Talk:Morgellons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additional information

Thread has gone doubleplus bad. Bon courage (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article seems to contain differing information as compared to the text in the Wikipedia article: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5072536/ 185.169.74.104 (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Such disease is not recognized by mainstream medicine. Is that so hard to understand? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
So? Is science now permissable by consensus? If the majority wish something to be untrue, is it any less true? The person left an article from a mainstream study on a reputable government website. Is that so hard to understand? 2600:1003:B116:68C3:AB16:AB69:A61E:ECB1 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), along with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In brief, yes, Wikipedia policy is to follow established scientific consensus, and with regard to medical content, to base content on secondary reviews etc. And, for what it is worth, describing something as 'mainstream' doesn't make it so, regardless of where it is published. Good science doesn't reject theories in advance, but nor does it consider mere publication as evidence that a theory is valid. That would be incredibly stupid. Middelveen's claims have been assessed, and rejected, by the scientific community. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
"Middelveen's claims have been assessed, and rejected, by the scientific community." I see. Fascinating.
"Wikipedia policy is to follow established scientific consensus, and with regard to medical content"
I wonder, were was this "scientific consensus" when SSRIs like Prozac and Zoloft were prescribed widely for mild depression?
How about Celebrex for Alzheimer's? Did the scientific consensus apologize for the countless heart attacks that resulted even after large scale trials should ZERO cognitive benefits?
This is an absolutely endless list. I could go on for, literally pages. Avandia, Fosphenytoin, Ezetimibe, Prucalopride, flecainide and encainide.
How about Vioxx? That was a fun scientific consensus with about 150,000 dead huh?
There was Phenylpropanolamine. Got a cold, here's a stroke.
Troglitazone? How about a little liver failure with your diabetes.
You know my mother was on Premarin + Progestin in the early 2000's... heart damage.
"Good science doesn't reject theories in advance, but nor does it consider mere publication as evidence that a theory is valid. That would be incredibly stupid."
You are absolutely right. Neither does it suppress information. In-fact, what you've just described... that's not science. There is no such thing as a scientific community. Shocking, I know. There is science. There are people that study and express science but when datasets are suppressed, it fails to be science. Full stop.
The issues in the article is that it treats the potential of the disease as just that, a disease but instead states, "Morgellons is not well understood, but the general medical consensus is that it is a form of delusional parasitosis, on the psychiatric spectrum."
You know what else was categorized as delusional parasitosis? Scabies. Lyme disease... and then post-Lyme disease. Formaldehyde exposure after Katrina. Springtails Infestations (Imagine having an infestation of insects living inside of you and being told you're nuts.)
For goodness sake, a CDC study in 2012 on Morgellons Disease found actual fibers embedded in patient skin lesions and you're telling people their crazy.
If they want to research that, you know, follow the science - nope, you're crazy.
"Middelveen's claims have been assessed, and rejected, by the scientific community. AndyTheGrump"
What you've just described in Orwell's Ministry of Truth and THAT is why no one trust Wikipedia any longer. 100.36.126.51 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Comparing Wikipedia to the Ministry of Truth is akin of comparisons with the Nazis. See Godwin's law for details. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
uhuh. So, no response to the substance of the reply? If I'm wrong, prove that, don't deflect. Here, I'll show you what that looks like:
George Orwell's "1984" was first published in 1949. A little know fact about "1984" was that he simply reversed the last two digits from 1948. He saw the rise of totalitarianism and surveillance beginning to take root at the start of the cold war.
A key component of "1984" was the Ministry of Truth. It's actually startling when you compare his literary work of the time to today's suppression of scientific data.
The Ministry of Truth was responsible for rewriting history that was inconvenient to the Oceania or failed to fit it's political needs. Hmm, let's think where have we seen this? I'm young enough to remember a time when tobacco companies hid lung cancer data (let's all stop and thank Bernard Shaw for teaching them that trick). If you'd like I can throw a couple pharmaceutical companies burying negative trial results in the reply too. I'm sure they all had, what was that phrase, oh yeah, "scientific consensus".
Remember Winston? What was his job again. Think. Think. Oh, yeah! He was responsible for "correcting" newspaper articles that contradicted current Party positions. Where have I seen that before?
Then there were the "unpersons". Just poof, erased from society. Where did Orwell come up with such nonsense! The audacity. Well, in his defense there was Dr. Semmelweis (you can't tell me to wash my hands!), Alfred Wegener (Continental drift? Hogwash!)... It's an endless list. Gotta purge those climate deniers and PCR creators, because their claims have been "assessed, and rejected, by the scientific community".
Doublethink. Yup, Orwell made that term famous too. See, that's the idea of holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Here, let me show you what that looks like:
"...good science doesn't reject theories in advance" ->
immediately describes rejecting Middelveen's theory ->
presents this rejection as proper science rather than the "advance rejection" just criticized. Basically, The theory is wrong because it was rejected, and it was rejected because it's wrong. Woo, that's a lot to get your head around.
And then there's the memory hole... When all else fails, just delete it, no one will ever know. The beauty of the Wiki is "if we don't print it", it doesn't exist.
I think you get the idea. That's how you defend a position. So, yup, unless you can prove otherwise... 1984.
Oh and feel free to address the actual substance of the text. 100.36.126.51 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Analysis of Wikipedia talk page

