I’m not optimistic this will be all that helpful. Just because the tick you found is negative, that tells you nothing about those you did not find. Just because a tick is positive, that does not mean that it has infected whoever it was attached to.
My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged. None of the ticks shown were engorged.
> My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged. None of the ticks shown were engorged.
I’ve hear stats as long as 24 hours and as short as 30 seconds. One nurse told me that removing ticks by grasping and pulling means they transmit immediately, because you squeeze their contents through their mouths. I no longer believe any of the stats; seems like it could be at any time.
Whenever someone recommends removal using tweezers, I wonder if the person offering this advice has ever removed a well attached tick. I’ve found tools like a Tick Tornado work better, but are still problematic with smaller ticks.
We always covered them with coal-tar ointment (ichthyol / ichthammal) for a few minutes. They detached without a problem after that, with nothing more than a subtle hint from the tweezers.
Just breaking out the tweezers and yanking away was most emphatically not recommended. It can leave the mouth parts behind, if nothing else.
Unfortunately there are a number of tick-borne illnesses. Eg, Powassan virus is a viral infection that attacks the central nervous system (leading to encephalitis). It can be transmitted within hours or even just 15 minutes of tick attachment.
Another is Alpha Gal. It is a molecule carried in tick saliva that can cause serious allergies to red meat and even dairy. Because the molecule is in the saliva, it can be delivered immediately.
This is very helpful for determining if prophylactic treatment is necessary after discovering a tick.
If someone doesn’t notice a tick then they aren’t going to be considering prophylactic treatment anyway. It’s for the cases where ticks are discovered.
According to the dutch public health institute, the longer the tick is in the body, the bigger the chance of transmission. Early removal also does not prevent lyme, it just reduces the chances.
Next to that, in The Netherlands we have a site to report tick bites and if they had lyme disease or not. It’s good to know if you should be extra vigilant after a bite from a certain area. I think the self-test could be very useful for such sites.
This is one of the things that is oft repeated by my vector disease colleagues -- your infection may not be caused by the tick you found, but by the tick you didn't.
I think it's super helpful. Sure it doesn't help with ticks, you don't find, but in my experience it starts to itch eventually even with the tick attached. If it's negative good, if it's positive go see a doctor.
You're the smart one.. Unfortunately I didn't find the tick on time and have been sick with persistent Lyme for over 10 years. Hoping for some kind of solution soon.
How about loosening restrictions on deer hunting as part of the policy change to reduce deer populations and, consequently, tick populations, that Governor Healey grandstanded^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H spoke passionately about earlier this year
and the rabbits and chipmunks and mice and squirrels, as well as that you have to kill basically all deer to the point of about 8 deer per square mile, since one deer can carry 2000-3000 new ticks. which is basically impossible on mainland because new deer just wander over.
I wasn't making a scientific statement about whether depopulating the deer will help; the governor of Massachusetts already did. I'm saying that it's pathetic to blame it all on deer and then not eliminate the pointlessly onerous burden on culling their population.
But since you're being needlessly snarky about it (it's not productive to suggest killing "the rabbits and chipmunks and mice and squirrels"), here:
>After hunts were initiated, number and frequency of deer observations in the community were greatly reduced as were resident-reported cases of Lyme disease. Number of resident-reported cases of Lyme disease per 100 households was strongly correlated to deer density in the community. Reducing deer density to 5.1 deer per square kilometer resulted in a 76% reduction in tick abundance, 70% reduction in the entomological risk index, and 80% reduction in resident-reported cases of Lyme disease in the community from before to after a hunt was initiated.
https://lymealert.com/how-it-works/
I’m not optimistic this will be all that helpful. Just because the tick you found is negative, that tells you nothing about those you did not find. Just because a tick is positive, that does not mean that it has infected whoever it was attached to.
My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged. None of the ticks shown were engorged.
> My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged. None of the ticks shown were engorged.
I’ve hear stats as long as 24 hours and as short as 30 seconds. One nurse told me that removing ticks by grasping and pulling means they transmit immediately, because you squeeze their contents through their mouths. I no longer believe any of the stats; seems like it could be at any time.
