Talk:Morgellons disease

Disappointed to see this in Rational Wiki - do you know of the scientific research on this topic?
Hi, sorry to hear you have fallen for the story that Morgellons has been shown to be delusional. Some of the people with Morgellons go half crazy with pain and become delusional. But there are scientists who are working on it who publish in peer reviewed articles. And they actually have quite a lot of data in their favour.

The CDC study had many flaws. Harry Shone, in his MSc dissertation for University College London, the only person to do an in depth review of the CDC study that I found, wrote this:

""It is indeed true that the CDC were being cautious, that they found no positive evidence for the claims made by Morgellons sufferers, but it does not mean that the study can go without critical appraisal. Although expensive and lengthy, the research only clinically evaluated 41 people. Furthermore, since the population was selected by criteria other than self-identification it has been argued by critics of the study that some of those included did not have or even consider themselves to have Morgellons. The validity of these criticisms may rest on somewhat pedantic points, but what is certainly true is that an awful lot of reading between the lines has been passed off as something more substantial.""

41 people is not a strong basis on which to make such a wide ranging conclusion, especially since their selection criteria have been challenged. And the study itself did not totally rule out that it had a medical cause.

""We were not able to conclude based on this study whether this unexplained dermopathy represents a new condition, as has been proposed by those who use the term Morgellons, or wider recognition of an existing condition such as delusional infestation, with which it shares a number of clinical and epidemiologic features. We found little on biopsy that was treatable, suggesting that the diagnostic yield of skin biopsy, without other supporting clinical evidence, may be low. However, we did find among our study population co-existing conditions for which there are currently available therapies (drug use, somatization). These data should assist clinicians in tailoring their diagnostic and treatment approaches to patients who may be affected. In the absence of an established cause or treatment, patients with this unexplained dermopathy may benefit from receipt of standard therapies for co-existing medical conditions and/or those recommended for similar conditions such delusions infestation""

There were many competing hypotheses for it at the time of the study. But the remaining researchers have converged on a single hypothesis now. They think that it is caused by spirochetes, and is a possible result of chronic lyme disease, if not treated in time. The main proponent of this hypothesis is Marianne J. Middelveen, MDes, a Veterinary Microbiologist from Alberta, Canada. She made a connection with a disease of cattle, called Bovine Digital dermatitis which has similar symptoms - and in that case, it is well established that there are microfilaments of keratin and collagen which form beneath the skin.

She analysed the filaments that form beneath the skin of sufferers, and found out that these also are made of keratin and collagen.

She also found spirochetes, which are usually associated with Lyme disease in humans.

More details here in my article about Morgellons with links to the papers. Mystery Of Morgellons - Disease Or Delusion - Scientific Hypothesis Of Connection With Lyme Disease.

I have tried to get this information included in wikipedia, wrote a short article there on the topic, but they removed it (merged it away into the main article with no deletion discussion). But this is a respectable scientific minority view. There are scientific articles on it in peer reviewed journals. The wikipedia page doesn't even mention the spirochete hypothesis and instead mentions a whole lot of really crazy ideas that are not published in any peer reviewed journal, citing only web pages and online news stories which would not normally count as reliable sources in wikipedia for such a topic. In my view it is strongly biased against the idea that there might be a scientific explanation - after all - why mention all those really way out ideas, and not mention the one credible scientific hypothesis? I tried for some time to get them to include a mention of it, but with no success. They were rather irrational in their reasoning, arguing strongly against mention of the scientific articles on the basis that it was a minority view - yet using double standards retaining all the crazy views on much less reliable sources.

Since you don't mention it, you may be unaware of this scientific research.

Do take a close look at it. There are a lot of crazy ideas that have got associated with Morgellons, but amongst that, there is also this idea which is scientific and has a reasonably good experimental evidential basis to it, though it needs more research still.

I often use RationalWiki - I write articles debunking Nibiru and your articles on these and related topics are excellent. Robertinventor (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Including articles on government websites. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811176/ 45.33.129.29 (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * PubMed does also have crap articles and crap journals (e.g. chiropractic and alt med journals). One review article does not necessarily change things. Oddly, the article's first author is a veterinarian, the other two are clinician MDs but not research MDs. Bongolian (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you actually bothered to read said article or investigate the sources it refers to? Have you taken the *gasp* rational step of not assuming the academic content in the article based on the irrational notions of one position being more prestigious then another (Vet and clinician versus research MDs) or the fact that not all research is done by dedicated research MDs? You speak from your high horse without any kind of awareness of how research works. We'd laugh at your assertions in the biotech firm I work for. 147.26.251.150 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So area of expertise is no longer relevant? — Oxyaena Harass  19:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that part of the evidence provided in said article is a similar condition among cattle, I'd say that the area of expertise is perfectly relevant. In addition, as I said before, dedicated research MDs are not the only ones who do research in the medical field. That may be their focus, but they do not have sole claim over it. 147.26.251.150 (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One review paper saying "yes" vs hundreds of others saying "no." Which is correct? — Oxyaena Harass  15:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It's true that mammals (e.g. mammals and humans) can be infected by (microscopic) thread-like spirochete bacteria, the species of the spirochete will probably present differently depending on the species. The example given by the authors of that paper, bovine digital dermatitis, does not appear to be similarly-appearing to those of MD patients.
 * 2) The authors' search of the published literature found "only three case studies that specifically mention the presence of fibers either projecting from or embedded in skin." And that other studies on MD "reported that patients presented specimens to the health care provider as evidence – fibers, lint, hair and skin scrapings, etc."
 * 3) The authors report that they "had the opportunity to examine many MD lesions and MD dermatological specimens (Fesler, Middelveen, and Stricker, unpublished data, 2017)." But as stated, their own data are unpublished and their methodology is therefore unclear.
 * No really it's psychosomatic, and the supposedly uniquely identifying characteristics of the disease aren't even clincially verified in your paper. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That moment when an actual leading medical institution considers there to be a need for more studies and doesn't assume one or the other. https://www.mayoclinic.org/morgellons-disease/art-20044996   You guys leap to immediate conclusions without rigorously going through what the actual research is on the subject, while responsible medical institutions take the stance that the research is not currently conclusive. References from the Mayo Clinic article: Pearson ML, et al. Clinical epidemiologic, histopathologic and molecular features of an unexplained dermopathy. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e29908.

Suh KN, et al. Delusional parasitosis: Epidemiology, clinical presentation, assessment and diagnosis. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/search. Accessed Feb. 28, 2018.

CDC study of an unexplained dermopathy: Questions and answers. http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/qa.html. Accessed Feb. 18, 2015.

O'Callaghan D, et al. A case series review of an unexplained dermopathy, commonly known as Morgellon's disease. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2014;70(suppl 1):AB34.

Middelveen MJ, et al. Characterization and evaluation of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease. Clinical, Cosmetic Investigational Dermatology. 2013;6:1.

Krooks JA, et al. Review of epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of common primary psychiatric causes of cutaneous disease. Journal of Dermatological Treatment. 2017;11:1.

Middelveen MJ, et al. Exploring the association between Morgellons disease and Lyme disease: Identification of Borrelia burgdorferi in Morgellons disease patients. BMC Dermatology. 2015;15:1. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-5945/15/1. Accessed Feb. 28, 2018.

Soderfeldt Y, et al. Information, consent and treatment of patients with Morgellons disease: An ethical perspective. American Journal of Clinical Dermatology. 2014;15:71.

Yan BY, et al. Management of Morgellons disease with low-dose trifluoperazine. JAMA Dermatology. 2018;154:216.

Shah R, et al. Exploring the psychological profile of patients with delusional infestation. Acta Dermato-Venereologica. 2017;97:98.

Vulink NC. Delusional infestation: State of the art. Acta Dermato-Venereologica. 2016;96(suppl 217):58.

Mohandas P, et al. Morgellons disease: Experiences of an integrated multidisciplinary dermatology term to achieve positive outcomes. Journal of Dermatological Treatment. 2018;29:208.

147.26.251.150 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to diagnose with you a clinical case of not reading the fucking articles you're citing. Even the first fucking sentence of Management of Morgellons disease with lose-dose trifluorperazine says "Morgellons disease is a poorly understood condition characterized by delusions of cutaneous infiltration by microbes and/or inanimate materials.".  And not even reading the fucking title of Delusional infestation: State of the art.  Which I can assure you after reading, asserts the overwhelming medical consensus that morgellons is delusional and should be treated as such.  Just admit you google scholar searched for "morgellons" and believed whatever you found backed up what you already believed.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to diagnose you with an chronic case of definition ignorance. The point of something being non-conclusive is that it is NOT AGREED UPON in the medical community. Given that there is very little in the way of large scale studies (none with a statistically significant number of people, which would at the very least need to be in the 300s), making an assumption that the literature even knows what Morgellans clinically is, let alone what it is caused by, is an extremely irresponsible position to take. Especially when people like you and those who made this page focused near autistically on one aspect (the sensations of crawling is psychological, therefore in your stunted mind it all is), without asking what is causing that aspect in the first place, whether studies are insufficiently stringent in regards to pre-existing bias or diagnosis, etc. This wouldn't be the first time that a serious disease was misdiagnosed as being caused by psychological issues or was stubbornly refused to be given proper treatment. Shall we talk about bacteria in the stomach causing stomach ulcers or Vitamin A supplements being given as part of treatment for infections as well as preventing potential blindness? Both occurred in the 80s, and while technology and knowledge might have expanded, the pitfalls for scientific research being rejected because it flew in the face of prevailing opinion has not disappeared. Furthermore scientific knowledge is not a democratic consensus, it is based on verifiable experimentation and observation that is reproducible. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.


 * Also, thank you for admitting I did some research on the subject while you sat here whinging on about how consensus can overturn experimental evidence. You even discredit yourself by criticizing the use of studies that are contrary to what I believe (that the disease's causes and whether it is the primary disease or a symptom of another one is still not known), then saying that I only used what backed up what I already believe, completely contradicting your own argument. Which is it? I can't have done both. Well? Do you have another infantile argument to make that relies on assumptions and opinion rather than reasoned arguments based on evidence? As it is you're no better than media that blares out about a study claiming X without looking into the actual methodology and detailed conclusions of the study. 147.26.251.150 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's make the situation a little clearer here. What we have is not a disagreement per se, but you being totally full of shit and me not wanting to put up with your bullshit.  I don't think think we're going to get to the only reasonable compromise, you acknowledging your position that its not delusional is completely insane with me admitting I'm being a bit of a hard liner about the  overwhelming  preponderance of evidence and refusing to engage with your bailey argument that further research is suggested by some authors.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the evidence is overwhelming, why are industry leading medical institutions such as Mayo Clinic or the Royal London Hospital so hesitant to actually ascribe a specific cause? Surely if there was overwhelming evidence, they would just say so, yes? They're in a position to have knowledge of all the latest research. Also nice to see the commitment to purely personal attacks in the absence of a rational argument. Gotta live up to the irony of the site name somehow. Gustav Kuriga 147.26.251.150 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because people with delusions get angry when you threaten those delusions. And for the record, while it waffles quite a bit the Mayo clinic advises patents to accept mental help if that's what their doctor proscribes. So ultimately, they do take a stance, namely that Morgellons is a hallucination, a sickness of the mind, not the body. 15:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the medical community is held hostage by at most a couple of thousand people /s. And advising a patient to accept mental help if that's what is proscribed isn't taking a stance, it's called not making an assumption against the first-hand clinical assessment of the doctor in question in something that isn't completely agreed upon in the medical community. Heck, I'd advise that for someone going in for more general stuff like chest pain. Does that mean the chest pain doesn't exist as a symptom? You don't call someone a crazy loon for having chest pain from anxiety do you? The industry is extremely cautious about making premature judgements, something I think you dodderheads would do well to mimic when it comes to things outside your field of expertise: 2D characterization of complex political issues. Gustav Kuriga 147.26.251.150 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks become warranted when we cross that boundary of you citing things that explicitly refute your central point and behaving as if they support it. There's never any good faith serious argumentation going on at that point, and I might as well be honest about my feelings regarding such behavior, because we're not moving towards any kind of truth through that kind of dialog.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet again, my point wasn't that there weren't opposing views on the illness, but that there were conflicting ones. In order to have conflicting views, one by necessity must oppose the other. Your supposed point is proving mine. Yet again. But your tenuous grasp on reason makes you keep coming back to a point I'm never making and saying "but some of the citations oppose it being a physical disease" as if that has any bearing on whether there are conflicting medical papers on the matter. But please, do try again. I do need some cheering up and seeing this after a couple weeks hiatus has lifted my mood. Gustav Kuriga 147.26.251.150 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible research
Have any tests been done to see if (some of) these people are suffering from 'shingles and other diseases affecting the nerves and layers of skin' (including 'something to do with "trapped" body hairs') and other 'obscure real medical issues' in the short or longer term? This is not incompatible with others suffering from the issues mentioned in the article. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am a sufferer and it is not related to shingles. It is in fact related to Lyme category disease and if you have all the mentioned morgellons symptoms plus Lyme symptoms (which overlap obviously), then you need to seek an open-minded physician who has experience in at least Lyme. Cat Scratch Disease is also a possibility. Interestingly, Pylori has also been found in large percentage of patients.


 * Lyme and related diseases such as Morgellons gets little attention by physicians partly to due to the lack of support by the CDC, and entrenched skepticism by medical facility conglomerates like the Mayo Clinic. Research continues due to private funds supporting research teams. In an age when the Government spends so much of OUR tax dollars on things that have no direct benefit to our day to day lives, why are we still not fully up to speed on Lyme, and Morgellons (clear clinical research now confirms without any doubt that this insidious disease still thought to be "delusional" is directly related to either tick born Lyme disease or one of three other related bacterial infections including Pylori and Cat Scratch Disease . Unfortunately, we are still a few years from finalization of studies and treatment procedures being finalized. What is clear is that advanced stage Lyme and related, require an aggressive mix of antibiotics to combat - all are readily available today, however doctors go by a playbook of approved treatments and such is not officially published - Some doctors are enlightened and prescribe a winning treatment. 95+% do not and patients must deal with recurring symptoms and progressive deterioration of health. Anyone who has had it who was not immediately diagnosed and properly treated will tell you this is a formidable disease to deal with - for many a living nightmare.


 * Current research is clearly indicating the Lyme relationship - A mix of rifampin, bactrim and ceftin (or azithomyacin in replacement of ceftin) IS working in research studies as of 2018.


 * Those mis-diagnosed (probably 90%+) as delusional and put on Psychosis meds are sadly destined to flounder or go underground (tell doctors they were correct even though they will pursue their own course, or worse).


 * This disease is real, not delusional (at least in vast majority or cases), is not a conspiracy (unless you count doctors whose egos and professional credentials are involved who publish DOP articles, in which case yes it is), and needs to be readdressed by the CDC with a proper unbiased study. Research dollars are pressed by many needs - those sufferers will vouch for this one as a priority. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Lyme Buster / talk / contribs 02:44, 23 April 2018‎ (UTC)
 * The question being asked (using shingles as an example) was whether certain types of infections and illnesses which can affect nerves/skin/cause tingling etc might give rise to what is called Morgellons disease - see, for example the ;secondary' section for Raynaud syndrome (though not necessarily the same causes). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Fibers
New to editing here, but has there been any any discussion on the believer's theories regarding the fibers that allegedly grow out of the skin? In my travels through the dank corners of the believers websites much is made of the fact that the fibers correspond to no known products, that they've been supposedly "tested" by a forensic lab (many say a police lab in Tulsa, though I will have to check on that) and that they could not identify them, which apparently means that aliens/chemtrails/the Masons are responsible. It seems like this is an important part of mythology that believers have developed. Laserviking42 (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

***


 * "...which apparently means that aliens/chemtrails/the Masons are responsible."


 * Why hasn't the previous post been deleted? I visited this site for new information on Morgellons, not to read sarcastic remarks by close-minded jerks.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 47.147.220.231 / talk 14:48, 8 April 2019


 * IP - you misunderstand the nature of RW: assume sarcasm/snark and 'round up the usual suspects' are the norm. It is not a news channel. Anna Livia (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The original text
Appears to describe something that was not seen as a problem but 'a minor disease/the end phase of a disease' which provided immunisation against other childhood diseases. The modern version appears to be more of a perceived illness (though there #may# be underlying actual triggers). Anna Livia (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient objective research into current state of objective research, bias, and issues with article.
This article fails objective analysis,from a delusion perspective. The writer needs to properly research the current standing of research and proof (days and weeks) and relegate the strange CDC efforts to the disproven anti-effort (see Greek ancient meaning of "anti-". You find what you are trying to prove wrongly) in a history section. There are delusional people who are convinced they have cancer or any type of disease, as may be. That is nothing but proof that the set of delusional belief overlaps a condition, such as it overlaps rationalism and sceptism severely among those who want to dismiss others without real proof and put themselves out there to do it. Real proof is the positive findings of morgellons among researchers. Observational proof is also first to be had first hand and evaluated objectively not evaluated unobjectively first hand through contrivance to dismiss without real proof, as has been the case in morgellons. The funky illogical dismissive thinking is fascinating from a psychiatric perspective. So, there is proof that contradicts this article the writer needs to read up about, and involvement of delusional thought in the parasitosis without adequate or proper examination diagnosis fashion among medical professionals, in relevance to group- think, double thought and neurotic overcompensation for feelings of adequacy. These are very real observable things which happen. As for the CDC, it is the latest real thing that the CDC has tried to make out isn't, and was later probably Ven to be real by the researchers, overcoming the manufactured delusion it wasn't real. People accuse the CDC of health insurance companies many billions a year by dismissing various things, please note. Please note also, the USA is not the most uncorrupt country on earth and the amount of corruption, even this author did not believe was possible from private corporate insertion into governmental process, is staggering. In the absence of better explanation, the simplest explanation here..

The page contradicts itself. It says the cause is delusional parasitosis but that the CDC investigated and found it was ""unexplained skin condition" or "unexplained dermopathy."". Delusional parasitosis would be "explained" showing no evidence of cause and effect, except from that.

It says that doctors diagnosed the original case as common eczema, but give no source of this to verify who they are and what they did to arrive at this conclusion, to verify the varsity of this and their claims (are they skilled enough and done an adequate job, instead of the opposite, as what a few mistaken people believe might be entirely irrelevant).

I am personally familiar with a case of spontaneous unhealing lesions forming and spreading as darkened areas under the skin, and finally leading to spreading white masses, without any picking scratching or penetration of the skin involved, as the patient's biochemistry meant they felt pain rather than itching, so avoided scratching and skin penetration of these areas until. However, using insecticide cream, the lesions would dry out quickly and heal up until reinfestation. Lumps under the skin in the area were evident. At a later stage they were squeezed with much force the smaller ones would pop out as grubs, and after insecticide cream, without much force. The larger deeper ones maybe over 2mm long were hard to reach, and definitely required insecticide to get them to let go, except for a surface one over 5mm. These are not nerve endings, and the description of self-inflicted wounds causing it, rather being an effect of it, dies not hold out, but is merely a convenient excuse to dismiss that does not cover the dataset, in other words a delusion in order to dismiss. As, stated, a wider study of what is happening with the actual physical evidence and objective observation, rather than unobjective psychological vested interest views, is needed before writing.

The article is laid out in a way that emphasises certain things and diminishes other things, in an undesirable way, considering the name of the website.

If you don't want your site to be another "Quack" cynic site, you have to write and research properly.

49.182.76.177 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * IP - you appear to be describing something different to what Mogellons Disease is posited to be, and have an incomplete sentence ('... these areas until.') which makes it difficult to understand your argument - and one isolated specific incident (for which you seem to be the only source) does not prove anything.
 * It would be quite possible that, as in the 'Possible research' discussion above several different diseases are being mis-named/mis-described Mogellons name.
 * IP - 'this is a wiki' and essays/drafts are accepted - you are free to create such (and then discuss how to integrate the text into this article/cross-link). If you do - remember to add sufficient references.
 * With your sentence 'The article is laid out...' can I refer you to Fun:Drinking Game. Anna Livia (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)