7 comments

  • beaker5244 minutes ago
    I didn’t discover that ticks were a problem until I was in my mid 20s, and had been rolling around in deer-filled brush for years. Either I got very lucky, or have a chronic tick-borne disease.<p>I’ve been battling unexplained anxiety, fatigue, poor sleep and cognitive decline throughout my 30s. I’ve had every blood test under the sun, numerous sleep studies and tried every vitamin. I’ve had no answers and no change.<p>It impacts my performance at work dearly. I feel like I should be retiring, but I’m not even 40 yet.<p>I saw a video on controlled hypothermia the other day, which seems like snake oil. I guess that’s next on my list to try. I feel desperate, but I’m just having to get used to the feeling of desperation, because there appears to be no answer or solution.
    • thebruce87m0 minutes ago
      The poor sleep might be the root cause. I’ve got some of the symptoms that you describe but I’ve always had nasal issues that I think are wrecking my sleep through snoring. That’s my theory anyway so I’m pursuing that.
    • stevenjgarner15 minutes ago
      That&#x27;s rough. Same symptoms of low testosterone, which a blood test can measure. This can be caused (even in younger men) through daily exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like BPA and phthalates, heavy metals, and pesticides. Poor lifestyle exposures such as chronic stress, lack of sleep, and high ambient air pollution also significantly suppress hormone production.
  • mgerdts7 hours ago
    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lymealert.com&#x2F;how-it-works&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lymealert.com&#x2F;how-it-works&#x2F;</a><p>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.<p>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.
    • kaikai7 hours ago
      &gt; 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.<p>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.
      • Georgelemental5 hours ago
        It depends on the disease. Lyme takes many hours, as it must migrate across the tick&#x27;s gut, but there are others that can transmit in minutes.
        • lukan1 hour ago
          Yes, but if you push the tick - it will vomit its gut into you.
        • DANmode1 hour ago
          “Lyme coinfections”, for anyone seeking a list.
      • mgerdts6 hours ago
        &gt; you squeeze their contents through their mouths<p>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.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.zenpetusa.com&#x2F;tick-tornado" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.zenpetusa.com&#x2F;tick-tornado</a>
        • mireg1 hour ago
          I always carry a tick removal card in my wallet. Perfect removal every time. Even the tiny ones.
          • lukan1 hour ago
            The cards I found close to useless. The tools in the link from the parent poster, which are actually for pets, work much, much better.<p>And tiny ones are easy to remove with finger nails and some spit. But it requires some skill, do not stress out the ticks while they are attached and be careful to not partially remove it.<p>(Just had to remove 3 ticks on me I failed to spot after a late night walk yesterday, bigger and medium sized ones with tool, the small one with fingernail)<p>edit: and found a 4th one, but a tiny one(nymphe), they don&#x27;t carry lyme disease as only ticks who bite a infected animal will have it
        • CamperBob24 hours ago
          We always covered them with coal-tar ointment (ichthyol &#x2F; ichthammal) for a few minutes. They detached without a problem after that, with nothing more than a subtle hint from the tweezers.<p>Just breaking out the tweezers and yanking away was most emphatically not recommended. It can leave the mouth parts behind, if nothing else.
          • LargoLasskhyfv8 minutes ago
            In my experience it works the same way by simply using a drop of dishwashing detergent on them. After 30 seconds max they want to get out with wriggling legs. Works on me after jogging, on my cats, at the back of their neck. Any other place they can take care by themselves, and do.
          • aorloff3 hours ago
            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
            • LargoLasskhyfv1 minute ago
              Now that you say it...<p>Makes me wonder of what would happen when you&#x27;d use the tips of two blank wires connected to a 1.5V battery?<p><i>ZAP!</i>
            • sciencejerk2 hours ago
              From experience, you might end up with 2nd degree burns and burn the bugger into a hot crispy pile of ash.
    • exogenousdata6 hours ago
      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.<p>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.
      • superjan2 hours ago
        I’m not sure we are talking about the same virus, but for the version prevalent in northern europe, there’s a vaccine.
    • Aurornis5 hours ago
      This is very helpful for determining if prophylactic treatment is necessary after discovering a tick.<p>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.
    • JimBlackwood4 hours ago
      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.<p>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.
