Deliberately Induced Spider Bites

[Valvool]

Dr. Baerg, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at the University of Arkansas, spent many decades studying arachnids. Of his 75 published papers, many dealt with tarantulas. He thought every student of entomology should at least make the acquaintance of the tarantula and a docile species was handed to each student on the first day of his class. In 1922, in doing research on Laetrodectus, Dr. Baerg induced a black widow to bite him, and recorded the results of the bite meticulously. The effects of the bite were much more severe than he anticipated and he ended up going to the hospital. (At the age of 85 he volunteered to be the experimental animal to test the bite of Chiracanthirum Inclusum but those performing the research declined.)

The article resulting from Dr. Baerg's deliberate encounter with the widow (the first one refused to bite him, the second one refused to let go) is fascinating. Is anyone aware of similar research into the effects of tarantula venom in which humans volunteered themselves to be the test subjects?

 

[LordWaffle]

I am unaware of any reputable studies being done in which the researcher is inducing envenomation. If there are, I'd like to read about it, but we have more effective ways of gathering information on specific venom if we want to study them that doesn't involve subjecting a test subject to a bite.

 

[Valvool]

What effective way is that? We have liquid and gas chromatography to elucidate amino acid components and structure. We have in vitro venom-human cell interaction to study which cell receptors interact with which components of tarantula venom. But I don't know of any way to gain subjective accounts of the physiological effects of bites since non-human test subjects don't talk. Experiments that determine exactly how many nanograms of venom from a specific species is required to cause diastolic arrest in cells from the ventricle of a frog's heart cannot give information on what the frog actually experiences.

 

[Micrathena]

The Tarantula Keeper's Guide mentions Dr. Baerg, and states that he also experimented with scorpions, centipedes, and tarantulas in addition to widows. I agree with Valvool in that intentional envenomation is the most effective method of testing venom toxicity (though by no means a pleasant one).

 

[CreepyCrawlies]

You have to question the sanity of someone who would voluntarily subject themselves to envenomation from a black widow. I would love to have met this individual.

 

[LordWaffle]

No, you're right. In terms of getting data for what being symptomatic after a bite is like, envenomation is really the best way to do it. What I was meaning to say is that because of our ability to examine the molecular structure of the venom, we can extrapolate the effects based on what similarly structured compounds are known to do. Certainly firsthand accounts across a wide variety of people would give the best data of the exact symptoms.

 

[The Snark]

This board, forum, just isn't large enough to seriously delve into human experimentation, clinical anomalies, and bioethics. Could the OP give some indication of what exactly you are trying to discern to narrow things down?

I would point out, a single individual becoming envenomed falls clearly under the definition of clinical anomaly and is automatically discounted and labeled suspect at best and useless data and unethical medical conduct at worst.

 

[viper69]

a single individual becoming envenomed falls clearly under the definition of clinical anomaly and is automatically discounted and labeled suspect at best and useless data and unethical medical conduct at worst.

Some of sciences greatest discoveries resulted in scientists experimenting on themselves, both past and currently living researchers.

 

[The Snark]

Some of sciences greatest discoveries resulted in scientists experimenting on themselves, both past and currently living researchers.

Quite true. Why, we might not have nuclear bombs if the Curie's hadn't fried themselves. More seriously, what you say is true, but nearly all fully definitive tests, the LD50 as an example, are precluded from such experimentation. In the world of bioscience, the rather rigid rule states self testing only produces anomalies, not reputable scientific findings. Proper scientific analysis demands repetitious similar results until theory can be safely shifted to working hypothesis.

 

[Valvool]

Quite true. Why, we might not have nuclear bombs if the Curie's hadn't fried themselves. More seriously, what you say is true, but nearly all fully definitive tests, the LD50 as an example, are precluded from such experimentation. In the world of bioscience, the rather rigid rule states self testing only produces anomalies, not reputable scientific findings. Proper scientific analysis demands repetitious similar results until theory can be safely shifted to working hypothesis.

