# T venom



## joshuai (Feb 21, 2009)

is it impossible to be alergic to a t bite as stated on a previous thread, it seems out there.


----------



## the nature boy (Feb 21, 2009)

joshuai said:


> is it impossible to be alergic to a t bite as stated on a previous thread, it seems out there.


*
Absolutely not.*  This keeps coming up and it is not true in the slightest.  I challenge anyone to cite one documented case in which a T bite caused an allergic reaction.


----------



## Widowman10 (Feb 21, 2009)

search my friend!! i found like, 10 threads the other day with this topic.

but, in short, it is thought that the venom consists of peptides, and not a full protein strand, and that the peptides are too small to cause an allergic reaction. i will ask my immunology teacher on monday and see what the doc says or thinks about this.


----------



## D-back (Feb 21, 2009)

joshuai said:


> is it impossible to be alergic to a t bite as stated on a previous thread, it seems out there.


A human can be allergic to everything...For the development of the allergy, you need to be in contact with the substance repeatedly... T venom and also bee venom contain large amount of substances. We can't rule out the possibility that there is a substance, what is present in both. So in theory, if you develop an allergy against that particular substance ( after a bee sting ), you can have problems after the first T bite.......but this is in my opinion highly improbable

PS. Sometimes after a bee sting a person has "allergy like" symtoms whitout having a true allergy (anaphylactoid response)....it's not an allergy, because the symptoms aren't triggered by antibodies...some substances in the venom trigger the release of the mediators causing the symptoms. I think, it's possible, that this mechanism can occure also after a T bite...but in the case of this reaction, the symptoms are often banal...


----------



## D-back (Feb 21, 2009)

Widowman10 said:


> search my friend!! i found like, 10 threads the other day with this topic.
> 
> but, in short, it is thought that the venom consists of peptides, and not a full protein strand, and that the peptides are too small to cause an allergic reaction. i will ask my immunology teacher on monday and see what the doc says or thinks about this.


They might be small, but in some cases, small molecules can "bind" on something (for example on the surface of a red blood cell) and after that they can cause allergic reaction.....this is the case with penicillin for example...


----------



## ph0bia (Feb 21, 2009)

D-back said:


> A human can be allergic to everything...For the development of the allergy, you need to be in contact with the substance repeatedly...


Not true at all. Some people are born with allergies. People with nut allergies are born with them, not developped, some people have the same with Ts.

It IS possible to have a reaction to T venom, much in the same way bee/wasp stings are of little consequence to me, but an old friend of mine had to carry a pen, much like diabetics carried, as bee/wasp stings could cause some very serious problems.

To those who doubt this, do some research. There is much evidence to suggest that some people ARE much more sensitive to T venom than other people are. Claiming that there is no possibility of adverse reactions is both short-sighted and dangerous. If someone known to have a sensitivity to venom is bitten, under your guidance they could neglect to seek medical attention, causing serious medical issues for the person, as they think "It'll be fine" though they know that other venoms cause serious issues.

If you are allergic to venoms, take an extra amount of caution when dealing with your Ts. If you are sensitive and are bitten by any species, seek medical attention as soon as symptoms arise (not before as it may have been a dry bite). If you are not sensitive to bee/wasp stings or whatever, still watch out for additional symptoms after a T bite. It may be the case that the T has venom that you ARE allergic to. 

You can never be certain until you are bitten and injected with venom, so, until then it's likely better safe than sorry, I'd say.


----------



## D-back (Feb 21, 2009)

ph0bia said:


> People with nut allergies are born with them, not developped,


Where did you heard about this? Im very curious...


----------



## D-back (Feb 21, 2009)

"What causes nut allergy?

If you are allergic to nuts, when you first come into contact with nuts your immune system reacts and prepares to fight. However, you don't get any symptoms of a reaction. It is only when you come into contact with nuts for a second time that a full allergic reaction happens. Most children who are allergic to nuts have the symptoms of an allergic reaction when they appear to be exposed to nuts for the first time. However, this is probably not their first exposure, but their second. They may already have come into contact with nuts through their mother - either whilst they were in the womb or through breast milk if they were breastfed."

The repeated administration is a must....at least, immunologists think so....


----------



## ph0bia (Feb 21, 2009)

D-back said:


> They may already have come into contact with nuts through their mother - either whilst they were in the womb


Thus, born with the allergy.

Either way, your first post insinuated you'd need to be bitten a multitude of times to be allergic. It's highly likely, to use the information above, that you've already come into contact with some of the constituents of T venom in your life. Thus, you _may_ have already developed an allergy.


----------



## joshuai (Feb 21, 2009)

verry interesting thanks for all the replies. My girlfriend is alergic to bees and so she stays clear of my Ts, now i can argue with her about how they are not AS danngerous to her as a bee.


----------



## ReMoVeR (Feb 21, 2009)

I heard smthin that a study has been made and kids that go out and play in the "dirt" and stuff like that, tend to not be allergic as kids that are like always "clean". 


//Tiago


----------



## D-back (Feb 21, 2009)

ph0bia said:


> Thus, born with the allergy.


