sædon08:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Take note editor
Saedon is editing and removing properly sourced statements with Pubmed indexed peer reviewed references in the hypothesis section of MorgellonsSpirochete (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Spirochete
As has been explained above, the content you're adding does not represent the scientific consensus on the subject. This is not the place to change that - WP is not a place to promote something new. -- Scray (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As an FYI, there is a press release from the Charles E Holman Foundation about this article on PR Web. No press coverage yet, but that might follow if reporters think the release is interesting.
Matthew (WMF)16:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe.... FYI, prweb.com is not a RS. Anyone can publish any kind of "news" there. The Charles E Holman foundation is a Morgellons support group started by a sufferer. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
After reading this "press release" from the Holman foundation, it's apparent that they haven't a clue as to how Misplaced Pages works. They apparently know nothing about watchlists, and that many editors have thousands of articles on their watchlists. I occasionally edit here, and my watchlist currently has this notice at the top: "You have 7,719 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." That means I have exactly twice that many pages on my watchlist, and I don't have to be an expert on any of them, and non-experts are allowed to edit articles at Misplaced Pages. Special interest groups like the Holman foundation have a huge COI, and cannot be expected to follow our most sacred policy - WP:NPOV. The constant adding of primary sources violates WP:MEDRS. Their own wording in the press release points huge fingers at the influence of Morgellons sufferers who constantly attack this article, proving that "it is vulnerable to manipulation through editing by anonymous special interest groups" like all the Morgellons special interest groups and sufferers. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
In addition to their lack of understanding of how Misplaced Pages works, the press release is pretty blatantly misleading - they make it seem like Yobol is the only user reverting the addition of dubiously sourced content, when in fact there have been six people making these edits in addition to Yobol in just the past week. And of course the reason we had to make these edits was that the article was subject to multiple edits by now-blocked POV-pushing socks who have no understanding of WP:MEDRS or WP:NPOV. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
It really did read like an attack piece on Yobol and certainly was not written in the tone or style of a statement from a supposed research/philanthropic foundation. But the bottom line is that this article likely affects their bottom line and charity, after all, is a business these days. Perhaps we should consider protecting the page with pending changes? These new primary studies are likely to attract users with an agenda, and if the established research is correct that Morgellons is a delusional condition we have to keep in mind that we are literally dealing with people suffering a massive delusion. Sædon02:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I've read and reread this article about Morgellons, and I've noticed some (And I'm being modest here; more than just 'some') of these sections are wrong. Did some half-asleep person just glance off a random page or blog and start copying down everything they've heard? This is not a reliable page, and it's actually pretty frustrating that victims of this disease would be mistreated and labeled insane, and the information posted here totally unilateral with whatever the CDC and other government groups say. Does no one here look up other sites and documentaries/etc. to check the credibility of these things? Or are we so simple-minded enough to just go with the first ludicrous thing we hear from any one group that spends less time on crucial matters such as this and more time worrying about their next paycheck and appearance?
Also, one last note, I've noticed that the only information one this page is, again, the one-sided opinion of a group of people who probably don't even know what Morgellons are. I've seen other controversial pages on Misplaced Pages, and they at LEAST give a little section to (What can be said as the) 'Other side of the story'. Where are the other official reports of Morgellons given by scientists and victims of this disease? Why isn't there a section dedicated to what they've said and experienced? Seeing this, I had added a small section at the very end, out of everyone's way, just to say that the information here is not 100% accurate, and encourage the reader(s) to visit other sites for themselves, if they so wished. But that was taken off too, because obviously either someone didn't want to lose the credibility of their wasted work, or they are brain-washed and simple-minded themselves and do not wish to hear about any other causes or theories, which, by the way, is not 'alien nano-technology'. Someone put that in parentheses and that is an incorrect statement, and should be removed. I actually tried to remove it, but again, some simple-minded idiot got the idea that any changes to his or his buddies' work is 'heresy' and should be destroyed upon first contact.