I disagree that such experimentation only produces anomalies. For example, the 2005 Nobel Prize in Medicine went to Barry Marshall after he proved definitely that peptic ulcers are caused by the bacterium H. Pylori. His attempts to inoculate non human animals with the bacterium had failed, and the medical community refused to consider his theory since the pH of the stomach is around 2. So Dr. Marshall had a baseline endoscopy performed, then he drank a beaker full of H. Pylori. In less than a week a second endoscopy revealed multiple peptic ulcers in the lining of his stomach. His research has also linked H. Pylori and stomach cancer.

Dr. Baerg wasn't the only scientist to test effects of venom by being envenomated. There have been many. One individual, his last name is Schmidt, tested the effects of most species in Hymenopterae by allowing himself to be envenomated.

Such an experiment does sound unpleasant but so does using human test subjects to measure the side effects of a new drug.

As for the point of the thread, just wondering for those out there who read scientific literature pertaining to tarantulas, if anyone had come across anything like this other than Dr. Baerg's papers.

 

[SuzukiSwift]

I agree the results would be interesting but they could not be used to state scientific fact, the scientific method is not present here. You would need many test subjects to get more accurate results stating the symptoms of a bite

 

[The Snark]

I don't think you will find Baerg's personally experienced symptoms cited anywhere in white papers on the effects of a specific venom. His findings and methodology in that instance are subjective and a clinical anomaly. Please show me white paper citations proving me wrong.
With H Pylori, Marshall confirmed a postulant and received appropriate accolades but it required further clinical tests to confirm peptic ulcers were related. Again, I'd love to see white papers stating otherwise.

 

[Smokehound714]

I recently took a direct full envenomation from L. hesperus whilst flipping a log. She was guarding several egg sacs, i didnt even feel the bite.

She clung to my hand, dug her fangs in, and refused to let go.


Honestly, i've had worse. I'd rather be bit by a widow than a dog or cat.

 

[Valvool]

Anomalous?

I don't think you will find Baerg's personally experienced symptoms cited anywhere in white papers on the effects of a specific venom. His findings and methodology in that instance are subjective and a clinical anomaly. Please show me white paper citations proving me wrong.
With H Pylori, Marshall confirmed a postulant and received appropriate accolades but it required further clinical tests to confirm peptic ulcers were related. Again, I'd love to see white papers stating otherwise.

But, Snark, I do find it. See Baerg, J. W. 1923. "The effect of the bite of Laetrodectus mactans Fabr." Journal of Parasitology 9; 161-69.

Dr. Baerg had assistants present to observe him and to write down what he experienced as verbally expressed by him.

Just because research findings include subjective data, or include results from self-experimentation, does not make such findings anomalous--if, by using the term 'anomaly' you mean inconsistent or incongruous. Perhaps not widely known is the fact that medicine has a legacy of research via self-experimentation--Marie Curie is a commonly cited example but there are many many others. The data from these experiments has been vital in furthering medical knowledge. To dismiss this type of research as anomalous is to ignore these contributions, some of which have are significant in the development of concepts and treatments used by modern physicians.

As for the subjective nature of such data--well, I do prefer 'hard' sciences over liberal arts and even in medicine I shy away from fields like psychiatry because of the difficulty in making determinations about disease processes, their pathology, and pathophysiology. Continuing with the use of medicine as an example, the practice of medicine is not what I would consider to be purely a scientific exercise, not most of the time--wherein the clinician gathers data on the disease process in question, then prescribes treatment based on the latest findings. Something like schizophrenia, for example, cannot be found on the autopsy table (though it can now be noted on MRI). Patients' reports of what they experience are often the basis for clinical decision making, sometimes the only basis. I prefer laboratory results, of course, imaging, something tangible. But sometimes this is not possible. Often a clinician must rely on purely subjective information when making decisions on course of treatment.