Hmm.....in your post you stated "Not true at all. Some people are born with allergies. People with nut allergies are born with them, not developped, some people have the same with Ts."......in this case, the allergy WAS developed after the first administration in the womb...I don't think it's probable that a child in the womb has contact with T venom....with bee venom? That's more probable.....but the chance of being in contact with bee venom in the womb and develop an allergy on T venom is highly improbable...it probably can happen, but IMO the chance is hmm.....1: 10 000 000 



ph0bia said:


> Either way, your first post insinuated you'd need to be bitten a multitude of times to be allergic. It's highly likely, to use the information above, that you've already come into contact with some of the constituents of T venom in your life. Thus, you _may_ have already developed an allergy.


In my first post I also stated, that in some cases it might happen, that a first bite causes allergic reaction....


----------



## ph0bia (Feb 21, 2009)

So, we're agreed it's possible and thus worth avoiding risks  Thus, what are we arguing about?


----------



## D-back (Feb 21, 2009)

In sum, I think we can say, that *in theory*, it's probably possible to be allergic to T venom. If the peptides are too small to act as an allergen, they can bind on other proteins and than act as a hapten and cause antibody production (just like penicillin). The more allergies a person has, the bigger the chance of the development of an allergy on T venom is. We have to be cautious, but I think, the chance of a life threatening reaction after a T bite is rather small (if I'm correct, it hasn't been documented yet...).

To PhObia- we were arguing because you challenged my statement about the need of the repeated exposure with the nut example..:} ....but we solved the problem, so everything is OK


----------



## ph0bia (Feb 21, 2009)

Also, not arguing here but I never said the allergy would be life-threatening.

I repeat, as to date, there have been *zero* recorded cases of deaths directly resulted from tarantula bites. For someone very sensitive to the venom however, a G.rosea would be more than a slight stinging sensation for a few hours ^_^

Also, I agree. As with many things in regards to tarantulas, it's all theoretical. There just isn't enough research being done into these creatures at the moment. Personally, I feel that is the job of most enthusiasts, we are the experimenters, the ones who record and document our Ts. Hence I'm on 3 of these forums absorbing and passing on information


----------



## T-Harry (Feb 21, 2009)

D-back said:


> ....in this case, the allergy WAS developed after the first administration in the womb...I don't think it's probable that a child in the womb has contact with T venom....with bee venom? That's more probable.....but the chance of being in contact with bee venom in the womb and develop an allergy on T venom is highly improbable...it probably can happen, but IMO the chance is hmm.....1: 10 000 000


Well, that surely depends upon where the mother lives. I could think of some regions in the world where it is more likely to be bitten by a T than to receive a bee sting.


----------



## ph0bia (Feb 21, 2009)

And who's to say that the sting and bite do not contain similar chemicals, which one may get an allergy to anyway? 

This is why I wish there were more T studies going on. =(


----------



## gvfarns (Feb 21, 2009)

T-Harry said:


> Well, that surely depends upon where the mother lives. I could think of some regions in the world where it is more likely to be bitten by a T than to receive a bee sting.


I would be surprised if there were any such place.  Bees are pretty well distributed, get around a lot more, are incredibly more numerous, and come in contact with humans more.  But that's almost off topic.


----------



## scar is my t (Feb 21, 2009)

ph0bia said:


> Not true at all. Some people are born with allergies. People with nut allergies are born with them, not developped, some people have the same with Ts.
> 
> It IS possible to have a reaction to T venom, much in the same way bee/wasp stings are of little consequence to me, but an old friend of mine had to carry a pen, much like diabetics carried, as bee/wasp stings could cause some very serious problems.
> 
> ...


i got nut allergies and i got them when i was 1 i developed them as soon as my immune system ran on its own (i got breast fed) so yea right there you can develop allergies.


----------



## IrishPolishman (Feb 21, 2009)

I don't care what people say and what studies have been done.  We all have allergies of some sort to something.  To say that someone can NOT be allergic to T venom is risky business.  I say to everyone to just consider it a possiblility and always be prepared.  I lead a lot of hiking and backpacking trips sponsored by the college.  I always have to keep full supplies of Benadryl and Eppy pens for just in case scenarios.  People will develop allergies and not even know what from.  So just be prepared and you don't have to worry about anything.


----------



## Widowman10 (Feb 27, 2009)

*allright, here goes...*

asked the doc about allergies to venom. basically, some people are just born with allergies, period. an allergic reaction to _any_ type of venom can occur 1) if the person has an allergy to it to begin with or 2) if a person has been bitten once, develops a response, and it happens again and the body mounts a crazy immunological response. it does not matter if the venom consists of proteins or peptides, as a secondary injection of _anything_ will produce this same effect. does this pretty much solve things?

bottom line: yes.


----------



## ghost6303 (Feb 27, 2009)

i personaly know of several people that are alergic to bee stings, they found out they were alergic on the first time that they were stung, so i would guess that they did not develop the allergy over time with repeated exposures and that they were infact born with it. i also know of one person who is allergic to peanuts and has been that way since birth. 

impossible to be allergic to tarantula venom? "impossible" and "everyone" are too much of a generalization for that to be true. i agree that the chance of someone being allergic to a T bite is extremely small, much smaller then being allergic to peanut butter for example.