What, specifically, is wrong with the article? What sections are factually incorrect? What references should be classed as unreliable? And more importantly, what verifiablereliable sources representing the scientific consensus would you recommend be included? We cannot fix the article without this kind of specific information. TechBear | Talk | Contributions03:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi IWTTR, first, I understand you're frustrated and a bit angry, and that is understandable. However, you're not going to increase the chances of getting the kinds of changes you'd like to see in the article by insulting the people you're going to have to work with. Besides, personal attacks are not allowed on Misplaced Pages, and will only probably end up with you having your ability to edit curtailed.
Second, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and we don't have editorial or commentary like you added in our articles - that's the main reason it was removed. If there are issues we work them out on the Talk page, like we're doing here.
To expand on what TechBear said: Most importantly, if you'd like to see new content in the article, the first thing you'll need to bring are sources - good, high-quality, well-respected sources, preferably statements from medical organizations or review articles published in good-quality medical journals. (See WP:MEDRS for a complete description of what we're looking for in sourcing biomedical information.) Can you help out by identifying good sources we can use? Thanks... Zad6803:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Haha, I see my mistakes. Actually, this is my first edit, so sorry for messing up a bit. And as for 'personal attack', I do agree that is was out of line, and I am also sorry for that. I will get that 'hard proof' evidence, and do this correctly. Sorry about all of this informality. But one question, or maybe two: First, if Morgellons (As stated here) is really just some Delusional parasitosis, then why are there paragraphs about self-treatment and such stating you take de-worming medicine and the like? If there are fibers or 'bugs' there and you're just a loon, then why take the medicine appropriate for getting rid of them? And second, why does nobody draw up any conclusions about why everyone with Morgellons rejects this labeling and states that 'they're not being taken seriously'? Can you answer that? Or are you just searching for the bogus crap the CDC puts out to suppress and control all their received hatemail? Hm? So please, if you don't want to do any thorough searching into everything that's been put down, as well as everything that hasn't been, why not just make a small section near the end, one with a few sentences of other theories put out by once well respected scientists that have had their lives ruined by either acquiring this disease or trying to do more research about it? Or at the very least some quotes or paraphrases from ACTUAL PEOPLE WITH THE DISEASE! And how can you be so 'official' and 'well respected' if you won't even allow anything from these actual patients? Not just this article, but the CDC or any other health organization as well? That's all I wish to say. And for the record, just to prove one thing: The perpetrators are not beings from outer space. They live right here on this planet. This is not the first time that numbered pieces of tissue have been found by sufferers of this diabolical disease.
"An interviewer from MSNBC chose to take selected excerpts from a phone conversation with me. She manipulated my words in a newspaper article to make me sound as though I believed that extraterrestrials were to blame for this disease. Not true....
I was pointedly asked at the very beginning of this interview if I thought that aliens had caused this disease. I did not bring up the subject. It was rather a trick question. My answer was that it was possible that materials may have been taken from the space shuttle as a pathogen but I did not say it was probable nor do I think it is the case.
Look around my site. It has been here for many years and you will not find mention of aliens being the cause of this disease."
