talk:Morgellons

{{archive top|Thread has gone doubleplus bad. Bon courage (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|Nothing more to say here. Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy. Bon courage (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)}}

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3047951/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3544355/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5072536/

There are plenty more just waiting to see if I get deleted again for disagreeing!!!!!! YouarewrongthisisBS (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Please review WP:MEDRS; Wikipedia medical content relies on secondary reviews, not primary studies. We can't use primary studies to refute secondary independent reviews. You can also review all of the archives (linked at the top of this talk page) for a better understanding of Middleveen's work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33435739/ This, for example, as you can see by looking at the parameters at the top of the article], is a secondary review that is compliant with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE. There is broad medical consensus on the matter; Wikipedia follows secondary sources, doesn't lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your response, but I don't really know how to use this website yet and i don't understand why no one is taking the spirochete bacteria research seriously?? If I hadn't found those studies which were the only thing even close to explaining my symptoms, I never would have gotten tested for tick borne illnesses and found out I have three! It's beyond frustrating listing to people desperatley trying to disprove something that I know for a fact is real. What is the motivation? To prevent people from getting needed medical treatment by trying to convince them their symptoms are in their heads? Pure cruelty and trying to drive sick people to suicide? YouarewrongthisisBS (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Careful, you're coming very close to making personal attacks by not assuming good faith.

:::I'm glad that research helped you, but Morgellon's as a whole is a subject full of bad science and misinformation. As SandyGeorgia says, we have a very high standard for including research per WP:MEDRS, and many of the papers Morgellon's proponents rely on fail those standards.

:::No one wants people to suffer, but Wikipedia's purpose is to provide the current scientific consensus based on reliable secondary sources, and medical topics get even further scrutiny to avoid promoting potentially harmful practices.

:::Perhaps in the future the research will show a different result, but Wikipedia cannot rely on that happening. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, thank you I appreciate your response! But the problem with getting additional studies or secondary sources, is MONEY. People, the CDC especially, they have to PAY for that and if it is a minority of us suffering, no one is going to invest in that research! ESPECIALLY if there is this wild ass stigma getting pushed online! I'm telling you, I had multiple doctors diagnosing me with "subcutaneous hyperkeratosis, origins unknown" bla bla keratin bla bla forever. And "morgellons" was the only thing I could find even close to what I was experiencing, but for YEARS I tried to find another explanation because I didn't believe it was real, and even if it maybe actually was I didn't want anything to do with it, because of the stigma created by shit like this wikipedia article! Thank GOD I said fuck it and finally got tested for tick-borne stuff. So anyways...they finally find out some of this Morgellons stuff is made of keratin...but somehow the research is invalid? It's valid enough to be published on actual scientific journal sites, but not even MENTIONED on freaking *WiKIpEdia*? Werid...but I get that is wikipedia's problem I guess, not yours...so apparently I need to do hella research into all of this BS myself.

::::I think I'm really struggling with all the claims made by this article tho, that can't possibly be from serious scientific sources that are CURRENT! Like "The sores are typically the result of compulsive scratching, and the fibers, when analysed, are consistently found to have originated from cotton and other textiles." CONSISTENTLY? Really? You can't even MENTION there are studies that contradict that? Also, we don't all even have sores! I don't...or like "A 2006 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "There have been no clinical studies" of Morgellons disease." Outdated and untrue!! Even you can acknowledge that. They might not be secondary or whatever but they are clinical! Why is that sentence still included in this article? "People usually self-diagnose Morgellons based on information from the internet and find support and confirmation in online communities of people with similar illness beliefs." I see there are three sited sources for this ridiculous sentence and admittedly I have not taken the time to read them yet, but I really can't see how that is in any way a scientific statement. How did they study this? What statistics is this based on? I can read whatever sources but...is this really coming from "reliable (CURRENT) secondary sources"? It can't possibly be! Because I know it's not true, and how can they even claim that? A legitimate "study" lol i doubt it...