----------



## maxxx (Feb 27, 2009)

*MD point of view*

 yes you can develop allergies later in life


----------



## ReMoVeR (Feb 27, 2009)

ph0bia said:


> I repeat, as to date, there have been *zero* recorded cases of deaths directly resulted from tarantula bites. For someone very sensitive to the venom however, a G.rosea would be more than a slight stinging sensation for a few hours ^_^



Let me be mad and correct you. There is a case where someone died from a T bite due to sufocation... as in, the area of the trought got bigger(sorry, i don't know the other words) for this. So u should be sayin " resulted from tarantula venom" x) xD 
(no ofense really)


Cheers

//Tiago


----------



## gvfarns (Feb 27, 2009)

ReMoVeR said:


> Let me be mad and correct you. There is a case where someone died from a T bite due to sufocation... as in, the area of the trought got bigger(sorry, i don't know the other words) for this. So u should be sayin " resulted from tarantula venom" x) xD
> (no ofense really)


Death from swelling and allergic reactions are counted as tarantula deaths, just as they are for bees.  When people quote the statistic that zero people have died from tarantula bites, they include the case you are describing.  

Therefore I would like to request a source on your story.  I suspect it never happened.  Do you have a link or something to back up your suggestion?


----------



## Bill S (Feb 27, 2009)

Just to add a few thoughts to the allergy discussion - 

Immunity and allergy are very closely related.  Both are immune responses, but the allergic reaction is an immune response gone wrong.  Immunity and allergy both require at least one exposure to the substance to recognize it as something to react to.  However - the exposure may be in a form different than the one that draws allergic or immune response.  For example - if chemicals found in tarantula venom are the same as a chemical encountered in some other form somewhere else, the body can develop an allergy to that chemical.  The body can also mistake one chemical for another.  There might be a chemical that's similar to but not identical with a component of tarantula venom, and if you develop a sensitvity to that chemical and later get envenomated by a tarantula, you may have an allergic reaction, even if you've never been bitten before by a tarantula.  These "mistaken responses" are being studied more as we find more autoimmune conditions in people.  (Autoimmune responses are when the body mistakes one of its own cell types for an invading organism).

Still, although the possibility of allergy to tarantula bites exists, it seems to be very rare at best.  

Another thing to think about - anything that you can become immune to, you can also develop an allergy to.  Where I live bark scorpions (_Centruroides_) are very common.  And people commonly get stung by them.  One of my neighbors described the changes he's experienced over time with their stings.  The first sting *HURT*!!!  Later stings still hurt, but not as bad.  Now they feel like bee stings.  It would appear he may be developing a resistence to them.  But - at any time, that resistence could change to a hypersensitivity.  If one form of arachnid venom can follow this pattern, it's not hard to imagine that others could too.


----------



## CodeWilster (Feb 28, 2009)

*My two (50?) cents...*

Very interesting thread. I got lost in one like this a while back sometime. I was beaten down by a ton of people who said that due to the structure of tarantula venom, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an allergic reaction to it. They may be correct, but I am sorry; a big doctor with a big PHD can tell me that straight to my face and I wouldn't believe it. They would really have to show me some logical, hardcore science to prove that. 

I honestly do not think that enough people are bitten (considering the entire population) for us to know, and on top of that lack of research doesn't help either. 

To the allergy-derivation debate, I will simply say that we are all born with tendencies to be allergic to certain substances. I am allergic to EVERYTHING. Every plant, every tree, every bee, wasp, yellowjacket, etc. I get steroidal shots on a weekly basis for the next year that will supposedly reverse my body's immune responses to "safe" substances. An allergy is basically your body freaking out over something it THINKS is harmful. 

I do agree an allergic reaction to a tarantula bite would be beyond unlikely, but like somebody mentioned above it would be foolish to say that it is not possible. Years ago it was not possible that the world was round, it was not possible to go into space, it was not possible to cure many diseases, it was not possible to have an african american become president of the US, etc. Everybody's body is uniquely different, and who's to say a venomous substance could not cause an allergic reaction? There are freakin people who cannot go outside because they have horrible reactions to ultraviolet rays, there are people who poke a peanut and pass out cold and are rushed to emergency, there are people who suffocate every spring when the flowers bloom,...etc...etc...etc...I'm pretty sure there is or will eventually be a person out there who's body does NOT appreciate a foreign VENOMOUS substance. Think about tarantula venom. It enters your body and immediately begins breaking down all digestible tissue it can. If you don't believe me then that must mean you aren't ever feeding your spiders?

So whether or not it is possible to have an "allergic reaction" to a T bite, we all know very well that we can in fact have a "reaction". Although it may not be allergic, there are numerous people on this site who after being bitten by the same type of T had a different reaction. It goes back to how everybody's body is uniquely differing, in that one person will get a little itchy stinging bump for a few hours, and theres the other person who's arm swells, itches, has unusual heartbeats, is sore for days, etc. ALL of my books say this and I'm sure many people on this site have their own experiences to back that up. Although I am allergic to everything, I was bitten by a P. subfusca a while back, and was sore for about four days in my wrist, nothing more nothing less.

So although ruling out allergic reaction could be risky but may be correct, we all know from experience first hand or through stories that getting tagged by a T sucks and you don't know your body like you think you do and neither do doctors to a certain point. (Considering that they've let two-aka BOTH, of my aunt's kidneys fail, they have not cured cancer yet, etc.) I get my allergy shots at the local hospital but the next time I see the specialist I'll get his opinion on this. I keep forgetting to ask :wall:  And now, my rant is pretty much over  I will simply conclude: don't get bitten by a T. It will suck. It will hurt. Your body will react in at least some way to it. You will be fine. But just in case do yourself a favor and don't be the first to die a very unfortunate death with allergies we have never recorded and thought could not possibly exist. 

To be honest, I'd LOVE to have it completely proven that no one can have an allergic reaction to a tarantula! (It just makes them that much safer and more desirable!  ) But after Jim Bob over there in Kentucky touches a log and breaks out in hives, can't breathe, swells like a baloon, etc, all in a matter of minutes, I find it easy to logically hypothesize that a venomous (not cellulose!) substance could cause an allergic reaction.


----------



## D-back (Feb 28, 2009)

Widowman10 said:


> asked the doc about allergies to venom. basically, some people are just born with allergies, period. an allergic reaction to _any_ type of venom can occur 1) if the person has an allergy to it to begin with or ....


Hi! I've reread my immunology textbook and the prof who had written the chapter about allergy stated, that allergies are always developed. Maybe you can develop an allergy after sensibilization in the womb, but every allergic reaction is triggered by IgE antibodies and IgE antibodies are produced after sensibilization. In this case, we can say, the allergy is "born", but if my immunology books and my former prof are correct, the first exposure is a must....Of course, you don't have to have contact with T venom...As someone stated, sometimes a substance with more or less similar structure is sufficient to cause the production of IgEs, what can react also with T venom....


----------



## Widowman10 (Feb 28, 2009)

D-back said:


> Hi! I've reread my immunology textbook and the prof who had written the chapter about allergy stated, that allergies are always developed. Maybe you can develop an allergy after sensibilization in the womb, but every allergic reaction is triggered by IgE antibodies and IgE antibodies are produced after sensibilization. In this case, we can say, the allergy is "born", but if my immunology books and my former prof are correct, the first exposure is a must....Of course, you don't have to have contact with T venom...As someone stated, sometimes a substance with more or less similar structure is sufficient to cause the production of IgEs, what can react also with T venom....


right, and this is what is going to happen as "the first exposure is a must." barring, of course, the extremely unlikely and rare instance that someone is just born with an allergy to T venom. if that's possible.


----------



## D-back (Feb 28, 2009)

This is a very interesting thread.:} 
1. There isn't an allergy without IgE antibodies and IgEs are produced after the exposure to the allergen.
2. My books say, that IgG and IgA antibodies aren't produced while we are in the womb. IgM can be produced during the last months of the pregnancy. There isn't a word about IgE...:? .....
3. If IgE production can occur prenatally, it can be possible to develop an allergy to something, that is in the mother's blood and can penetrate through the placenta.
4. Of course, there could be a mechanism, what was unknown to the prof who'd written the book and had given the lecture...If it is possible, please ask your immunology teacher about the mechanism and post his answer. If there's a special mechanism, I'd like to learn something about it......Thanks!


----------



## ghost6303 (Feb 28, 2009)

not really documented proof, but its certainly a story.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E00E1D7153DE433A25752C2A9649D946197D6CF


also this article calls tarantula venom "deadly"
http://www.webmd.com/news/20010108/spider-bite-that-soothes-heart

and this one says tarantulas are non-venomous.
http://blogs.webmd.com/all-ears/2006/03/spider-bites-not-all-are-itsy-bitsy.html


----------



## gvfarns (Feb 28, 2009)

ghost6303 said:


> not really documented proof, but its certainly a story.
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E00E1D7153DE433A25752C2A9649D946197D6CF
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah the last two are typical of journalist work.  They throw around words like deadly and non-venemous to set a mood or catch your attention, when they aren't factually correct.

The first story is interesting.  Very old, though.  As far as I know, it's thought that the tarantulas in florida arrived there like in the '60s.  This man was bitten in the 1800s.  Therefore it is very unlikely to have been a tarantula that bit him.


----------



## gvfarns (Feb 28, 2009)

You know, I've been thinking about this thread.  I don't think the original people who mentioned that tarantula venom is non allergenic because it's made up of little peptides actually said that it's impossible to be allergic to T venom.  I think you can be allergic to almost anything (even weird crap like gold on your skin).  The first mentions of this fact that I saw here on the boards said that it's a lot less likely to cause allergies.  The protein venoms in wasp and bee stings are easily misidentified by the body and cause allergies whereas the peptides tend to go under the radar.

There are allergenic and non allergenic substances in the world.  The difference is that the former are more likely to cause an allergic reaction than the latter.  In that sense T venom is non-allergenic.

I suspect that we haven't observed allergic reactions because, as has been mentioned, you don't typically notice the allergic reaction until the second time you are exposed.  How many people have been bitten twice by tarantulas?  Not that many.  Now how many of that small (elite) group also fall in the tiny group of people who will develop allergies to tarantula venom peptides after repeated exposure?  No one, that we know of.  

That's why it's a bit silly that all over the web any time tarantulas are mentioned the direct effect of their venom is downplayed but then there's a stern warning about the possibility of an allergic reaction.  The truth is that the latter is so rare that we don't know of any one to have suffered significantly from this type of reaction, much less died from it.