In the case of Dr. Marshall, the results of his experiment overturned decades of medical doctrine. Had he not taken the course of action he did, it might have been decades more before gastritis would be treated properly, with antibiotics. [Interestingly, this is a case of science disregarding hard data in order to hold onto the long accepted (and subjectively based) idea that it is stress that causes peptic ulcers.] I do not argue that subjective information is superior to other, more reliable, types of data--though in some cases it may well be--only that to chalk up the results of Dr. Baerg's research as being a fluke (and him as being a nutcase, as another poster did) and to dismiss his subjective data as being 'anomolous' is to diminish his contribution to science.

In the case of Dr. Marshall, he did not perform his famous experiment, then announce that the case was closed. I take a quote from his own paper (for he did indeed publish his findings in the Lancet, and the paper included data from Marshal's own, personal exposure to H. Pylori--see first paper following the 1984 self experimentation-Marshall, B.J., and J.R. Warren. 1984. Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic ulceration. Lancet 1(8390):1311—5 (June 16).) “Although cause and effect cannot be proved in a study of this kind, we believe that pyloric campylobacter is etiologically related to chronic antral gastritis and, probably, to peptic ulceration also” (Marshall and Warren 1984). Due to the unusual course of action by Dr. Marshall, the medical community was abuzz with discussions of potential bacterial cause of gastritis--though it was acknowledged by all, including Marshall and Warren, that more evidence would be required. Marshall would never have asserted that his hypothesis--campylobacter (as it was known then) as the etiologic basis for gastritic ulcers--would not require further research, experimentation, and testing. Nor did he pause after his episode of self-experimentation--his paper was published after a year of research that included isolation, culture, and study of the morphology of the bacterium in question. The results of the initial experiment were the impetus for further research, not the final chapter in the H. Pylori story.

Your statement that "Marshall confirmed a postulant and received appropriate accolades but it required further clinical tests to confirm peptic ulcers were related" is only partially correct--the part that i correct is that further testing would be required. This is most obvious, for it is no small task to prove that a specific microbe underlies a specific disease. Consider Koch's Postulates, developed over a period of twenty years, which eventually established the bacterial basis for tuberculosis. A lone experiment is never considered conclusive--but it does not logically follow that lack of conclusiveness equals anomalous.

Thus it also does not logically follow that Marshall's findings from the peptic ulcer experiment I are anomalous--if you use the term to mean outside the mainstream, then perhaps yes, I suppose Dr. Marshall's self-experimentation during an era in which most adhere to certain methods could be described as unusual. But again, if you use the term as a synonym for inconsistent, the scientific community would not agree. Those original findings, the cause of such excitement, were indeed consistent with the eventual consensus among scientists regarding the etiology of peptic ulcers. Your statement was also partially incorrect, as Dr. Marshall did not confirm anything with that initial 1984 experiment--he only provided a bit of tantalizing evidence. Confirmation would come following years of medical trials--the trials themselves were between 12 and 24 months in length. The nature of H.Pylori and the tendency for patients to relapse if not treated with an acid suppressant took years to sort out by clinical researchers.

Dr.Marshall did not receive the Nobel prize in medicine for one episode of self-experimentation in 1984--that is the part of your statement that is incorrect, that he confirmed a postulate with that particular experiment and was rewarded for it. He was awarded the Nobel prize for his decades of work on the subject, and perhaps too, for thinking outside the box.

Another scientist who would have disagreed with your view of anomalous research is Allan Walker Blair of University of Alabama. In 1933 he decided to up the ante--and allowed a black widow a full ten seconds of envenomation. He was rushed to the hospital in agony but insisted on serial echocardiograms (which required that he hold very still, which was excruciating); these were all normal. During his week of hospitalization he reported experiencing severe episodes of delirium--this is important information for contemporary clinicians treating potential bite victims (widows have become very common in KS recently), and it was gained through Dr. Blair's (subjective) accounts.

The Australian physician Jack Barnes, in attempt to solve the mystery of the cause of a spate of symptoms suggestive envenomation in local swimmers, allowed himself to get stung by the jellyfish he suspected was the culprit--carybdeid medusa. Unfortunately, he also envenomated his nine year old. Both had to be taken to the hospital shortly afterward with severe muscle cramps and respiratory distress, both responded immediately and fully to pethidine hydrochloride. While I do understand his motivation, what he did is quite different than the experiments performed by Drs. Blair and Baerg, as he performed the experiment outside of a controlled environment, without taking precautions for unexpected reactions, and also because subjected a party who could not very well consent to be experimented upon to the sting. The information he gained in doing this was valuable however, and not anomalous; in fact local officials were then able to take precautions to protect swimmers and people could be educated about which jellyfish to avoid and how best to avoid it.

By the same token, the work of Dr. Schmidt, director of the Carl Hayden Bee Research Center in Arizona, is also valuable and has resulted in a commonly used index. He has allowed himself to be envenomated by more than 150 species of stinging insects (though his specialty is Hymenoptera). Dr. Schmidt, based on his experiences, developed the Schmidt Pain Index in 1984; its a four point scale used to classify how painful a bite or sting is comparatively. (The common honey bee ranks a two, the ant Paraponera Clavata gets the highest ranking, with the bite of this ant causing hours of excruciating pain. (He ranks the wasp known as 'the tarantula hawk' as second most painful.) He has published numerous works that include the data from his subjective reports. See, for example, Schmidt, J. O., Blum, M. S., and Overal, W. L. "Hemolytic activities of stinging insect venoms", Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology, 1:155–160, 1983. The Schmidt Pain Index is still in use; Dr. Schmidt himself acknowledges the subjective nature of the information and the fact that it is based on limited data points--also that the pain will vary depending on location of the bite/sting and on amount of venom injected. Nevertheless his findings have been cited by numerous other scientists and are not considered anomalous.

In listing the above scientists' names along with a few of their publications, I mean to argue the point that subjective data garnered from self-experimentation is not unworthy of consideration by the scientific community, unworthy of further scientific investigation or not useful as a source of data. There are numerous examples of the usefulness of such data to scientists.

You mentioned earlier that "This board, forum, just isn't large enough to seriously delve into human experimentation, clinical anomalies, and bioethics." Not sure where you were going with this. The mention of an entomologist, his experiments with Laetrodectus Mactans, followed by a general question for forum members--have you read any similar accounts in the literature--was not intended as preface to a discussion on human experimentation and/or bioethics. Your comment is a bit dismissive--suggesting the posting of this thread irrelevant and misplaced. I suppose you could have misread my intentions. But that you consider any data (subjective or otherwise) gathered through self experimentation to be anomalous--this is the real point of contention for me.

That we have a 'Bite Report' page on his forum indicates the general interest in human envenomation by tarantulas (and subjective accounts of it) though its value is debatable. That I hoped to open a more scientific discussion on this topic seems reasonable in any case. But considering the aura of danger surrounding tarantulas (for the average non-tarantula person), and the potential for regulation of this hobby and/or the banning of some species of tarantula by government--that makes this topic--the determination of the actual effects of tarantula venom on humans--quite relevant, as I see it.

 

[viper69]

With H Pylori, Marshall confirmed a postulant

Really, he confirmed a person seeking admission into a religious order? I doubt any white paper reads as such

 

[Valvool]

Ld50

I don't think you will find Baerg's personally experienced symptoms cited anywhere in white papers on the effects of a specific venom. His findings and methodology in that instance are subjective and a clinical anomaly. Please show me white paper citations proving me wrong.
With H Pylori, Marshall confirmed a postulant and received appropriate accolades but it required further clinical tests to confirm peptic ulcers were related. Again, I'd love to see white papers stating otherwise.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the LD50 here. A mathematically determined value, half the mice killed by a dose of whatever--that is easily determined mathematically and not a clinical puzzle. Nor is it always even useful since mice and humans are physiologically distinct. TI has greater utility for me but again, relatively simple to determine. The issue of self-experimentation is separate. I think the motivator in most cases is the desire to reconcile experience with measurable variables. The subjective experience of envenomatiin in itself may have inherent value, but when taken along with concurrently gathered measurable variables, i.e., vitals, lab results, the data becomes life saving--patterns and trends can then be noted and proper treatment logarithms more easily developed.

---------- Post added 03-30-2014 at 07:00 PM ----------

Really, he confirmed a person seeking admission into a religious order? I doubt any white paper reads as such

Lol, thank you...I glanced at that statement a couple of times wondering what was wrong with it....postulant versus postulate. Duly noted!

 

[viper69]

I'm not sure of the relevance of the LD50 here. A mathematically determined value, half the mice killed by a dose of whatever--that is easily determined mathematically and not a clinical puzzle. Nor is it always even useful since mice and humans are physiologically distinct. TI has greater utility for me but again, relatively simple to determine. The issue of self-experimentation is separate. I think the motivator in most cases is the desire to reconcile experience with measurable variables. The subjective experience of envenomatiin in itself may have inherent value, but when taken along with concurrently gathered measurable variables, i.e., vitals, lab results, the data becomes life saving--patterns and trends can then be noted and proper treatment logarithms more easily developed.

---------- Post added 03-30-2014 at 07:00 PM ----------



Lol, thank you...I glanced at that statement a couple of times wondering what was wrong with it....postulant versus postulate. Duly noted!

I'm all too familiar with my scientific terminology to let that one slide hah.


I've often felt the LD50 in many cases was useless. Toxicity aside, research has demonstrated across multiple disciplines, my own included, that mice are not always indicative of what will occur in humans. W/that said, the use of any model system requires the user to understand the strengths and limitations of the model system being used.

 

[The Snark]

Really, he confirmed a person seeking admission into a religious order? I doubt any white paper reads as such

:clap::clap::clap: I am going to, without reservation, blame this keyboard for the majority of my typographical (tripe-0-graffiti-ickal) erroneousness. Due dew? When the boss lays her claim upon compy #1 I slide on over here. This keyboard, manufactured by NMB, states it was designed for Windows 98/NT. It is really a fantastic piece of workmanship, based upon a steel plate 1/8th inch thick and weighing in at around 9 lbs. At the bottom of it's identity and info sticker are the ominous words, Made in Thailand. What remains readable of the 141 keys are in the Ketmanee script, most of which still function. Consequently, when I tripe on it, if I don't reread every single word as I tripe, I accept if my casual glance reveals the word to vaguely resemble sumting in English. I'm happy just producing text on the thing.

LD50 is dumb. Come up with an alternative. OH! Valvool has! Experiment on scientists. But, come on! Scientists are supposed to be smart. Don't zap yourself. Pour that petri dish full of gram negative into your colleagues coffee! An accidental needle poke as you pass that tech in the crowded aisles of the lab. Then your observations are objective.

I need to reread the thread now, and find a better cup of coffee.

 

[Valvool]

LD50 is dumb. Come up with an alternative. OH! Valvool has! Experiment on scientists.

Really? Scientists? If we are upgrading to humans why not, like, attorneys, or serial killers or something.

 

[The Snark]

No no. Scientists. Neutral terrortory. Objectively one could suggest politicians and other unrepentant criminals, used car dealers and those smiling automatons that knock on your door to blow BS in your face much too early in the day/week/month/year/century. Subjectively, politicians are a symptom. The people who elected them, the same people who buy the BS lines from used car dealers about some raging bucket of poop some other person managed to unload, are the ones at fault. The morons who drive giant bloated pig bulgemobiles and are unable to keep them in one lane, they are candidates of course. The clown who spends X zillions bucks to fly a gazoopus non stop around the world, traveling over numerous people starving to death, definitely on the list. And of course, doctors. Most of them have to go. As the endocrinologist with a FX clavicle attempting to give orders to his rescuer parameds or the dermatologist who refused to pronounce on a patient who's head and entire upper body was under a 20 ton tree because he thought he was able to get a femoral pulse while 4 seriously woundeds had to be ignored and went critical.
Nope. Start with scientists. People ignore almost everything they have to say anyway ... unless it is spoonfed to them in the proper blazing colors on primetime along with their fav beer commercials with endorsements by Tush Limpole.

Did I digress?