      • SyneRyder13 minutes ago
        Upstate New York has a site for testing and reporting &#x2F; tracking. Costs are $80 USD for a comprehensive test though. It looks like they&#x27;ll test just for Lyme for $20, but if you found a tick on you I imagine you&#x27;ll want to know all the diseases it has potentially given you. At least I did.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nyticks.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nyticks.org&#x2F;</a>
    • _ink_7 hours ago
      I think it&#x27;s super helpful. Sure it doesn&#x27;t help with ticks, you don&#x27;t find, but in my experience it starts to itch eventually even with the tick attached. If it&#x27;s negative good, if it&#x27;s positive go see a doctor.
    • Fomite2 hours ago
      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&#x27;t.
      • nkrisc10 minutes ago
        Do ticks commonly detach on their own before being noticed? Because from what I’ve seen of fully engorged ticks I don’t think I would fail to discover that. Or maybe an earlier stage where they’re smaller?
    • DANmode1 hour ago
      &gt; My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged<p>This understanding will age like milk.
    • micromacrofoot6 hours ago
      there have been times in my life where this could have saved me a doctors visit, and that&#x27;s good enough for me
      • lukan47 minutes ago
        You went to a doctor because you had a tick, or because you had symptoms? (like the red ring)
    • locallost1 hour ago
      I think you need to stop overthinking. Yes it can make you sick, but the only thing you can do is be on the lookout for it and be smart about avoiding it. I&#x27;ve had around 4-5 ticks in the last years, my kids and family probably around 15-20, one recently near my ankle that probably could&#x27;ve been avoided if I wasn&#x27;t wearing short trousers. But anyway nobody ever got sick from it and we live in a region with a high prevalence of tick caused encephalitis. There&#x27;s a vaccine for that so we&#x27;re all vaccinated now.<p>Otherwise just enjoy your life.
  • billfor6 hours ago
    I always keep doxycyline around take a couple whenever I find a deer tick on me.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;books&#x2F;NBK545493&#x2F;table&#x2F;rc1121.app4.tab3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;books&#x2F;NBK545493&#x2F;table&#x2F;rc1121.ap...</a>
    • alfon5 hours ago
      You&#x27;re the smart one.. Unfortunately I didn&#x27;t find the tick on time and have been sick with persistent Lyme for over 10 years. Hoping for some kind of solution soon.
      • any_throw7772 hours ago
        Controlled hyperthermia.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=jwtPtlcNXEs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=jwtPtlcNXEs</a>
      • throwawaycan4 hours ago
        Did you ever see a tick?
        • anakaine2 hours ago
          Does it matter at this point?
          • DANmode47 minutes ago
            The “no, never saw a tick” anecdotes help support the obvious concept that a bullseye rash is not required to end up with chronic Lyme.
            • DANmode46 minutes ago
              (nor is a tick required!)
    • holdenk6 hours ago
      And it&#x27;s relatively easy to get a prescription for since it&#x27;s a PEP drug for high -er risk sexual activities.
  • daemonologist6 hours ago
    I like that it involves grinding up the tick. Just deserts.
    • AnimalMuppet6 hours ago
      I don&#x27;t mind there being some selection pressure against biting humans.
      • nkrisc8 minutes ago
        At the same time no tick that I’ve ever removed from a person survived, even without testing it for anything.<p>I don’t think anyone removes a tick and sets it on its merry way.
  • bookofjoe2 days ago
    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;cNwmN" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;cNwmN</a>
  • viccis6 hours ago
    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
    • zzzeek5 hours ago
      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.
      • any_throw7772 hours ago
        I&#x27;m thinking reverse gene drive? Keep the animals and destroy the pests. Also let&#x27;s do that for screw worms.
      • Fomite2 hours ago
        In many places, you need to add lizards to that list.
      • viccis4 hours ago
        I wasn&#x27;t making a scientific statement about whether depopulating the deer will help; the governor of Massachusetts already did. I&#x27;m saying that it&#x27;s pathetic to blame it all on deer and then not eliminate the pointlessly onerous burden on culling their population.<p>But since you&#x27;re being needlessly snarky about it (it&#x27;s not productive to suggest killing &quot;the rabbits and chipmunks and mice and squirrels&quot;), here:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;25118409&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;25118409&#x2F;</a><p>&gt;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.
  • hmmnxrye1 hour ago
    No, well the point was that noise, chorus, or feedback did not exist. There was no such thing. Therefore, the technical workaround was to place two amplifiers, face to face in order to &quot;mimic&quot; distortion.<p>This is the way that &quot;Loveless&quot; (1991) was recorded, sans anesthesia.