Talk:Delusional parasitosis/Archive 1

Topics from 2006

Link to discussion board

I've removed the link to the morgellons discussion board, since it's a tiny non-notable board that only has the most tenuous connection to DP. If it were to go anywhere, it should go on the Morgellons page. If you want to put it back, please explain why. Herd of Swine 15:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Topics from 2007

A Scanner Darkly

--- someone should put something in here about "a scanner darkly". theres a long scene about this

There IS something in here already. It's been here for a long time, in fact. Dyanega 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The introduction and the "Presentation" section of this brief article appear to have been copied almost verbatim from the website of the Bohart Museum of Entomology at UC Davis: http://delusion.ucdavis.edu/delusional.html -- Mukrkrgsj 03:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. I have removed the content. --Arcadian 14:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fiction?

Is it really common practice for articles on diseases to list fictional examples from literature and popular culture? I'd like to remove this. Thatcher131 14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:TRIVIA. Per that page in the Manual of Style, such sections should be avoided. Iknowyourider (t c) 14:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but suspect it will be futile; new editors will almost certainly show up and re-add much of this material, I imagine. Dyanega 16:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well; I'll poof it for now, then. Thatcher131 18:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

They're baaaack! I'd delete the section, but I've been scolded too many times by WP editors for "being bold". Many of them don't want you to be bold at all - not without their permission, anyway. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

a type of infestation

I don't believe that this is NPOV, nor is it in the Morgellons article. The CDC calls Morgellons a skin condition. I am changing this to be consistent. Pez1103 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Thatcher131 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just keep in mind this is an article about delusional parasitosis, not Morgellons. I added a mention of Morgellons since it's mentioned in the eMedicine article[1]:

Savely et al1 introduced the term morgellons disease to describe a type of infestation characterized by fibers attached to the skin. The entity appears to be little more than a new designation for DP. Koblenzer2 and Waddell and Burke3 have discussed the utility of the term, with Murase et al4 finding the term useful for building a therapeutic alliance with patients with DP. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently investigating Morgellon disease

Do we really need a paragraph with 7 references? (the articles as a whole only has six other references) Perhaps it could be simplified a little?

Herd of Swine 22:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there is a direct link to the Morgellons article, I would normally suggest a briefer mention. I don't object to the longer description if makes some editors more comfortable. Thatcher131 23:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Herd of Swine, your continual dedication to move this topic to match your personal debunking agenda is truly impressive. As you well know, the initial mention you inserted was biased. Additional text and reference was added to balance; then that was challenged by someone else. The only way to address the challenge was to add the existing reference set. If your initial edit had truly been neutral and not an attempt to insert your viewpoint, it would have been a shorter and simpler mention. I do not intend this as any offense to you; anyone who reviews the historical edits can draw their own conclusion. Since you invoked it, please do not complain about it. --Parsifal _Hello 07:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC) [re-edited my post to strike-through off-topic comments --Parsifal _Hello 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)]

PS... since you mention it, this article having only 6 other references is somewhat sparse. With your extensive knowledge on the topic of "Delusional parasitosis" (aside from the Morgellons aspect), I welcome you to add more references to improve this article. --Parsifal _Hello 07:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)ve.

It does not really need more references, it does perhaps need more content. The Hinkle article and the eMedicine entry provide a good overview of the subject and are both well referenced. I'll probably do some expansion based on them, eventually.

If seems you read nefarious debunking motivations into my every deed. I added the mention of Morgellons (both short and simple), [2], simply because of the mention in eMedicine (see above). eMedicine is included in the "Classification & external resources" box along with ICD-9, and it seems like a reasonable source. I paraphrased the original, and changed "The entity appears to be ..." to "Dermatologists generally consider this to be ..." to reduce what might be seen as a biased opinion. Herd of Swine 16:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't consider your motivations to be "nefarious"; I don't know what your motivations are. It's clear you have a bias on the topic of "Morgellons" and it is generally present in what you write on that topic. Also, you showed your bias again by complaining about the way this paragraph turned out after it went through the balancing process.

The paragraph you added was unbalanced. It said "Dermatologists generally consider..." and that's not the same as "Most, but not all, dermatologists consider..."; you omitted that there is enough question about the condition being separate from DP that there is ongoing research. The way you wrote it, it looked like just another name for DP.