Crap, I did it again. Yes, I understand this is a place for formal medical posts and not rants or things like that. I'm sorry, once again. And if you're thinking of blocking me, don't bother. I'm done. I can't win, not yet. So why try? This is almost as bad as politics, heh heh. Well, one last piece of advice: Don't believe the first thing you read, and NEVER, EVER stop looking for the truth. Remember that. Well, goodbye, so long, and I will perhaps never speak with you again~
I Want The Truth Restored (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
New Evidence supporting infectious etiology
Please note that exclusion of a source on the basis of minority opinion is not a legitimate argument on wikipedia because the inclusion of minority point of view is essential to maintain neutrality and maintaining neutrality is supported and considered to be a priority by wikipedia policy. The primary source policy should not be applied to exclude a source when the source is from a peer-reviewed medical journal (particularly if it is PubMed indexed) as the Misplaced Pages policy states that primary sources can be included when they are reliably published, and the inclusion of peer-reviewed journal articles follows the letter and spirit of this policy. Up-to-date primary sources are considered appropriate sources for actively researched areas; and policy needs to be relaxed in such circumstances where little progress is being made and few reviews are published. If primary sources are not permitted for inclusion then the CDC and Mayo Clinic studies should be deleted on the same grounds. Please note that the magazine interviews and the like should not be included as they are not considered by Misplaced Pages to be high quality sources – they are not even published studies – and they do not meet the criteria for reliable medical references. The fact that these are included when peer-reviewed sources are deleted shows editorial bias. Before editing and adding new evidence – peer-reviewed and Pub Med indexed, and listed below – that suggests Morgellons has an infectious etiology, I would like to know if Yobol, Mast Cell or any other users intend to undo the edits that include content from the references listed below, and if so on what justifiable grounds? To maintain neutrality, editors should not reject a source due to personal objections to the study’s conclusions. <www.dovepress.com/filament-formation-association-with-spirochete-infection-a-comparative-peer-reviewed-article-CCID><www.dovepress.com/characterization-and-evolution-of-dermal-filaments-from-patients-with--peer-reviewed-article-CCID><http://f1000research.com/articles/2-25/v1> Erythema (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)erythema
First, you may wish to read WP:FRINGE. It is very well established Misplaced Pages policy that neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to theories or ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. In this case, the overwhelming consensus of medical science is that Morgellons has no basis in objective reality.
Second, regarding the links you provided: Both Dove Medical Press and F1000 are for-profit open source journals, with very little quality control. Anyone with a paper to publish can have it "reviewed" and published online as soon as their check clears; as such, they should be treated with careful attention when determining their reliability. That the papers are indexed with PubMed is irrelevant, as PubMed is merely a database of published articles and makes absolutely no claim as to the articles' quality or reliability. TechBear | Talk | Contributions22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You may wish to revisit WP:FRINGE . It states that “reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner” and “material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source”. Peer-reviewed journal articles certainly qualify as such. Peer-reviewed articles are evaluated by known experts in a particular field of study before the article is published. This assures that an article maintains a high standard of quality, accuracy, and academic integrity. Before attacking the F1000 perhaps you should be aware that – according to Misplaced Pages – the Faculty members include 7 Nobel Prize winners, 81 Fellows of the Royal Society, 12 Lasker Award winners, 146 members of the National Academy of Science and 104 members of the Institute of Medicine. The F1000, citing a paper on Morgellons written by some of the authors of the papers you are attacking, indicated that the paper was in the top 2% of published articles in the field of dermatology. Furthermore, F1000 Research does open peer-review, allowing for transparent peer-review. I am quite sure that esteemed researchers such as, Judith Miklossy MD, PhD, DSc, who is Board certified in Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Neuropathology; John English, MB, BS, FRCP, a dermatologist at University of Nottingham, UK; or Bernhard Zelger, department of Dermatology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria, would appreciate the implication that their approval was bought. Dove Press has guidelines for peer-review and reviewers are advised to provide an objective critical evaluation, and they must be experts on the topic they are reviewing. I already established that Misplaced Pages policy allows primary sources that are reliably published, especially on a topic like Morgellons where little progress is being made and there are few published review articles. If you take a look at the Morgellons page, as it is now, there are many sources that do not meet the criteria for reliable medical resources according to Misplaced Pages policy. In regards to Pub Med you may want to visit WP:MEDRES as Pub Med is listed there as a useful resource for writing medically related articles and that WP:MEDRES is intended to complement WP:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Talk page guidelines suggest that Misplaced Pages users "be positive and should not criticize, pick apart, or vent on the current status of an article or its subject". You are bringing your personal POV about Dove Press into this discussion. Erythema (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)erythema
libel -- TechBear, please note that your statements about F1000 Research and Dove Press are libelous and Misplaced Pages has a strong policy against the inclusion of libelous material. Erythema (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)erythema
Preventing An Edit War
The following was copied here from my user talk page:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Presumably this threat of an edit war account blocking also applies to the editors here that have undone my edits, so these people need to watch out also.
I feel that the reference to the keratin and collagen composition of fibers must be included in article, and since my edit is in compliance with WP:MEDRS, there is no reason why this edit should not be included. Please do not try to suppress important information.
