I haven't been able to attend to biological studies in awhile. Previously I tried to develop some hypotheses about Morgellons, including some that may be able to account for the more unusual aspects that have been reported in scientific reports (heat-resistance of fibers, etc). I was hoping that by this time this year, I'd have been able to make a presentation that I could communicate to researchers, particularly those who are taking Morgellons seriously, as we may have just enough information to start building a coherent picture, but I've been seriously sidetracked by many misforuntunes in life this year.
I was searching for something entirely different on academia.edu and for some reason two papers on "delusional parasitosis" came up. I haven't looked at the second one, but the first one may be interesting in some ways, even if there's a lot in it to cause disappointment.
"In 1951, entomologist Jay Traver published in the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington her personal experiences with a mite infestation of her scalp that resisted all treatment and was undetectable to anyone other than herself. Traver is recognized as having suffered from Delusory Parasitosis: her paper shows her to be a textbook case of the condition."
I resent the dimissive attitude displayed here both because we are talking about a professional entomologist (a scientist who studies insects), and because of some remarks in the article that I find disturbing
"Before continuing, one must mention that the article makes no sense entomologically. The house dust mites do not and cannot parasitize humans. They do,however, reside in bedding where they feed on sloughed off skin and are common allergens (Babe 1995), and Traver does write that she had the highest success inﬁnding live mites on her pillow. Thus it is likely that she really did ﬁnd Dermatophagoides mites on her pillow or scalp (Poorbaugh 1993), but the accusation that they were parasitizing her is unfounded. Indeed, no arthropod couldhave survived the onslaught of chemicals Traver used on herself on a daily basis,nor would any parasite be able to avoid detection by a dermatologist for that long."
Quite the contrary, this seems to have declared how easy they would be to find, and then goes on to declare they weren't found because dermatologists failed to find them.
I also resent the idea of such sweeping statements as "The house dust mites do not and cannot parasitize humans". No exceptions, anywhere, ever?
I'm probably likely to read the same thing about fleas not being able to bother humans but I've got flea bites on both arms to prove otherwise. I'm probably likely to read the same thing about diseases carried by fleas but I have sources that say that Rickettsia felis can infect susceptible humans. These flea bites from the outset seem to be infected with something that produces small, hard and often weepy lumps that can be so uncomfortable that I just want to dig them out of my skin, but cannot.
I've already had to deal with my lungs reacting to dust mites, and had to wonder if there can be immunological cross-reactivity between fungal chitin and chitin from dust mite exoskeletons. Such sources may tend to be scarce, but I have scientific sources that say that fungi can infect people's lungs and produce symptoms, although every doctor I've talked to so far refuses to believe this. I have scientific sources that talk about people whose lung complaints were cleared up with fungicidal medicines. I have extensive literature discussing allergy and immunoreactivity to fungi, along with the clear possibility of cross-reactivity between fungal and human proteins, particularly some specific to the human lung.
My doctor diagnosed me with asthma upon hearing how I reacted to dust mites, and told me my diagonsis of "COPD" had already been appendaged with a diagnosis of asthma. It had not. A diagonsis of asthma has still not found its way into my medical records, and over half the time I get to spend talking to my doctor is squandered on lecturing me about smoking as if they get some prize for talking to me into quitting as if they think they're the first person to try that. I too have my "tirades against the medical profession" as do most people I talk to, and often with very good reason.
Is that a sign of a "mad scientist" or a sign of a patient who's bothered to educate themselves about their diagnoses only to be astonished at the gaps in their physicians' educations and the accompanying cynicism?
"A rational person, especially an entomologist, should never have jumped to the conclusion that the mites were active parasites, nor would they so adamantly insist on the existence of a parasite in the face of repeated failure by professionals to ﬁnd or kill the parasite over the span of decades (Meehan et al.2006)."
I resent these remarks. This paper is dated 2011. By now, dumping DDT on your head probably wouldn't be the work of a "rational person" either. Maybe it's nothing, but not only would I like for this paper to have explained to me HOW and WHY dust mites cannot parasitize a person and how we know that nothing can go wrong with that process. I would like to know how we can be confident that parasites cannot find a situation where they are protected from insectides, just as there seem to be situations where bacterial, fungal or viral infections affecting living creatures can find protection from the agents that normally kill them.
If it turns out that dust mites or any other insects "cannot parasitize a person" for immunological reasons, what happens if there are immunological irregularities? What would happen in the case of cross-reactivity between fungi and dust mites if antibodies intended for parasites were mostly finding fungi instead? I don't claim to know the normal relations between parasites and immunity, that's an aspect of this I have never been called on to study before, but in spite of the doctor denials I've already had to deal with very similar concerns about my lungs.
I wish for everyone's benefit, this article would have gone into that so we can be assured the author is making sense here.
These remarks also seem to forget that a professional DID find the parasite - namely the victim of them. This paper seemingly acknowledges that "it is likely that she really did ﬁnd Dermatophagoides mites on her pillow or scalp (Poorbaugh 1993)" and that they "are common allergens (Babe 1995)".
So what does it mean to be crawling with something you're allergic to? Is that like someone who's allergic to pollen being dusted in the stuff?
Where is the thin line between a professional being confident in their own findings in their own field (entomology) and adamantly insisting on "the existence of a parasite in the face of repeated failure by professionals to ﬁnd or kill the parasite", and what business does someone have saying this after acknowledging that the victims bedding and scalp could be teeming with mites plausibly enough?
The other paper that came up in academia.edu is
"Delusional parasitosis in neurological patients"
2010, General Hospital Psychiatry
I don't know if it's worth two cents, but it's another one I haven't seen before.
Anyway, I both deeply resent and regret the unprofession, unscientific, and dismissive attitude displayed by the author of the first paper. Allow to me apologize for that and many other regrettable papers on "delusional parasitosis" on behalf of those who could have been colleages and peers were my own career prospects not so badly compromised by medical professionals and researchers who often don't even seem to have the background to able to take the things seriously that they are so busy being dismissive of.
At the risk of insulting victims of Morgellons with more of what everyone has likely heard too much of already, I thought I'd share these links for even the slightest hope that either paper might hold the tiniest clue, in between many unforunate remarks, since I had not heard of the case of Jay Traver before.