New paper analyzing this talk page ScienceFlyer (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

That's interesting, not so much for the article itself, but for the clear indication of the work they appear to have done in order to understand how wikipedia articles develop. From time to time editors post links such as this, and my eyes glaze over at the obvious lack of understanding in many of them. - Roxy the dog 18:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Evidence withheld

More information Collapse list of unreliable sources and WP:PROFRINGE musings ...
Close

100.36.126.51 (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the point of this? Sources need to be on-topic, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRIND – and such sources exist. The article is based on them. More such sources would be good but we're not using discredited research and lay/fringe sources for WP:BMI. End of story. Bon courage (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

What scientific evidence did psychiatrists and psychologists use

For years now I’ve wondered what actual scientific evidence was presented to demonstrate that Morgellons was in fact a mental disorder? The entire medical community has proclaimed it as delusional parasitosis, Wikipedia has backed this up, based on what research papers? And when contradictory evidence is presented Wikipedia fights against it. Where are the facts against it being spirochete caused? Patadie (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

You might start with WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. The scientific community isn't biased against good evidence, it is biased against shoddy claims.
Scientists can be pretty mean and prejudiced, because they're humans. What made the ideas of plate tectonics and of photons hard to swallow were that those were advanced by people who could not back their claims with evidence. When evidence got published, those got recognized as science. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Still no medical, physical or tangible evidence that can support the claims of this being delusional parasitosis. Patadie (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
You might also read all of the sources listed at delusional parasitosis and at this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
In other words, a scientific theory gets accepted when scientists can no longer find serious flaws in it. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The facts against it being caused by spirochetes would be the lack of any spirochetes. We have plenty of parasitic conditions, and they're recognised by mainstream medicine. On the grounds that you can demonstrate the presence of their parasites. For morgellons - nada. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
If you spend time reading all the articles for and against morgellons on PubMed you will find studies that prove the presence.What you will not find is any actual scientific evidence saying it’s psychological.The is microscopic photos of the actual bacteria. As someone who suffers from this I assure you I have no mental issues, but I have been bitten by many ticks. Patadie (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Like Andy said, recognized cases of actual parasitic infestations are never "morgellons", the specific parasite type is part of the diagnosis, so that proper treatments for that parasite can be prescribed. The evidence (observed/detected parasites) is why those get diagnosed as actual infestations. You claim that there is no evidence supporting that people can have anxieties and irrational delusions, erroneous self-diagnosis, or even psychosis, etc. That's not what research found. On Wikipedia, you need WP:MEDRS that directly support your claim, not random primary research papers. Or sources acceptable for WP:PARITY, when they remind of an obvious scientific consensus. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • If you spend time reading all the articles for
Which obviously we're not going to do. Give a citation to them, the specific ones that you claim support this, or else you have only handwaved at their possible existence without any adequate justification. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
It is psychological, and the actual results on Pubmed say so, if you filter out things that are not actually studies. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 23:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I did find this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5811176/ This is an NIH article. It indicates an unknown but real somatic (that means physical, as opposed to psychological) source of the illness, especially regarding the fibers which are confirmed as keratin and collagen based (like skin, hair and fingernails) rather than implanted nonhuman fiber. 2600:8800:A683:F600:B9C8:55E5:3491:C701 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Weak journal, questionable author. Please read the archives here for discussion of Middelveen's work. Bon courage (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
That Middleveen article is not "an NIH article". The NIH hosts a repository of papers published by others. You can click on author information to see that the authors are affiliated with Atkins Veterinary Services, Calgary, AB, Canada, and Union Square Medical Associates, San Francisco, CA, USA. That author's work is well covered in talk discussion archives here, and covered in content here (see "largely from a single group of investigators" whose work disagrees with a larger body of research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI