Venom experts - help me

[Elizabeth]

The recent (2002) study that he references supports his assertions.

http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic548.htm


Both the study that you are referring to and this study, it is acknowledged that tracking actual numbers of spider bites and then the percentage of severe envenomations resulting is an almost impossible task, as those with symptoms not warranting medical attention simply aren't counted in the clinical literature. The study you are referring to is data from verifiable cases that sought medical attention. Those numbers look high for serious envenomation, until you realize that those are a select group of bite victims already. The more hale and hearty didn't even make the count to begin with!

So, since there is a data-collection problem, they do the best they can.

Pre-anti-venin days, there were a total of 13 deaths attributable to Sydney funnel web spider bites, but they estimate that there are 30 to 40 bites PER YEAR. (From the emedicine link above)


From Rod's site:

"During the 53 year period 1927-1979 there were 13 or 14 known deaths, which would be a death rate of under 1%!"

Read the report you are referring to and the ones that Rod has referenced. The report you refer to doesn't support Rod's claims, but what you're missing is that it doesn't refute them either.

 

[Crotalus]

You miss my point. Why would anyone consider these spiders toxicity as a "myth" ? They do consider all bites of Atrax or Hadronyche as potential lifethreatening. So because they dont knock off every victim they sink there fangs into we should state they are a myth? Bogus, and very dangerous and unresponsible to those who happen to live among these spiders to claim that.
Take a look on this page, read the envenomation cases and you might get a second opinion about what really happens in a envenomation.
http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/animal/atrax.htm

/Lelle

 

[blacktara]

Elizabeth

It's NOT semantics

When it's acknowledged that there is a data collection problem, then it must follow that rates and percentages cant be known accurately.

Yet he says "but I know of no species anywhere on earth capable of causing death in humans in as much as 10% of cases, even if untreated."

He not only states a percentage and states it as fact when he cant do so, but he also presumes to state as fact what would or wouldnt happen in untreated cases, when he doesnt have the data to back him up.

He is extending data from other spiders to these spiders, where the hints are that clearly these spiders may not be like others.

It's a misleading, and potentially dangerous, statement for an authority to make. It's not just semantics

 

[blacktara]

Here

"Read the report you are referring to and the ones that Rod has referenced. The report you refer to doesn't support Rod's claims, but what you're missing is that it doesn't refute them either."

Since it doesnt support his claims, his claims need to be adjusted. It doesnt refute his claim - I am not saying he needs to say that Hadronyche ARE deadly - I am saying he needs to say "we dont know" when we dont know. That's called being intellectually honest

Anything else and he is bending the truth to support his agenda

Look, the guy is right that spiders are misunderstood, and that as a whole, there a lot of untrue myths and urban legends and overblown hype about them. And he wants to correct this situation. But in doing so, he cant overstep the bounds and state what isnt proven as if it were established fact

 

[blacktara]

By the way

The two studies together most certainly do NOT support his assertions

The 2002 study says - "..... if envenomation occurs, mortality rates are high in patients who receive no antivenom treatment"

The 2005 study then shows that for H cerebrea and H formidibalis, severe envenomation occurs in 75% or more of known reported cases

First of all, that 75% figure is way different than for Atrax or any other funnel web species. No other species exceeded a severe rate of more than 20%

But for these two - put the two papers together and you have the theory that a high percentage of greater than 75% of bites would be in big big trouble if untreated

Now - they dont show any proven deaths from these Hadronyche - so it doesnt prove Rod's assertions to be wrong. But it does cast serious doubt on them

Put it this way - Given the data, if you or your relative was bitten by H formidibalis, would you opt against antivenom even if the bite was severe, based on what Rod says and based on a theoretical risk of problems with the antivenom? (by the way, the second study shows that the observed rate of problems with antivenom is low)

 

[Crotalus]

The bites from Hadronyche shows similar symptoms as Atrax envenomation. The australian arachnologists have done research on the venom and found them to be extremely toxic, and very close related to Atrax venom (the components in the venom are very close related and therefor the symptoms in a bite are very similar). Now, if this is true these havent killed anyone - so be it. But they do possess a venom strong enough to put a human down. Compare to the genus Oxyuranus - taipans. The effect of the coastal taipan, O. scutulatus, is wellknown - they have killed humans. The other taipan species in Australia, O. microlepidotus, have a similar venom. But in tests even more toxic, but they havent killed anyone that we know of. And that is because of a good effective taipan serum and because they live in remote areas and do not come in contact with people. But should we consider the toxicity of these snakes as a myth? No.
Offcourse its good to kill myths, but stick to facts and not twist the statistics and facts around. That wont serve anyone any good in my opinion.

/Lelle

 

[blacktara]

Absolutely

"but stick to facts and not twist the statistics and facts around"

Otherwise, what are you doing but replacing one myth with another?