----------



## D-back (Feb 28, 2009)

Hmm....During the last year, I've seen the statement about the impossibility to be allergic to the T venom in more than one thread...


----------



## gvfarns (Feb 28, 2009)

D-back said:


> Hmm....During the last year, I've seen the statement about the impossibility to be allergic to the T venom in more than one thread...


Me too.  My feeling is that those are exaggerations.  

And anyway, they are paraphrasing whoever it was that first said it.


----------



## gumby (Feb 28, 2009)

So over the past week I've been pondering how much of what we say on the boards is pure knowledge and how much is past down hearsay. I asked my Xgirlfriend who has two BS degrees, in biology and chemistry, to take a look at this board and tell me what she thought about this thread. She did some reading and sent me back this response:

Medical Microbiology 5th edition (Murray, Rosenthal, Pfaller) Elsevier

IMNHO:
In spider venom, there are small "proteins" which are called peptides. These peptides bind several receptors on the surface of your cells. This binding signals, among other things, pain. In response to this signal, and the bite itself, your immune system will respond. Worse, however, is that the venom can cause cells to burst, which elicits a huge immune response. When cells burst, they release toxins, which cause nearby cells to also be damaged. This collective damage is what the immune system is actually responding to. One way your immune system fights things that are not bacteria or viruses is by releasing histamine. Histamine is what gives you seasonal allergies. It signals more immune cells to the site, which causes swelling. This is not necessarily how the immune responds to the venom, but rather to the damaged caused by your cells bursting.

In tarantula venom there aren't the peptides that cause the cells to burst, but there are other peptides. But tarantula venom *can* cause an allergic reaction still, just like common food or plant allergies. Symptoms of this would include itching or mild swelling, but since it will be at the site of the bite, it won't be life threatening.
I also read that in some species of tarantula, in addition to these peptides there are "proteases", or enzymes that "chew up" protein. This can include structural proteins, including cartilage, which would cause bruising and tenderness. 

More interestingly, there are groups of chemists using the structures common to different kinds of venom to cause the opposite effects: pain killers. They are using the idea of venom, that it binds cell receptors, but then are changing the peptide so that it will not cause the response, pain. But by blocking the receptor without triggering its response, other things that may bind would not be "felt" because the mock-venom would be shielding the receptor. 

In short, an immunologist would call both of these responses "allergic", however to the average person on the street, the cell bursting response would be much more identifiable as an allergic reaction. 

http://imb.uq.edu.au/download/large/...erapeutics.pdf
http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/CENTERS/...pdf/NAture.pdf


----------



## D-back (Feb 28, 2009)

gumby said:


> ......Worse, however, is that the venom can cause cells to burst, which elicits a huge immune response. When cells burst, they release toxins, which cause nearby cells to also be damaged. This collective damage is what the immune system is actually responding to. One way your immune system fights things that are not bacteria or viruses is by releasing histamine. Histamine is what gives you seasonal allergies. It signals more immune cells to the site, which causes swelling. This is not necessarily how the immune responds to the venom, but rather to the damaged caused by your cells bursting.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


They might call the first reaction "allergic", but it's not a true allergy. When histamine isn't released by IgEs, thats only "allergy-like"....but the final effect can be the same, so in this case the difference in the mechanism of the histamine release might not be important .


----------



## DFox (Mar 1, 2009)

ghost6303 said:


> not really documented proof, but its certainly a story.
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E00E1D7153DE433A25752C2A9649D946197D6CF
> 
> 
> ...


That first article seems entirely inaccurate to me. The man died 2 years after the "sting" of a tarantula because of "blood poisoning"? This was 1900, I doubt they really know what killed him. The article says the "Tarantula" was concealed under a leaf when it "stung" him, which makes me think this guy didn't even see what bit him. Also my best guess tells me there probably weren't any T's in Florida at this time, as we know that the species that are there now were introduced by us, probably much later than 1900. I could be wrong about that, but either way it seems if you were going to die from a T bite it wouldn't be 2 years after the fact.

Need a real source if anyone still thinks that a human died as a direct result of a tarantula bite.


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 1, 2009)

thanks for sharing gumby (and asking the gf). it can _possibly_ become life threatening though if the body develops an allergy and you are bitten a second time. this would cause a big allergic response and could send the person into anaphylactic shock, which can cause death quite quickly if not taken care of immediately.


----------



## Dreamslave (Mar 1, 2009)

So we can have an ''allergic'' reaction to a t bite but are there any records of anaphylactic shocks related to a t bite?


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 2, 2009)

i don't believe there are _any_ cases of anaphylactic shock from a T bite, but yes, we have the possibility of being allergic.


----------



## D-back (Mar 4, 2009)

I've been wondering about this thread...(I have to be careful...it's becoming an obsession:} )

  In theory, if the allergen is present in the human body long enough (after the first administration), a second administration doesn't have to be necessary. After the first administration, the body produces IgEs, and when they are ready, the allergen can still be in the body and can trigger the allergic reaction. I don't know if T venom contains substances which can last in the body long enough...

