Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Morgellons/Archive1

Discussion
Dyanega states above, "There needs to be at least ONE online resource that states the facts, plain and simple, and WP needs to be that sort of place." In his opinion, "the facts" are that: "there is no evidence on the pro-Morgellons side (other than that manufactured by the Morgellons Research Foundation)"; and: "so far no genuine medical experts have come forward to do anything besides denounce this as a non-disease."

I disagree. I don't think Wikipedia exists to publicize Dyanega's interpretation of the facts. I think WP can describe "Morgellons" objectively, as a social and medical phenomenon, without saying that all "genuine medical experts" deny the condition exists, and that the Morgellons Research Foundation manufactures evidence.

Here are some facts: The Office of Rare Diseases of the National Institutes of Health has a webpage for the "Disease: Morgellons disease, Synonyms: Morgellon's disease". At the bottom is the message: "Additional information about Morgellons disease is available from: http://www.healthfinder.gov/orgs/HR3704.htm, and http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/delusionalparasitosis/. The first links to The Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF).  The second links to the Division of Parasitic Diseases, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC page currently reads, under the heading "Delusional Parasitosis": "The Delusional Parasitosis page has been removed from the Division of Parasitic Diseases site." Wikipedia has a short article on "Delusional parasitosis". It links to a 17-page article on "Human Skin Parasites & Delusional Parasitosis", at the website of The Bohart Museum of Entomology, at the University of California, Davis. (Until March 24, major portions of the article here apparently were copied from the Bohart site.)

The Introduction to the Bohart's eight-page section on Human Skin Parasites says, "If symptoms of itching and crawling sensations in the skin persist and no evidence of parasites can be found, then a syndrome called Delusional Parasitosis must be considered. A variety of causes have been suggested for these sensations, including parasitism by Collembola and Strepsiptera or the presence of organisms called Morgellons. "Morgellons" is a term used to describe what are purported to be fiber-like parasites of the skin, but after decades of detailed study there is no evidence of an unknown organism fitting this description." A nine-page second section is devoted to "Delusional Parasitosis".

It is pertinent that Dyanega's WP profile says: "I'm the collection manager of a major US insect collection, at the University of California, Riverside". A Google search indicates that he is the Senior Museum Scientist at the Entomology Research Museum at U.C. Riverside, a facility similar to the Bohart at U.C. Davis. Its website says, "The museum serves as a valuable resource for the pest control industry, agriculture, public health, forensic medicine and criminology, environmental biology, as well as the general public." [emphasis added]

Dyanega says above: "I have no personal or professional stake in the matter"; yet he wrote March 24, on the Morgellons discussion page: "I most certainly do not have any connection with the Bohart Museum's website, and I'll be darned if I can see anything that either they or I have done is "promotion" of a diagnosis. Delusional parasitosis exists, I deal with it all the time, as do many professional entomologists, including those at UC Davis, I'm sure. We are certainly well-qualified to inform the public about it. Many of us read about it, do research on it, and learn as much as possible about it, so we can work to help those people who suffer from it." [emphasis added]

Thus it appears that Dyanega, and his colleagues at U.C. Davis, are as fervently biased in their belief in "Delusional parasitosis", as they claim the people at the MRF are, in their belief in "Morgellons". I submit that at this time, the Morgellons article strongly reflects that bias; and is likely to leave WP users with the prejudicial belief that anyone claiming to have "Morgellons" is neurotic or psychotic.

For the record, I had never heard of Morgellons before I saw the article here March 21. Nevertheless, I have done my homework, and I am confident I can edit a brief, objective update of the current article. I will be glad to collaborate with any editors who can be equally objective.

-- Mukrkrgsj 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have known about Morgellons since just after it was first made known, and have interacted on several occasions with individuals claiming to suffer from it. For the record, I am, like any professional publishing scientist, fully capable of editing an article in such a way that my personal opinion is not expressed therein; for example, my personal opinion that "the Morgellons Research Foundation manufactures evidence" does NOT appear in the article (and it is not actually my opinion in the literal sense - my actual opinion is that the people in the MRF suffer FROM the condition they're describing, and probably honestly believe that what they write is truthful, even though it is almost entirely in their imagination; there is a huge difference between fraud and delusion!!). However, the point about the MRF having a conflict of interest IS mentioned, and that is entirely appropriate; they take in huge sums of money, which supports the "research" of the various board members, so there is an enormous incentive to promote the condition as real, and readers need to be made aware of this - it's called "disclosure".