 

[Elizabeth]

ugh! Sorry! I still think you are caught up in a misreading of the site's messages and I think there's some type of overreaction going on.

A venom that can kill is one to be taken seriously, but I think he (Rod) does take it seriously, in his own way.

I don't read anything in his site that says the toxicity is a myth. :?

And there is nothing in the site that supports inaction/non-treatment of bites. :?

All this argument about whether the venoms of these spiders is potentially lethal is just beating a dead horse. It's argument over something that was never asserted. No one ever said that the venom isn't potentially lethal! Geez-o-peets!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the site, if statements aren't taken out of context.

Lastly, the argument that the data will yet be collected that supports a more deadly spider venom is the "ufo's come from outer space" argument. Go ahead and argue that it could be true, because it could be, after all. Science is not a static thing. It just changes a little more slowly, because the theories have to go through the testing and data-collection process.

(PS There's contact info on that site. If you think you have access to better data than Rod, or a better understanding of the data, I'm sure he would appreciate receiving it. In all earnestness, I encourage you to contact him if you believe your input will improve his site. Take it up with him, the one with 34 years of experience in the field. Do it for the spiders!)

 

[blacktara]

I did contact him

He basically had the same attitude you do - there's nothing wrong with my site and when cornered then it's just semantics

I understand the basic message of his site. But I dont understand this attitude. I'm not saying that we have to say spiders are potentially deadly because we havent tested them all yet (the ufo theory)

I'm not saying to say they are deadly because one person somewhere died

I'm saying that we doint know enough to talk percentages as is they werer hard-known facts - and we dont

Look, this is what I told Rod and I'll tell you - Show me the case report on UNTREATED severe Hadronyche bites and then we can talk. Until then, there's too much suggestion for concern to mae this statement

If having an incorrect detail or two in there isnt important to a site that purports to be the authority who will set the record straight, well , THAT attitutde is just baffling to me

 

[blacktara]

I mean

what you're saying is basically - 'Rod's right on 99 percent of stuff, so how dare you make a big deal out of that last 1 percent, especially when in that case the truth might not make spiders look for safe and cuddly"

 

[Fergrim]

It's actually 8.6 bee stings per pound of body weight to take a human down for good, I think

 

[mimic58]

It's actually 8.6 bee stings per pound of body weight to take a human down for good, I think

What fergrim's saying here is that it pays to be a fat bastard if your caught in a swarm of bee's

 

[Venom]

Smalltime:

I have heard this argument before, and it irritates me, so I'll I'm going to try to show how it is faulty.

From Webster's:

Deadly: likely to cause or capable of producing death ( as in a ~ disease or weapon ); aiming to kill or destroy ( a ~ enemy ); highly effective; tending to deprive of force or vitality ( a ~ habit );

synonyms:
"Deadly, Mortal, Fatal, Lethal mean causing or capable of causing death. Deadly applies to an established or very likely cause of death < a deadly disease >; Mortal implies that death has occurred or is inevitable < a mortal wound >; Fatal stresses the inevitability of what has in fact resulted in death or destruction < fatal consequences >; Lethal applies only the something that is bound to cause death or exists for the destruction of life < lethal gas >"

So apparently, my first post was in error in that "potentially deadly" is redundant: the term "deadly" only denotes the sinister ~potential~ for death, and already incorporates the fact that something "deadly" does not always kill.


Ok, a peanut may cause death, because you may choke on it; ice may kill by causing you to slip and fall; and a piano can kill you if one is dropped on you. That does not mean they are deadly. Peanuts are not likely to cause death, or designed to cause death, or highly capable of detrimental or destructive action on a human. A peanut is only deadly if you accelerate it into a high-speed projectile at Mach 2, when it becomes a bullet and is highly capable and likely to kill or cause serious harm. Ice by itself is not deadly....unless it is an avalanche, then it is highly capable of killing. Pianos are not a deadly weapon, unless you can throw one ( unlikely ) or intentionally drop it on someone--then it is highly capable, designed to cause harm, etc.

The "anything can be deadly" argument falls apart in that "able to kill" and "deadly" are not the same thing. If I throw a handful of peanuts at you, is that assault with a "deadly" weapon? How about if I throw a handful of H. formidabilis? Things like peanuts only kill in special circumstances, and so are not "highly capable," and, except in the case of malicious intent, they are not "designed/ intended to be deadly". Hadronyche venom, on the other hand, scores an affirmative on both counts.

Now, hammers, ropes, wrenches, and lead pipes are not "deadly" either, until there is a "deadly" intent behind them that turns them into "deadly weapons". A hammer is not highly capable of killing nor designed to kill--until you use one that way.