That's not an article, Drgao, it's a press release from an advocacy group, and it does nothing to negate the 3RR warning that Yobol left you. If you really want to prevent an edit war, discuss your proposed inclusions here before continuing to add them back to the article. Consensus now is that your text should not be included based on the section just above this one. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Drgao, as noted in the edit summaries, plus from the discussion above, the source you're proposing to use isn't acceptable per WP:MEDRS as 1) the journal is not MEDLINE-indexed, and 2) Dove is a publisher of dubious quality. Do you have a WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary source to support the content you are proposing? Zad6818:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm commenting here to underscore that consensus is against inclusion of content based on a low-quality primary source (discussed in the section above) that runs counter to secondary sources of substantial weight. If we did what you suggest, it would be a clear violation of WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. By the way - the edit war has been going on for 24 hours; my hope is that this discussion ends it. -- Scray (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
A secondary source is not needed, provided the primary source is not set up to contradict a secondary source in the article. WP:MEDRS says "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to debunk or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources" Thus as long as you don't juxtapose the primary source in a contradictory manner, you can use it. If you are concerned about due weight issues WP:UNDUE, then my text can be included in a less prominent part of the article. I am discussing this in order to accommodate your issues and requirements, and I hope you will be equally courteous to accommodate my requirement, which is to include this reference at some point in the article, even if in a non-prominent location. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be about suppressing knowledge that does not line up with the prevailing view.
The study I quoted is on PubMed, so presumably that means it is MEDLINE indexed. Do you have any official Misplaced Pages statement saying that Dove is a publisher of dubious quality, and therefore cannot be included in Misplaced Pages articles? Drgao (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Drgao, sorry, no, the article you're bringing is PMID 23326202, and this parameter list clearly states at the top "STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE". The journal is Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, the library record for the journal is here, which also states "Current Indexing Status: Not currently indexed for MEDLINE" and current consensus among Misplaced Pages medical editors is that if the journal is not MEDLINE indexed, it's dubious. Also, the article content proposed based on this journal is an exceptional claim, see WP:EXCEPTIONAL - to include it in the article, you'd need to bring multiple high-quality secondary sources, and this journal article doesn't meet that standard.
It may be true that Morgellons is actually some sort of infectious disease based on fibers, but until the best-quality reliable sources start saying that, the Misplaced Pages article won't either. Zad6819:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As a point of fact: the study I quoted is not saying that the fibers are infectious, but rather that they are produced as a result of human keratinocyte and fibroblast cells in the skin being activated to manufacture the proteins keratin and collagen, which then create the fibers (the normal function of these cells is to synthesis such keratin and collagen proteins). The study found evidence of a spirochete infection in the skin of Morgellons patients, and the implication is that this infection may have triggered the keratinocyte and fibroblast cells to produce keratin and collagen proteins. So according to this study, the fibers are likely created as a result of an infection, but the fiber are not themselves an infectious agent.
Your arguments against inclusion of this information are changing all the time, and now you are saying that it is an exceptional claimWP:EXCEPTIONAL. However, the entire debate surrounding Morgellons disease has been focused on whether it is a delusional condition, or an infectious disease. Therefore, rather than being an exceptional claim, this infectious disease angle is very much a mainstream concept. Indeed, the research performed at Kaiser Permanente that you refer to in this article was itself focused on searching for an infectious agent. Thus you cannot say that the information I would like to include is an exceptional view; the infectious view is one of the mainstream views.