You could have chosen to include a short entry that was not biased, but you did not; that's why it needed to be made NPOV. Even then, I did not say anything about you personally. I didn't mention your bias until you wrote on this talk page to complain about the references that were added. --Parsifal _Hello 19:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC) [re-edited my post to strike-through off-topic comments --Parsifal _Hello 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)]

All I did was suggest it could be simplified a little. And yes, "Dermatologists generally consider..." IS the same as "Most, but not all, dermatologists consider...". Like: "scientists generally consider the earth to be billions of years old". It's a statement of the prevailing option that had be accepted on the Morgellons page. Herd of Swine 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Generally consider..." is not the same as "Most, but not all, consider...". The former implies the lack of controversy. The latter acknowledges that it is not a settled matter and there are some who question it.
• the "age of the earth" comparison is a false analogy. That topic has been studied extensively for a hundred years so there, "generally considered..." is a fine description. In the situation with Morgellons, it's hardly been studied at all yet, so the analogy doesn't track.
• You wrote: It's a statement of the prevailing option that had be accepted on the Morgellons page.. That also a logical fallacy, a half-truth. That page does not state "generally considered.."' it says: "a majority of health professionals, including most dermatologists,..." and, that is followed by "Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment ..." So, that's the information that was added to this article, to match the agreed upon NPOV version. --Parsifal _Hello 22:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There is really no need for this discussion to get personal. Thatcher131 23:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Without retracting my logical arguments for neutrality, I apologize to Herd of Swine for any of my comments above that were personal in nature. --Parsifal _Hello 23:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I don't find either either Herd of Swine or Parsifal to be lacking in good faith, there are subtleties about 'generally considered' that deserve to be carefully tracked. I understand the point that Parsifal is trying to make, and I'm assuming he wants to keep whatever compromise was reached over at Morgellons to be in place here as well. EdJohnston 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's it precisely... Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 00:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether the space given to Morgellons is appropriate

The paragraph on Morgellons (which is only five sentences) perks up an otherwise dry article. I would vote to keep this paragraph in its present form, with its six possibly-excessive references. Morgellons may be contentious and may not be a real disease but it is interesting, and the paragraph serves to focus the mind of the reader on the problem that the article is talking about. EdJohnston 17:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with EdJohnston about keeping the paragraph. Maybe that little paragraph can spark larger improvements to the whole article. --Parsifal _Hello 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Topics from 2008

Retrofit topic-year headers

21-Aug-2008: I have grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics are more likely to be added to the bottom, not top. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Body Lice

Anyone remember the school age science books bout body lice? Microscopic, no anuses, all that jazz? Haven't seen anywhere bout this subject where doctors have ruled them out, basically whole lot of clinical diagnosis. Though some would be psycological, couldn't some be basic body lice? Even a genetic mutation in the lice causing them to grow larger? Maybe more active? etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.122.177 (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Body lice are quite visible to the naked eye, and easy to recognize. That's how we know that delusory parasitosis is delusional - the parasites are inevitably either "invisible", or the "samples" contain nothing but debris. If any of these folks had lice, it could be diagnosed in a minute, with no debate. Dyanega (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

i think it might be useful to explain WHY it's called the matchbox sign - because people often gather these particles, and such, into a small container, such as a matchbox, to use as "proof", when presenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.148.136 (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Meth bugs?

I've heard these referred to as "meth bugs" when someone is hopped up on goofballs, perhaps we should note it? Or in perhaps amphetamine psychosis. --Ich (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons

The German article claims that the motto of the Springfield Psychatric Center ("Because There May Not Be Bugs On You") is an allusion to delusional parasitosis. I'm not sure about the correct translation, so I'd be happy if a native English speaker could second this statement.--84.150.217.9 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Being the author of this part of the German article, I'd be interested in native speakers' opinions on this as well. Schnederpelz 78.34.141.213 (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, thanks to a Simpsons DVD Box, I could sort the matter out. On the DVD, the sign in front of the Springfield Psychatric Center that reads "Because There May Not Be Bugs On You" is translated (using subtitles). Some of the translations: Dutch: "misschien heb je geen insecten", French: "vous n'êtes peut-être pas envahi par les microbes", German: "denn vielleicht krabbelt kein Ungeziefer auf Ihnen rum". The Italian and Spanish subtitles do not translate the allusion, but I guess the three examples are clear enough, Seems I will not have to change the de.wikipedia.org article. See: Episode nr. 114 ("fear of flying"), production code 2F08 -- Schnederpelz -- 87.79.152.246 (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

@Schnederpelz:: There is a classic campfire/children's song "There ain't no bugs on me" [3], so the joke's humour comes from the juxtaposition of the serious rewording of a silly song with clinical delusions about parasites.-Ich (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The article lacks any balance - "delusional parasitosis" is in itself often delusional

I lost 8 years of my life (my 20s went down the drain) because doctors insisted I had "delusional parasitosis". It turned out in fact that I had gnathostomiasis (microscopic flesh-eating nematodes that can burrow around any part of your body they like and infect every organ in your body) after a trip to Japan where I consumed raw fish. This does not show up in any stool test as cannot lay eggs in the human GI tract, but was confirmed by blood test 9 years later. To get this far required a hell of a lot of arguing after spending months of reading on parasites, my own microscope work, and self treatment -- a true diagnosis only came about because the Infectious Diseases doctor wanted to "give me peace of mind" as stuck firmly to this lazy easy-way-out "delusional" diagnosis.