::::Anyways I've gone on long enough, I do appreciate your reply, and I get what you're saying, but I also know for a fact this stuff is outdated, wrong, and "promoting potentially harmful practices" by encouraging people with these symptoms to ignore them and not get tested and treated for tick-borne illnesses. SO I guess now I have a lot of fucking reading to do yay because apparently I need to advocate for this stupid ass disease. YouarewrongthisisBS (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11982937/ 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)

{{collapse top|Collapse list of unreliable sources and WP:PROFRINGE musings}}

Evidence exists that Morgellons may be iatrogenic - caused by medical interventions. Here's what's emerging:

1. Withdrawal Symptoms Match Morgellons Symptoms:
2. * Side effects of certain medications can cause formication [https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321896 Formication: Definition, causes, and treatment]
3. * Burning, tingling or shock-like sensations (paresthesia) [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/25218-antidepressant-discontinuation-syndrome Antidepressant Discontinuation Syndrome: Symptoms] from antidepressant discontinuation
4. * Withdrawal from various SSRIs is reportedly associated with paresthesia... described as tingling or numbness, skin crawling, or itching [https://draxe.com/health/antidepressant-withdrawal-symptoms/ Antidepressant Withdrawal Symptoms: Worse Than You Think - Dr. Axe]
5. The Pattern of Psychiatric Medication Use:
6. * Morgellons disease... often arises... in patients with a known history of mental health illness [https://dermnetnz.org/topics/morgellons-disease Morgellons Disease]
7. * A 45-year-old male with a history including anxiety, depression, peripheral neuropathy [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9217663/ Morgellons Disease Treated as a Psychosomatic Condition - PMC]
8. * We report the emergence of psychotic symptoms during treatment with sertraline in four patients [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9167832/ Sertraline and psychotic symptoms: a case series - PubMed]
9. The Treatment Paradox:
10. * They reported that treatment of two patients with doxycycline and no antipsychotics resulted in complete resolution of the condition, while one subject treated with antipsychotics and no antibiotics did not have disease resolution [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5811176/ History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition - PMC]
11. * 72% of an international sample of 585 antipsychotics users report withdrawal effects when they try to stop taking them [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9006667/ The experiences of 585 people when they tried to withdraw from antipsychotic drugs - PMC]
12. The Suspicious Timing:
13. * Before the onset of their illness, these patients' mental status appeared to be quite representative of the general population... The Morgellons patients I have seen had surprisingly similar symptoms, with an abrupt onset, often following a toxic exposure [https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/pn.42.11.0024b Psychiatric News][https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.42.11.0024b Psychiatric News]

1. Massive Liability: If Morgellons is caused by SSRI or antipsychotic withdrawal/interaction, it would implicate:
2. * Millions of prescriptions annually
3. * Decades of medical practice
4. * Massive pharmaceutical liability
5. * Medical malpractice on an unprecedented scale
6. The Treatment Trap: Patients experiencing withdrawal symptoms are being treated with more of the same drugs that may have caused the problem in the first place.
7. The Perfect Gaslighting: Labeling it "delusional" prevents:
8. * Investigation of medication history
9. * Recognition of iatrogenic cause
10. * Legal discovery of drug company knowledge
11. * Medical accountability

• Why medical histories aren't properly examined
• Why there's active misdirection rather than simple ignorance
• Why the CDC study was methodologically flawed
• Why there's such institutional resistance to investigation
• Why the fiber analysis focused on environmental contamination rather than biological processes

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

:cont.

:=== Key Discovery: SSRIs Directly Affect Collagen Production ===

:Sertraline exposure resulted in decreased bone healing with significant decreases in trabecular thickness, trabecular number and osteoclast dysfunction while significantly increasing mature collagen fiber formation... Howie et al. indicated that sertraline can slow bone healing while increasing the formation of mature collagen fibers [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41368-018-0026-x Nature][https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9584846/ Nih]

:Quantification of the immature, thin (green; Fig. 2g), medium thickness (yellow; Fig. 2h) and mature, thick (red; Fig. 2i) collagen fibers within the regenerate indicated that sertraline-exposed animals had increased yellow and red collagen fibers (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively) compared to the unexposed animals [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41368-018-0026-x Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor sertraline inhibits bone healing in a calvarial defect model | International Journal of Oral Science]

:=== Additional Supporting Evidence: ===

:* Clinical depression is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and confers an increased risk of mortality. Increased platelet reactivity may predispose depressed patients to cardiovascular diseases [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20961601/ A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, citalopram, inhibits collagen-induced platelet aggregation and activation - PubMed] - SSRIs affect collagen-related processes throughout the body

:* In the wound bed, fibroblasts produce collagen as well as glycosaminoglycans and proteoglycans, which are major components of the extracellular matrix (ECM) [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9584846/ The potential action of SSRIs in the treatment of skin diseases including atopic dermatitis and slow-healing wounds - PMC] - SSRIs directly interfere with normal wound healing and fiber formation

:100.36.126.51 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

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{{snd}}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)