I don't see any reason why would be an anaphylactic shock impossible. I think, it hasn't been recorded yet. The chances are probably very small, but I think, in theory it can happen, so rather be prepared...


----------



## wedge07 (Mar 4, 2009)

It is not the venom itself that causes the reaction but the reaction to the protein fractions and not as a direct result of the venom itself that is possible, though unlikely, to cause an anaphylactic reaction.  There have also been no proven deaths from tarantula bites.  

I would be a little worried if your are allergic to bee stings as a tarantula bite may cause a similar reaction.  On a personal note I have been bitten before and it really wasn't too bad, it just burned a little, got red, and swelled up around the bite for a few days.  It itched too.


----------



## D-back (Mar 4, 2009)

wedge07 said:


> There have also been no proven deaths from tarantula bites.


You might find interesting post #58 in this thread:

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=139479&page=4&highlight=vaccine

I'm not sure if those two deaths because of infections were confirmed, but it's an interesting read...


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 4, 2009)

wedge07 said:


> I would be a little worried if your are allergic to bee stings as a tarantula bite may cause a similar reaction.


supposedly they are a little different. 

the reaction could occur with anything being injected a second time.


----------



## WelshTan (Mar 4, 2009)

I am by no means an expert on this subject as i am basically a newbie. . .but as a fairly new T owner of a collection of 5 so far i have researched as much as i can this subject as i am allergic to many substances some of which i never came into contact before i had a "patch test" arranged at my hospital. . . most sites claim that there has never been a known death as a direct result of a T bite. . some of the worst cases of mechanical damage n flesh eaten away as the result of a bite were from a brown recluse . . .the worst symptoms i came across whilst spending hours on internet searching were localised swelling, itchiness, but some sypmtoms on the higher scale included shortness of breath, nausea, fever and sweating. . .many different sites listed these symptoms as a possible reaction to a T bite so i think it wud b safe advice for the minority of people who wud unknowingly get these reactions until they got bit wud b to give ANYONE handling a T  (even a seemingly docile G.Rosea as i have 2 in my collection of T's... one docile the other defensive) to be careful, and if u experience any adverse reaction or symptom of any kind to seek medical atttention immediately. . .and if u are unlucky enuff to b bitten to immediately wash the bite site out with soap and water and to disinfect the area to minimise any localised infection ... .. .


----------



## D-back (Mar 4, 2009)

WelshTan said:


> i am allergic to many substances some of which i never came into contact before


Believe me, you was in contact with them without realizing it...or in contact with something with similar structure...



> if u experience any adverse reaction or symptom of any kind to seek medical atttention immediately. . .


amen


----------



## WelshTan (Mar 4, 2009)

erm . . .half the substances i was teasted with i had never come into contact with before. . . the hospital tested me with a whole load of bizzarre an normal substances to try n get positive n negative reactions. . .i had a whole load of lil pouches of stuff taped to my back n they had to read the reactions daily. . they taped them to my back for localised reaction n also did uv tests n blood tests with so many diff substances. . . the point being it dont matter what im allergic to. . .there r many people who WILL have the adverse reaction to a bite from ANY T as its venom is simply a substance that is not in everyday life occurance to most humans n the human body WILL NOT know how to react to it as it will not have had the chance to make a blueprint to fight any possible reaction T venom cud cause. . .i think its STUPIDITY to say no one cud b allergic to T venom. . .thats like saying no one cud b allergic to jeans, pocket tags, zips or cheap metal earrings. . . i mite add im highly allergic to both plus a high assortment of other things n substances. . . every T owner shud b careful n be aware of any adverse symptom even if a bite wudnt affect them in the same way as another individual. . "u really dont know until u been bit n injected with venom". . .dont throw caution to the wind. . .be fully prepared for even the worst situation. . .god forbid that it shud hopefully never arise. . . ..


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 4, 2009)

yeah, you don't have to come in contact with substances to be allergic to them necessarily. some people are just born with allergies to some things. i will say, not most, but there's always that small percentage.


----------



## WelshTan (Mar 4, 2009)

thankyou widowman. . i mean i've had a lifelong allergy to metals n other things that there is NO WAY i cud have come into contact with in the womb. . .some people ARE born with a higher sensitivity to some things than others . . . an T's as with ANY "creature" shud b treated with respect, so shud their defense mechanisms. . as a T's U hairs can cause blindness even if in most cases only temporary. . but whats to say their venom cant cause an unwanted unpleasant reaction too??? every human is UNIQUE and so is their reaction to an unknown substance that is forced upon or into the human body. . .T's have not been researched into for that long that there cud b concrete evidence into what damage they cud cause unto humans nomatter how unintentional their defense maybe.  .at this stage i wud say it is trail and error. . .for example. . shark attack fatalities. . true numbers are simply nuknown as to how many people have died truly at shark attacks. . .i love sharks too but thats a diff story. . .we will truly at this point never know . . . but i do know that a simple pineapple slice on a cocktail with cheese killed my neice cos she was allergic but had never been exposed to pineapple. . not in the womb n not until the party wen she was aged only 11 months. . .things DO happen. . .they CANNOT be ruled out cos peeps havent known bout them before. . . tragedy CAN happen. . .n dont make T's the exeption. . but also dont be afraid of them cos they r such beautiful magnificent creatures. . .its really hard to explain but i hope whoever reads this will understand what i mean