> you squeeze their contents through their mouths
Whenever someone recommends removal using tweezers, I wonder if the person offering this advice has ever removed a well attached tick. I’ve found tools like a Tick Tornado work better, but are still problematic with smaller ticks.
https://www.zenpetusa.com/tick-tornado
We always covered them with coal-tar ointment (ichthyol / ichthammal) for a few minutes. They detached without a problem after that, with nothing more than a subtle hint from the tweezers.
Just breaking out the tweezers and yanking away was most emphatically not recommended. It can leave the mouth parts behind, if nothing else.
On dogs my friend likes to strike a match, touch the extinguished tip to the back of the tick, and then pull it out with tweezers. Seems to work
It depends on the disease. Lyme takes many hours, as it must migrate across the tick's gut, but there are others that can transmit in minutes.
Unfortunately there are a number of tick-borne illnesses. Eg, Powassan virus is a viral infection that attacks the central nervous system (leading to encephalitis). It can be transmitted within hours or even just 15 minutes of tick attachment.
Another is Alpha Gal. It is a molecule carried in tick saliva that can cause serious allergies to red meat and even dairy. Because the molecule is in the saliva, it can be delivered immediately.
This is very helpful for determining if prophylactic treatment is necessary after discovering a tick.
If someone doesn’t notice a tick then they aren’t going to be considering prophylactic treatment anyway. It’s for the cases where ticks are discovered.
According to the dutch public health institute, the longer the tick is in the body, the bigger the chance of transmission. Early removal also does not prevent lyme, it just reduces the chances.
Next to that, in The Netherlands we have a site to report tick bites and if they had lyme disease or not. It’s good to know if you should be extra vigilant after a bite from a certain area. I think the self-test could be very useful for such sites.
This is one of the things that is oft repeated by my vector disease colleagues -- your infection may not be caused by the tick you found, but by the tick you didn't.
I think it's super helpful. Sure it doesn't help with ticks, you don't find, but in my experience it starts to itch eventually even with the tick attached. If it's negative good, if it's positive go see a doctor.
there have been times in my life where this could have saved me a doctors visit, and that's good enough for me
I always keep doxycyline around take a couple whenever I find a deer tick on me.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545493/table/rc1121.ap...
You're the smart one.. Unfortunately I didn't find the tick on time and have been sick with persistent Lyme for over 10 years. Hoping for some kind of solution soon.
Controlled hyperthermia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwtPtlcNXEs
Did you ever see a tick?
And it's relatively easy to get a prescription for since it's a PEP drug for high -er risk sexual activities.
I like that it involves grinding up the tick. Just deserts.
I don't mind there being some selection pressure against biting humans.
https://archive.ph/cNwmN
How about loosening restrictions on deer hunting as part of the policy change to reduce deer populations and, consequently, tick populations, that Governor Healey grandstanded^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H spoke passionately about earlier this year
and the rabbits and chipmunks and mice and squirrels, as well as that you have to kill basically all deer to the point of about 8 deer per square mile, since one deer can carry 2000-3000 new ticks. which is basically impossible on mainland because new deer just wander over.
I'm thinking reverse gene drive? Keep the animals and destroy the pests. Also let's do that for screw worms.
In many places, you need to add lizards to that list.
I wasn't making a scientific statement about whether depopulating the deer will help; the governor of Massachusetts already did. I'm saying that it's pathetic to blame it all on deer and then not eliminate the pointlessly onerous burden on culling their population.
But since you're being needlessly snarky about it (it's not productive to suggest killing "the rabbits and chipmunks and mice and squirrels"), here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25118409/
>After hunts were initiated, number and frequency of deer observations in the community were greatly reduced as were resident-reported cases of Lyme disease. Number of resident-reported cases of Lyme disease per 100 households was strongly correlated to deer density in the community. Reducing deer density to 5.1 deer per square kilometer resulted in a 76% reduction in tick abundance, 70% reduction in the entomological risk index, and 80% reduction in resident-reported cases of Lyme disease in the community from before to after a hunt was initiated.