Morgellons Misinformation Identification

Morgellons Misinformation. First, let’s detail some fundamentals:

Morgellons Peer-Reviewed Evidence

morgellons misinformation

Specific theories about Morgellons have been validated and others have been disproven against the standard by which we determine the truth. 

That being said, it should be understood that the defining characteristic of any misinformation campaign is the refutal of evidence produced from peer-review without sufficient evidence to warrant retraction of the article in which the peer-reviewed information is produced. That doesn’t stop the disinformation agents from trying though. Here are some common examples of Morgellons Misinformation:

Non-Peer-Reviewed Studies

But what about the studies that didn’t make it through peer review? Does that mean the evidence they present is false? There are studies that present compelling evidence but never completed the peer review process or did so only later to be retracted! There is likely supporting information in these studies that may by themselves pass the peer review process, but the entirety of the theory being presented by them cannot be substantiated:

Since the evidence doesn’t pass the review process, it may or may not be relevant or factual and cannot be held to the standard of accepted science.

Peer-Review Process Compromised

Another problem we have wading through Morgellons Misinformation is the fact that the peer-review process is often compromised by private interests.

Morgellons Misinformation

The concepts and phenomenon discussed in this article concerning Morgellons Misinformation are becoming more mainstream as the internet interconnects our societal experiences. A familiarity with the idea that, even if a study is peer-reviewed – it still may be compromised by private interest, is becoming prevalent. This environment is hospitable towards influencing the public’s understanding of Morgellons Disease.

Most important to understand is that the Morgellons studies that have achieved peer-review status have not been retracted due to compelling evidence.

Knowing what exactly is established from peer-reviewed studies produces a foundation of understanding that can discern between what is likely fact and what is obviously fiction. Personally, I have observed many intangible theories about Morgellons Disease and some very mundane ones that just didn’t fit the evidence. Some examples are:

There is only one definitive guide for both patients and doctors who are attempting to treat Morgellons, and I can’t recommend it enough. If you are struggling with determining Morgellons Facts from Morgellons Misinformation, pick up a copy of:[amazon_link asins=’0997920025′ template=’Carousel’ store=’morgello-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’2bf03c24-e018-11e6-870f-5d0558884b73′]

2 thoughts on “Morgellons Misinformation Identification”

  1. Read the book and am feeling it is already a bit outdated with the info. However, I use it as my bible for now as well as this site and 2 others on FB. Just got my lab tests back and I do NOT have Lyme disease (HNK1 (DC57) Panel. Based on Dr. Savely’s book, that puts me in the 16% that get Morgellons without Lyme as the precursor disease.

    • The CD57 marker is present on natural killer cells (NK) and T lymphocytes. In cases of chronic diseases such as Lyme disease the number of CD57 NK cells has been shown to be below normal. Following treatment the count can return to normal (Stricker and Winger, 2001. Immunol Letter. 76:43-48). However, the utility of this test is controversial. Marques et. al. (2009 Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 16:1249-50) reported that there was no difference between the CD57 NK cell counts among patients with Lyme disease and normal controls.

Site developed by and hosted with The Web Doctor