User talk:49.182.70.133

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 itrelvant).

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 fealt 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.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Special:Contributions/ / talk
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.


 * You posted this on your own talk page, not the talk page of whatever article you have a problem with. No one has any idea what you’re talking about. Christopher (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)