Given that much of the thrust of the research into Morgellons has been the search for an infectious agent, it is not clear to my why you would not want to include this new lead in the search for such an agent, even if just as a brief mention. You are trying to present a canonical view of Morgellons, but that canon is false, because understanding of this disease is in its infancy, and so presenting a single canonical view as if it is the cut and dried truth of Morgellons incorrectly represents the situation. Drgao (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to be listening to what multiple people have already told you in different ways: the encyclopedia has no duty to the cutting-edge concept; canon (mainstream view) is what we're charged with representing. Thus, citing WP:EXCEPTIONAL (in reference to this new study) was entirely consistent with citing WP:MEDRS (with regard to how we've identified mainstream views). It's absolutely true that many studies have looked for an infectious etiology, biological fibres, etc - and haven't found them. That this one has found such evidence (when others commonly cited in secondary sources have not) makes this study exceptional; furthermore, its appearance in a non-mainstream journal further degrades confidence in the reproducibility of the result. Unless we cover some new ground soon, I think we may be done trying to convince you. -- Scray (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Scray, I dispute the grounds on which you are stating that the Middelveen et al study is exceptional.
How many studies have you come across that have performed a thorough examination of the material composition of the fibers?
And out of these, how many of these studies have demonstrated (not assumed) that the fibers are of exogenous origin (ie, not produced in the body, and made from clothing fibers or similar), and how many of these studies have demonstrated that the fibers are of endogenous origin (produced within the body)?
This Middelveen et al study used various techniques including electron microscopy to examine the fibers, and demonstrated they were of biological origin, specifically, made from keratin and collagen, which are proteins made in the human body, therefore indicating the fibers are of endogenous origin.
If you are claiming exceptionality, only by tallying up the number of studies that demonstrated an exogenous origin for the fibers, and also tallying up the number of studies that demonstrated an endogenous origin, and then comparing numbers, can we conclude that this Middelveen et al study is exceptional.
And Scray, since YOU are claiming that Middelveen et al study is exceptional, I presume you must have tallied up all the relevant studies on the material composition of the fibers. Thus could you kinldy post the links to the exogenous origin and endogenous origin studies you have tallied, so that we can all see for ourselves.
YOU have said Middelveen et al study is exceptional, so please provide the proper evidence for your statement.
If you cannot provide evidence of exceptionality, then we can assume that the Middelveen et al study is NOT exceptional, and so can be included in the article. Drgao (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
No, you are wrong Dbrodbeck. WP:EXCEPTIONAL says exceptional claims are "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". The idea that the fibers are of endogenous origin (from within the body) is not surprising as this has been discussed ad nauseam, and is a completely mainstream idea, being found in all the literature. Ergo, you're wrong.
I'd really appreciate a bit more clarity of thought in the replies you provide here. You are wasting my time providing these logically flawed, ill-thought out answers. Drgao (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate you laying off the personal attacks. My thoughts are crystal clear. As are, it seems everyone else's. It could be you are right and we are all wrong, but you know what? A better conclusion is we understand policies and you do not. Go read WP:CONSENSUS again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
You need to remove the phrase "whereas in reality no such parasites are present"
In the intro sentence to this article, namely:
Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given to a condition in 2002 by Mary Leitao, where sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with parasites, whereas in reality no such parasites are present,
you need to remove the phrase in bold.
This is a point of science: anyone that knows about infectious disease research is fully aware that you cannot prove the absence of an unknown micro-organism. If a study does not find a micro-organism present, that does NOT provide proof that there is no micro-organism. Thus the above phrase extrapolates beyond what is known scientifically.
If you are unsure of this, consult with some infectious disease experts. They will tell you that micro-organisms are extremely difficult to detect, especially new ones, so no matter how many studies do not find a micro-organism in a given disease, this is NOT proof that no micro-organism is present. Drgao (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The current state of knowledge is that there are no parasites. You really have to learn how it works around here, read the links people have shown you, or move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The current state of knowledge cannot comment on whether there are parasites or other microbes or not. The phrase in bold goes beyond current knowledge, and is a fabrication. Drgao (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a point of science and logic (you do know about science and logic, I take it): you cannot prove a negative. Therefore what you have said in the article is logically incorrect. No reference you provide can resurrect this; it is a fundamental logical error that needs to be expunged. Drgao (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I also cannot prove there aren't little green men forcing me to edit wikipedia, but I am relatively sure there aren't. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That is a silly point. If you cannot take this issue seriously, then pass it over to someone less flippant. Perhaps others here with a better understanding of logic will appreciate that the phrase is bold is a non sequitur. The phrase in bold may be what people here think is probably true, but it is not supported by fact or any studies, so it does not belong in Misplaced Pages. Drgao (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
"...it is not supported by fact or any studies..."? Sounds like you have not looked at the references already provided to you. Misplaced Pages must represent reliable sources, even if we do not agree with them. -- Scray (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Scray, if you don't have sufficient grasp of the finer points of logic (as appears to be the case), then go find a friend who does, and ask their advice. It is not possible to prove the absence of an unknown micro-organism, no matter what the study. All you can correctly say is that such-and-such a study did not find any micro-organisms. So you can correctly say that the CDC-funded study did not find any micro-organisms, but you CANNOT say the CDC study proved there are no micro-organisms in Morgellons patients. That would be a false statement.