Therefore, I believe this article lacks balance. If a doctor tells you you have "delusional parasitosis" they often are talking out of their fucking arse. (often they will not tell you, but it will be in their notes and you can usually read between the lines that this is what they are thinking) Too many doctors automatically jump to this conclusion, and it is dangerous to have such an article that does not err on the side of caution.

This article on List of migrating cutaneous conditions might also be of more relevance than the scientifically unrecognised "Morgellons" for anyone seeking reference to information on genuine physiological conditions created by migrating cutaneous nematodes, as well as the article on visceral larva migrans.

Unknown poster: be sure to sign your posts with 4 tilde symbols: "~". Not only will we know to whom we are addressing, but the date of the entry as well. It also gives your comments more weight when you are willing to own them.

I am truly glad that you were finally treated for your condition, but your experience represents a single anecdote. It does not prove that the article ". . .lacks any balance - delusional parasitosis" is in itself often delusional". That is an unsupported opinion on your part. Have you considered adding a "Misdiagnosis" or "Differential diagnosis" section to the article, referenced of course, that illustrates your contention that the diagnosis is too often automatically jumped to and lazy? When you say that, are you referring to all doctors in general or specialists, like dermatologists and infectious disease MDs in particular? Have you found references to the percentage of times that the diagnosis is misapplied? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

ICD 10

I have added the ICD 10 category group F22 persistent delusional disorders to the infobox.[4] This is based on the index trail disorder, delusional from ICD-10 volume 3, and also searching WHO's online resource. However, I'm not a clinician or mental health coder (nor have access to the "blue book"), so this may be not be clinically accurate. Little pob (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Pleonasmus?

Delusional parasitosis is a mental disorder characterized by a fixed, false belief that a skin infestation exists, which is in contrast to cases of actual parasitosis, such as scabies and infestation with Demodex, in which a skin infestation is present and identifiable by a physician through physical examination or laboratory tests.

Isn't this paragraph too laboured? The emboldened part is just unnecessary considering "fixed, false belief" already accomplishes the task of establishing that the infestations doesn't exist. It should keep brevity for a clearer explanation instead of the convoluted one like the above. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 17:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Delusional parasitosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021033308/http://www.ent.uga.edu/pubs/delusory.pdf to http://www.ent.uga.edu/pubs/delusory.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Topics from 2020

Update needed

I plan to work on a much needed update to this article, incorporating recent reviews:

• Campbell EH, Elston DM, Hawthorne JD, Beckert DR (May 2019). "Diagnosis and management of delusional parasitosis". J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. (Review). 80 (5): 1428–34. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.012. PMID 30543832.
• Moriarty N, Alam M, Kalus A, O'Connor K (December 2019). "Current understanding and approach to delusional infestation". Am. J. Med. (Review). 132 (12): 1401–09. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.06.017. PMID 31295443.
• Suh KN (June 7, 2018). "Delusional infestation: Epidemiology, clinical presentation, assessment and diagnosis". UpToDate. Wolters Kluwer. Retrieved March 8, 2020.

But first, the article has an inconsistent citation format; does anyone object if I standardize to the format in the Moriarty article above? (Diberri/BogHog vancouver author format, more than six authors truncated to three et al., reduce all caps in journal articles.)

I've cleaned out the old outdated, and replaced with mostly text from these three newer reviews. I can still considerably expand the article using these reviews, but will stop for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

CC by 4 problem

@Diannaa: per the other discussion I pinged you to at Talk:Treatment of Hidradenitis suppurativa have I gotten the CC By 4 wrong here? If so, revdels needed ... this is the only instance so far of me applying the technique I recently learned from you, and it has all been in the last few days, so an indepth not needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

List

Starting here a list of diffs where I copied text from this source; I will delete as I go and re-write after Diannaa weighs in on need for revdel ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• [5] 04:52 9 March, First realized the source was CC by 4, added that to citation
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delusional_parasitosis&diff=next&oldid=944662864
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delusional_parasitosis&diff=next&oldid=944664003
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delusional_parasitosis&diff=next&oldid=944664499
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delusional_parasitosis&diff=next&oldid=944664887
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delusional_parasitosis&diff=next&oldid=944666169

That's all, will next delete that text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Revert to last edit before CC by 4 additions: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I will have to do revision deletion on it, because Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International is not a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Diannaa; glad I learned that lesson so quickly after the fact! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you see the list of compatible licenses? I've got the page bookmarked, and still refer to it often! Cheers,— Diannaa (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)