Venom is obviously designed to kill, so no issue there. The fulcrum of the argument is then its capacity to kill. Atrax, Hadronyche? --No doubt about their ability to kill, or capability to "deprive of force or vitality," at least temporarily, and certainly funnelweb envenomation is an "established or very likely cause of death" So I would have to conclude that even though they don't kill most victims, they are still "deadly"


Here's what I got when I applied these "deadly definitions to some other spiders". ( see the attached file )


About the chart:


* The numbers under "Likelihood of causing death" ( the spider's degree of deadliness ) is rated on a 1 - 10 scale. "Deadly" does not mean there isn’t "deadlier" 1 = very slight chance of death, 10 = you’re dead…you’re just dead. ( ratings are without anti-venom or supportive treatment ). Ratings that reflect a range ( i.e. 2.5 - 5.5 ) are given to reflect differences among members of a genus, and the range of dosages inflicted the spider may opt to administer. These ratings are somewhat subjective I admit, but hey, I did my best, judging each according to my vast, expansive, voluminous….—ahem—according to what I know of each species’ venoms.


Notice how this results in the top four, which have caused fatalities, being defined as "deadly"—though in different degrees—and T.agrestis, which has not caused any fatalities ( without extenuating circumstances ), not ruled out, but not ranked as highly; and Cheiracanthium, which is not known to have caused ANY fatalities but postulated as by some as still "capable of killing" as "medically significant" but not eligible for "deadly" at all. So yes, I would say that we have to define many of the spiders in these top four genera as "deadly". At this moment I don't have enough knowledge of Missulena, Mastophora, Sicarius, and Trechona envenomations to put them on this chart. In the future however, I think we could use this, or a similar, chart of definitions to see whether these and other species/ genera qualify for the term "deadly".

 

[Sheri]

Where is that chart from?

 

[Venom]

Here's what I got when I applied these "deadly definitions to some other spiders".

I drafted it myself. As I said, the number ratings on the last column are my subjective estimations. Humor me, please take them as estimations for the sake of the comparison.

 

[Sheri]

Ok...
So let's pretend that it has been proven that less than 10% of severe envenomations that are left untreated would cause a fatality in the victim.

Is there some standard in the medical community that dictates that any species whose venom causes fatalities in less than 10% of cases should not be considered deadly?

Unless this is a widely accepted practise to determine whether or not something is indeed deadly, then the science seems flawed right there - without giving us cause to further dissect what the fatality rates would be like in severe envenomations and without medical treatment.

And to start comparing what deadly is to crossing the street... I don't have the patience to even start addressing that. We are speaking in terms of venomous animals. Not rare allergic reactions to venom that most of the population tolerate, or food allergies, or risks of daily living. Strictly the risk associated with the venom of certain animals that have been known (or suspected) to have caused human deaths.
Until a parked car can suddenly strike at me as I walk by it, bearing a fender full of sharp teeth backed up by venom glands disguised as headlights - please do me a favour and cease making completely irrelevant statements.

(Ok, I addressed it.)

Also, I don't know if you've read this site, but I found it interesting. That infant that was bitten by the male H. infensa - I wonder what the end result would have been without treatment. (this is another page from the site BT linked to in the first post)

 

[mimic58]

Also, I don't know if you've read this site, but I found it interesting. That infant that was bitten by the male H. infensa - I wonder what the end result would have been without treatment. (this is another page from the site BT linked to in the first post)

sounds pritty deadly to me, that child would have almost certainly died and when you consider it took some 250 units of anti venom for the strong healthy adult...a weak old person could face as much risk as the child. so even if we just say that they are deadly to Old people and Children that is still two thirds of the population... the 10% probably means healthy adults

 

[Venom]

Sheri,

It seems that my post came too far after the post to which I was replying, and the context of what I was saying, and why I was saying it, was somehow lost. Let me explain.


I was replying to Smalltime, who said:

I think anything is potentially deadly. Crossing the street, riding a bike, drinking an alcoholic beverage, breathing itself. So what you're saying isnot totally true in my mind.

As I said, this "anything can be deadly" argument rather bugs me, I took this opportunity to debunk it, which is what I was doing in the first two thirds of my post. Let me break down what I was doing:

Setting up my definition of deadly:

From Webster's:

Deadly: likely to cause or capable of producing death ( as in a ~ disease or weapon ); aiming to kill or destroy ( a ~ enemy ); highly effective; tending to deprive of force or vitality ( a ~ habit );

synonyms:
"Deadly, Mortal, Fatal, Lethal mean causing or capable of causing death. Deadly applies to an established or very likely cause of death < a deadly disease >; Mortal implies that death has occurred or is inevitable < a mortal wound >; Fatal stresses the inevitability of what has in fact resulted in death or destruction < fatal consequences >; Lethal applies only the something that is bound to cause death or exists for the destruction of life < lethal gas >"

So apparently, my first post was in error in that "potentially deadly" is redundant: the term "deadly" only denotes the sinister ~potential~ for death, and already incorporates the fact that something "deadly" does not always kill.

