• »
  • Mayo Clinic Report Leaves EVERYONE Scratching Their Heads

Mayo Clinic Report Leaves EVERYONE Scratching Their Heads

By: Cindy Casey Holman, RN


A Commentary on Recent publication in the Archives of Dermatology by Sara A. Hylwa, et al, Entitled “Delusional Infestation, Including Delusions of Parasitosis: Results of Histologic Examination of Skin Biopsy and Patient-Provided Skin Specimens" Read the publication here: Click Here
Listen to Australian radio interview with co-author Mark D. P. Davis, MD here: Click Here

Morgellons Disease remains poorly understood in the medical community as well as in much of the media. This was evidenced by a recent retrospective study released by the Mayo Clinic and followed by the media with a plethora of misunderstandings. With all due respect to Davis et al. of the Mayo Clinic, the publication in the Archives of Dermatology has made evident that much work is yet to be done in educating the medical community on the differential diagnosis of Morgellons Disease vs. Delusions of Parasitosis. How could it be that such a highly esteemed medical facility as the Mayo Clinic has not the slightest understanding of the case definition of Morgellons? Or...was the elusive publication written only about Delusions of Parasitosis, a historically rare psychiatric diagnosis? After all, it wasn't until a live interview on Australian radio that Dr. Davis actually included the word Morgellons as being part of the subject matter of the study. If we can believe that Dr. Davis spoke the truth on the radio interview....why then were pathology reports of ancient biopsies brought to light and reviewed? Did Dr. Davis feel they might have missed the diagnostic data on a skin biopsy report the first time? Had he ever been in touch with anyone who is involved with Morgellons, then surely he was aware that biopsies have never been helpful in diagnosing Morgellons.

Why did Dr. Davis leave the word Morgellons completely out of the publication but yet in the radio interview he confessed that Morgellons was indeed being referenced in the paper? If the study was about Morgellons disease, then why were the samples not visualized under lighted microscopy at 60 X or subjected to spectroscopy evaluation? In the absence of new ideas and with the history of mainstream dermatology rejecting any meaningful dialogue with those who may disagree with its official view, it appears that Davis and associates have employed the same indecipherable, distorted and circular logic that has been displayed in the past.

These and many more are the questions that surround the Mayo Clinic publication and the bizarre twist that the media placed upon it. As it is, the content of the Mayo Clinic's study, the hasty interpretations in a flurry of major media outlets and the radio interview with Dr. Davis leave both sides of the Morgellons controversy scratching our collective heads. What was the meaning of the Mayo Clinic's convoluted approach? We will do our best to keep you updated as we work to gain answers.