Talk:Morgellons

Additional information

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.

Evidence withheld

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:

Key Evidence:

1. Withdrawal Symptoms Match Morgellons Symptoms:
   • Side effects of certain medications can cause formication Formication: Definition, causes, and treatment
   • Burning, tingling or shock-like sensations (paresthesia) Antidepressant Discontinuation Syndrome: Symptoms from antidepressant discontinuation
   • Withdrawal from various SSRIs is reportedly associated with paresthesia... described as tingling or numbness, skin crawling, or itching Antidepressant Withdrawal Symptoms: Worse Than You Think - Dr. Axe
2. The Pattern of Psychiatric Medication Use:
   • Morgellons disease... often arises... in patients with a known history of mental health illness Morgellons Disease
   • A 45-year-old male with a history including anxiety, depression, peripheral neuropathy Morgellons Disease Treated as a Psychosomatic Condition - PMC
   • We report the emergence of psychotic symptoms during treatment with sertraline in four patients Sertraline and psychotic symptoms: a case series - PubMed
3. The Treatment Paradox:
   • 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 History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition - PMC
   • 72% of an international sample of 585 antipsychotics users report withdrawal effects when they try to stop taking them The experiences of 585 people when they tried to withdraw from antipsychotic drugs - PMC
4. The Suspicious Timing:
   • 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 Psychiatric NewsPsychiatric News

Supposition with value

1. Massive Liability: If Morgellons is caused by SSRI or antipsychotic withdrawal/interaction, it would implicate:
   • Millions of prescriptions annually
   • Decades of medical practice
   • Massive pharmaceutical liability
   • Medical malpractice on an unprecedented scale
2. 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.
3. The Perfect Gaslighting: Labeling it "delusional" prevents:
   • Investigation of medication history
   • Recognition of iatrogenic cause
   • Legal discovery of drug company knowledge
   • Medical accountability

This Would Explain:

• 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 NatureNih

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 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 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) 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)

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)

This person's post is clearly on-topic, The topic being the explicit lack of actual consensus on the etiology for Morgellon's disease. This lack of consensus and lack of thorough scientific investigation is WOEFULLY understated in the article. Woefully understated as well, is the documented observable reality that fibers can and do exist in the human epithelium, in the absence of mechanical skin damage, the absence of lesions and the absence of pruritis. He makes interesting points to those concerned with the topic, however personally in response to the specific details of his post I'd just like to address the poster to say that I'm unconvinced with the thesis. - The definitional symptom exists in the absence of neuropsychiatric drug use in the patient history and in the absence of pruritis or crawling sensations. For example, I've never used SSRIs or antipsychotics, never experienced crawling sensations under the skin, however I have experienced profound skin changes, atrophies, hyperinflammatory problems and granulomas including granuloma annulare - I've had anti-nuclear-antibody, ENA Panel, connective tissue disease profile ordered by NHS Dermatologist due to scleroderma-like presentation which returned negative. It's possible that Psychiatric drug use could be a contributing factor in some cases but it's absolutely not a definitive etiology. I think what is more relevant however is the very strong association with Neuropsychiatric symptoms overall. I noticed that progression of my condition seemed to be very much delayed by intracellular macrolide therapy, however the resumption of progression in the condition's cause seemed to be accompanied by a return of an impossible to ignore abundance of intrepithelial fibers as well as crippling cognitive fatigue. ~2026-41395-69 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a game of Simon says, with mainstream science being Simon. We cannot address your medical problems, since Wikipedia does not impart medical advice. It suffices to say that we follow WP:MEDRS, and anecdotal evidence is not compliant with it. Morals: your medical problems have nothing to do with how we write this article. We don't accept your testimony as evidence, and our article isn't about how you should heal your problems. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2026 (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)

This article is shockingly uninformative and misleading

The size of a study is meaningless if the methodology is flawed beyond all validity. The presence of fibers under the skin, under unbroken, undisturbed skin, even in the total absence of any pruritis is an observable and documented fact which requires scientific explanation. The leading explanation at this point of time is that these fibers are produced by epithelial cells. Currently, to even describe "Morgellon's" (Defined here as: Observable fibers underneath the stratum corneum) as a parasitosis doesn't seem like the most accurate characterization, it would appear to be more likely a manifestation of a sort of inflammatory syndrome with currently indeterminate environmental or infectious etiology. ~2026-41395-69 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It bears mentioning as well, that the existence of conspiracy theories and wild speculation by layperson's is to be expected in these cases. People who begin to experience something unusual to them which constitutes a disruption of their pattern recognition are inclined to desire an explanation, let alone when this change is accompanied by troubling symptoms such as widespread granulomatous lesions, cognitive fatigue or so on. Naturally, if they cannot get a valid explanation from members of an authoritative community such as the medical one then they will inevitably begin to look for explanations elsewhere. Funnily enough, there are many people who mistakenly or even delusionally believe that their environment is infested by bed bugs, yet nobody seems to infer from this that bed bugs do not exist. I've yet to hear somebody argue that the existence of chemtrail conspiracy theories implies that clouds aren't real. ~2026-41395-69 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes mainstream science for what it is, it is not our task to second-guess mainstream science. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)