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Mar 4, 2009)

I was born with a lot of documented allergies (->nokturnal1980's fiance).  In fact, I was allergic to almost every form of milk they tried to feed me as a newborn.  You definitely do not have to come in contact with an item to have/develop an allergy.  I can site several dozen items that we discovered I was allergic to because I came in contact with them ONCE and ended up in the emergency room. *I asked 7 of the doctors that I work with (I have a graduate degree in the medical field) and ALL of them agreed that you can be allergic to tarantula venom.  One of them believes he read an article in a medical journal not too long ago regarding this topic.  He is looking for the article for me.  As soon as he finds it, I'll post it.   *


----------



## WelshTan (Mar 4, 2009)

Nokturnal1980's fiance. . .u must have had a lot of problems bein fed as a baby. . .poor bugger. .  .but thankyou for your input even tho this isnt my thread. . . but thankyou for supplementing my argument bout T venom. . .n btw its horrid bein allergic to a lot of things isnt it . . .i just hope that all T's and their venom and human rections get more closely researched n tested by allergen n rective scientist/biologists (if thats the correct terminology). . as T's are an ever growing popular "pet". . .and a lot more shud b known bout them n their defensive habits n the full documented effects on humans as being their keepers


----------



## WelshTan (Mar 4, 2009)

i do apologise for my poor spelling. . .i type too fast n then only realise AFTER  i submitted n posted my comment. . .sorry guys lol


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Mar 4, 2009)

Yes, feeding me as a baby was not fun according to everyone in my family.  As an adult, I'm probably the only person who sees a peach and runs in fear .  I react to peaches the way some people react to coming in contact with peanuts. 

The doctor who is looking for the article has a high interest in treating envenomations, so he monitors these types of articles very closely.  He's on call for the next couple of days so it may take a little while.


----------



## D-back (Mar 5, 2009)

Widowman10 said:


> yeah, you don't have to come in contact with substances to be allergic to them necessarily. some people are just born with allergies to some things. i will say, not most, but there's always that small percentage.





Nokturnal1980 said:


> You definitely do not have to come in contact with an item to have/develop an allergy.


Sorry men, not an offense but I'll believe this only if you can support this theory with facts from respected, up to date immunology books (not articles on the internet-sometimes they aren't valid or are written to laics-- they not necessarily using the right terms and are simplified to become more understandable).

Edit: I think, you can be in contact with nearly every metal in the womb.........or during the first months of your life..


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 5, 2009)

only if it enters through the mother's bloodstream, right?

anyway, some people are just born with allergies to certain things. it's just natural. if someone has a quote from some book, that would be good, but you can probably look up some scholarly articles as well. peer-reviewed, or published in a medical journal would be great.


----------



## ghost6303 (Mar 5, 2009)

i think most people are confusing "allergic reation" with "anaphylaxis". 

anaphylaxis is "a severe, whole-body allergic reaction. After being exposed to a substance like bee sting venom, the person's immune system becomes sensitized to that allergen. On a later exposure, an allergic reaction may occur. This reaction is sudden, severe, and involves the whole body."

an anaphylactic reaction can only happen if you have been previously exposed to the trigger chemical before so that your body can (excessively) build up a defense for that chemical if you happen to be exposed to it again.

an allergic reaction doesnt necessarily mean the person goes into anaphalactic shock. an allergic reaction is a normal process in the body that happens when there is a foreign substance that triggers an immune system response.

a rash from poison ivy is an allergic reaction. you do not need to be previously exposed to poison ivy for there to be a reaction, it can happen the first time you touch it.

itching from uricating hairs is an allergic reaction. some people like me arent really botherd by them, some people have to wear rubber gloves to clean out their T tanks or they itch for days. that is an allergic reaction.


----------



## D-back (Mar 5, 2009)

I think, this post is on the border of being off-topic, so if in your opinion it's not interesting and is clearly off-topic, just tell me and I'll stop posting such things...Thanks! 




Widowman10 said:


> only if it enters through the mother's bloodstream, right?


I'm not 100% sure about the development of the allergy in the womb. I've read about it only on the internet, so this theory doesn't have to be valid. The problem is, the immune system before the birth isn't matured. I'm not sure if it can produce IgEs.:?  Maybe the allergen can persist in the tissues until the full maturity of the immune system and then cause an allergy.:? 

[/QUOTE]anyway, some people are just born with allergies to certain things. it's just natural.[/QUOTE]

I'm open minded, (and someone's told me long ago, that "In medicine and in America everything is possible.. ) so lets suppose it's possible to develop an allergy against a substance (maybe even against parts of the T venom) without being exposed...What can be the mechanism?....Lets say, the maturation of the lymphocytes is defective. They begin to produce IgEs without antigen stimulation. There is one problem...The binding site on the FAB fragment of the IgE has to match the allergen (a part of the molecule of the allergen if I want to be accurate) perfectly to trigger an allergic reaction. Lets say, its possible to "make" a binding site without the presence of an antigen (I'm not sure if that's possible). Then there's a possibility, that the randomly synthetised binding site by chance perfectly matches an allergen (maybe even a substance present in T venom) and can cause allergic reaction after the first exposure....I'm not sure if this "chain of events" can happen in real life...