If you don't have sufficient understanding of this sort of logic, you should not really be editing a scientific article, because you will end up doing a bad job. Drgao (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not an attack, it's an observation: if you don't possess sufficient ability to follow logic, you are going to make a hash of the issue at hand. At present we have a situation in which there is a blatantly unfounded statement in the first sentence of the article. That should be of serious concern. Yes, my tongue has been sharp in expressing this point to you, but your inability to appreciate this point unfortunately called for it.
If you properly consider the issue I have raised — and if necessary, speak to any acquaintances you have who are more familiar with logic — then perhaps we can proceed in a more friendly tone, which will be better for everyone.
Any mention in this article of the CDC proving that there are no disease-causing micro-organisms in Morgellons patients, or words to that effect, must be removed, or else amended to say that the CDC did not find any micro-organisms in Morgellons patients. The latter statement is acceptable and correct; whereas the former is false. Drgao (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you look for just one instance of the word "prove" or "proving" (your quotes/emphasis) in the article currently? I think you'll then realize there are none. I'm done with you. -- Scray (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
When you say, as you erroneously do, in the article that "whereas in reality no such parasites are present", you clearly are telling the reader "that in truth, no parasites are present", as if it is a proven fact. But this is not a proven fact, as you don't know this is true. Drgao (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed Some Primary References Form the Article
Since as discussed above, you said to me that primary sources are not appropriate for this article, I have removed the following primary sources from the article:
Can you point me to the Misplaced Pages guidelines page which clearly states that a primary source from Nature is fine, but a primary source from Dove press is not. If I have a source, how can I officially check whether it is acceptable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages or not? Drgao (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, saying "You have no idea what you're talking about" is also a personal remark, similar to the personal remarks I made which were removed. So I suggest that you remove this remark. Drgao (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:RS, WP:SPS. I struck that bit of my comment, but it's not clear you understand the difference between a primary and secondary source and there's only so many ways of saying it. The Washington Post is one of the most obvious examples of a reliable secondary source appropriate to wikipedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I fully understand the difference between literature review secondary sources, and primary sources. What I would like to know is official Misplaced Pages policy you are referring to when you say that a primary source from Nature is fine for inclusion, but a primary source from Dove press is not. Drgao (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
WaPo is describing the cultural history of the disease, for which it is an appropriate source, not the nature of the medical condition, for which WP:MEDRS would apply. The nature article appears to be a more popularly oriented review article in one of the world's most preeminent medical journals. Dovepress is an obscure outfit where it's not clear that they actually are a reliable source in general, much less a medical reliable source. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Sailsbystars. I am going to revert the changes, and please do not revert without consensus, thanks Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Why Did Sailsbystars Revert My Edit In Which I Added Two "Citation needed" Tags?
I added the citation need tag at the end of the follwing two sentences in the article:
"In addition, long-term antibiotic use can have serious side effects"
"Persons with Morgellons symptoms may turn to alternative remedies described on web sites and discussion groups"
Sorry, I was trying to avoid removing those, but unfortunately, due to the nature of the edits and editting software, it was very difficult for me to selectively undo your edits. At least one of the citation neededs looked like it might be useful. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Schulte, Brigid (January 20, 2008). "Figments of the Imagination?". Washington Post Magazine. pp. W10. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
Like -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