Also, for the record, delusional parasitosis is a well-known, well-studied, well-documented medical condition known for CENTURIES. It is not something to "believe" in, nor put in quotes - it is a real condition, with tens of thousands of people affected by it in the US alone. It's like accusing me of a belief in "schizophrenia", when someone else has come forth proposing a new disease (with the same symptoms as schizophrenia) they dubbed "brain mites". The problem here is the converse; a group of people who believe in something for which there is no evidence, and which the scientific and medical communities say does not exist. Let me draw a parallel which is identical in principle to the present controversy; consider the WP entry on Bigfoot. That is also a case where there is a group of people who believe in something for which there is no evidence, and which the scientific community says does not exist. If one accepts Mukrkrgsj's reasoning, the way the WP "Bigfoot" article is written is tremendously biased, because if one reads it, one comes away with the impression that Bigfoot is not real EVEN THOUGH THE ARTICLE NEVER SAYS IT IS NOT REAL. The emphasis is added because THAT is the primary thing that differentiates subjectivity from objectivity in a presentation. The Morgellons page, as I had edited it, did not state either that it was or was not real - it was at LEAST (if not more so) as objective and unbiased as the Bigfoot article which - in principle - is an article of the same fundamental type. Ultimately, "bias" and "balance" are not entirely the same thing - when the two sides of a controversy are unbalanced to begin with, even an unbiased article will reflect that imbalance. Dyanega 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dyanega continues to argue that the Morgellons syndrome is a "delusion", saying: "it is almost entirely in their imagination"; and that "the people in the MRF": "believe in something for which there is no evidence, and which the scientific and medical communities say does not exist." Nevertheless, as I noted above, The Office of Rare Diseases of the National Institutes of Health thinks it exists, and has a web page for "Morgellons disease"

He also claims that "delusional parasitosis" is "a well-known, well-studied, well-documented medical condition known for CENTURIES." However, the "Delusional parasitosis" article here says: "Delusional parasitosis is also referred to as 'Ekbom's Syndrome,' named after a Swedish neurologist, Karl Axel Ekbom,[2] who published seminal accounts of the disease in 1937 and 1938."

The article has a reference link to "Ekbom's syndrome II" at the Who Named It? site, which says:


 * "The earliest well documented case appears to be that described by Georges Thibièrge (1856-1926) in 1894, although he applied the term "acarophobe." The term ”delusions of parasitosis” was introduced in 1946 by J. W. Wilson and H. E. Miller."

As I also noted above, "The Delusional Parasitosis page has been removed from the Division of Parasitic Diseases site", at the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But more to the point, "delusional parasitosis" is a red herring. It simply doesn't apply to Morgellons.

The article here says: "Delusional parasitosis is a form of psychosis in which sufferers hold a delusional belief they are infested with parasites[1]." The link is to the Bohart Museum's "Human Skin Parasites & Delusional Parasitosis" pages, where we find the definition: "Delusional Parasitosis is a mistaken belief that one is being infested by parasites such as mites, lice, fleas, spiders, worms, bacteria, or other organisms."

The MRF website says:


 * "Most individuals with this disease report disturbing symptoms such as crawling, stinging and biting sensations, as well as non-healing skin lesions which are associated with highly unusual structures. These structures can be described as fiber-like or filamentous, and they are the most striking and least understood aspect of this disease.  In addition, many sufferers also report symptoms of disabling fatigue, severe mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, sharp decline in vision, and serious neurological disorders."

The MRF does not claim that Morgellons is an infestation by organic parasites.

-- Mukrkrgsj 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Question
How has the situation evolved since mediation was requested? Vassyana 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a more recent editor making fairly similar edits, with more explicit criticisms; the anonymous editor has apparently only just reappeared today. See above. Dyanega 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)