Using those dictionary-derived definitions to disprove "anything can be 'deadly'":

Ok, a peanut may cause death, because you may choke on it; ice may kill by causing you to slip and fall; and a piano can kill you if one is dropped on you. That does not mean they are deadly. Peanuts are not likely to cause death, or designed to cause death, or highly capable of detrimental or destructive action on a human. A peanut is only deadly if you accelerate it into a high-speed projectile at Mach 2, when it becomes a bullet and is highly capable and likely to kill or cause serious harm. Ice by itself is not deadly....unless it is an avalanche, then it is highly capable of killing. Pianos are not a deadly weapon, unless you can throw one ( unlikely ) or intentionally drop it on someone--then it is highly capable, designed to cause harm, etc.

The "anything can be deadly" argument falls apart in that "able to kill" and "deadly" are not the same thing. If I throw a handful of peanuts at you, is that assault with a "deadly" weapon? How about if I throw a handful of H. formidabilis? Things like peanuts only kill in special circumstances, and so are not "highly capable," and, except in the case of malicious intent, they are not "designed/ intended to be deadly". Hadronyche venom, on the other hand, scores an affirmative on both counts.

Now, hammers, ropes, wrenches, and lead pipes are not "deadly" either, until there is a "deadly" intent behind them that turns them into "deadly weapons". A hammer is not highly capable of killing nor designed to kill--until you use one that way.

Applying dictionary definitions to the determining of spider deadliness:

Venom is obviously designed to kill, so no issue there. The fulcrum of the argument is then its capacity to kill. Atrax, Hadronyche? --No doubt about their ability to kill, or capability to "deprive of force or vitality," at least temporarily, and certainly funnelweb envenomation is an "established or very likely cause of death" So I would have to conclude that even though they don't kill most victims, they are still "deadly"


Here's what I got when I applied these "deadly definitions to some other spiders". ( see the attached file )


--- INSERT CHART ---

About the chart:


* The numbers under "Likelihood of causing death" ( the spider's degree of deadliness ) is rated on a 1 - 10 scale. "Deadly" does not mean there isn’t "deadlier" 1 = very slight chance of death, 10 = you’re dead…you’re just dead. ( ratings are without anti-venom or supportive treatment ). Ratings that reflect a range ( i.e. 2.5 - 5.5 ) are given to reflect differences among members of a genus, and the range of dosages inflicted the spider may opt to administer. These ratings are somewhat subjective I admit, but hey, I did my best, judging each according to my vast, expansive, voluminous….—ahem—according to what I know of each species’ venoms.

Comparing the results that I obtained by using these definitions against real-world observations of these spiders ( the spiders that my five definitions verified as "deadly" are those that have indeed caused fatalities. Those that don't kill, didn't pass, so the test was verified. Spiders that pass these criteria can, ACCORDING TO THE DICTIONARY, be called "deadly"):

Notice how this results in the top four, which have caused fatalities, being defined as "deadly"—though in different degrees—and T.agrestis, which has not caused any fatalities ( without extenuating circumstances ), not ruled out, but not ranked as highly; and Cheiracanthium, which is not known to have caused ANY fatalities but postulated as by some as still "capable of killing" as "medically significant" but not eligible for "deadly" at all. So yes, I would say that we have to define many of the spiders in these top four genera as "deadly". At this moment I don't have enough knowledge of Missulena, Mastophora, Sicarius, and Trechona envenomations to put them on this chart. In the future however, I think we could use this, or a similar, chart of definitions to see whether these and other species/ genera qualify for the term "deadly".

Does that help? I was responding to Smalltime's "chewinggum can be deadly" type statement, disproving that using a dictionary, then taking those same dictionary definitions and applying them to spiders. The spiders that-- according to the dictionary-- do qualify as deadly are the spiders that are known and established killers, thus proving the dictionary right, and proving that these five definitions are a valid way to figure out if we can call a spider "deadly" or not. Smalltime was the one who was muddying up the term "deadly" by using inanimate objects, I was opposing that viewpoint with a proper definition of deadly, which, in line with the intent of this whole thread, I applyed to spiders and showed that yes, some spiders can properly be called deadly, and provided a test for determining which spiders those are. Phew. Does that make sense now?

 

[Venom]

Blacktara, were you discussing this via email with this Mr. Crawford? Or was the discussion being hosted elsewhere? ( I'm thinking of joining you, and submitting my own objections to this assertion of his ).

 

[Crotalus]

That infant that was bitten by the male H. infensa - I wonder what the end result would have been without treatment. (this is another page from the site BT linked to in the first post)

Acctually its the females in this species that are the most toxic.

/Lelle