Or lets say, that in one cell a genetic mutation happens. The cell produces and secrates an abnormal protein (as a result of a mutation). The abnormal protein is detected by the immune system. If the organism has a predisposition to develop allergies, in theory, in some cases, the immune system can produce IgE antibodies against that protein. Let's say, that while those IgEs are being produced, the immune system detects the defective cell and kills him. This eliminates the source of the abnormal protein, so when the IgE synthesis is finished, the "allergen" is not present in the blood any more (allergic reaction with sympthoms doesn't occure).....If that abnormal protein has by chance similar structure as an existing exogenous substance (for example a substance present in T venom), after the first administration of that substance, allergic reaction can occure...


----------



## D-back (Mar 5, 2009)

ghost6303 said:


> i think most people are confusing "allergic reation" with "anaphylaxis".
> 
> anaphylaxis is "a severe, whole-body allergic reaction. After being exposed to a substance like bee sting venom, the person's immune system becomes sensitized to that allergen. On a later exposure, an allergic reaction may occur. This reaction is sudden, severe, and involves the whole body."
> 
> ...


I agree with you except two things
1. allergic reactions are quite common, but they are never normal
2. in immunology, only a reaction triggered by IgE antibodies is called allergy. If the sympthoms are triggered by the release of mediators without the involvement of IgE, that's only "allergy-like"--this can happen also with people without allergies or other illnesses, so we can say, they are "normal" reactions


----------



## 0823angeles (Mar 5, 2009)

*Anaphalactic shock...*

 Don't know if I spelled that correctly but it's also true that you can develop allergies later in life as an example my case: I was not allergic to shell-fish until around 6th grade but, one day my mother cooked a filipino dish made almost entirely of shrimp, well me being a big fan of shrimp I had a hearthy plate of shrimp.  15 minutes into I could barely breathe and I was rushed to the ER where they administered Epinephren to subdue the swelling in my troat.  The doctor said I was very lucky that I was still alive because the younger or lighter you are the harder the reaction hits.  To make my opinion short and this is from experience you don't have to be born with an allergy although, you can develop it and not know it. Lets just say if you've been bit before and nothing happens it doesn't necessarily mean that you can't get an anaphalactic reaction in the future.  That's why it's is called PRACTICE OF MEDICINE because nothing in that field is set in stone YOU PRACTICE.  I hope people can understand what I've explained especially when I almost died from my own physical body. And it's just food MAN I MISS SHELL FISH....

-Angeles


----------



## D-back (Mar 5, 2009)

0823angeles said:


> Don't know if I spelled that correctly but it's also true that you can develop allergies later in life as an example my case: I was not allergic to shell-fish until around 6th grade but, one day my mother cooked a filipino dish made almost entirely of shrimp, well me being a big fan of shrimp I had a hearthy plate of shrimp.  15 minutes into I could barely breathe and I was rushed to the ER where they administered Epinephren to subdue the swelling in my troat.  The doctor said I was very lucky that I was still alive because the younger or lighter you are the harder the reaction hits.  To make my opinion short and this is from experience you don't have to be born with an allergy although, you can develop it and not know it. Lets just say if you've been bit before and nothing happens it doesn't necessarily mean that you can't get an anaphalactic reaction in the future.  That's why it's is called PRACTICE OF MEDICINE because nothing in that field is set in stone YOU PRACTICE.  I hope people can understand what I've explained especially when I almost died from my own physical body. And it's just food MAN I MISS SHELL FISH....
> 
> -Angeles


I'm sorry to hear about your illness. ...But you are truly lucky. 

  The development of the allergy after multiple post-natal exposures is the common way of developing an allergy. But in this thread, some are stated, that an allergy can be born or can be developed without the exposure to the allergen....If they are right (i'm not convinced yet ), in rare cases, the first T bite can be dangerous (even if the person thinks, he's not allergic to anything)


----------



## Bill S (Mar 5, 2009)

Dreamslave said:


> So we can have an ''allergic'' reaction to a t bite but are there any records of anaphylactic shocks related to a t bite?


For an allergy to become severe enough to produce anaphylactic shock it would require more exposures (bites), and probably from the same species.

Let me offer an example of an allergy to an arthropod bite that can lead to anaphylaxis - and I think you'll see why we aren't seeing cases connected to tarantulas appearing in the medical journals even though allergy to their venom is completely possible.

_Triatoma rubida_ - the kissing bug.  It's an ugly little insect about 3/4 inch long, and common in some areas of the southwest.  They're nocturnal blood-suckers whose natural microhabitat is pack rat nests - but they've happily accepted human houses as an alternative residence, and suck blood from their human hosts at night as they sleep.  _T rubida_ victims develop an unusually high rate of allergic response.  Approximately 20% of people chronically bitten will become sensitized and develop low level allergy.  And of those, some will increase in level to the point of possible anaphylactic shock if they continue to be exposed.  (I happen to be one of these, which is what prompted me to get involved with a research project on them.)

OK.  This is an animal that causes an unusually high rate of allergic response.  Many hundreds of people get bitten every year by them.  Hundreds are chronically bitten.  And while severe allergic responses are well known and documented and the potential for death by anaphylactic shock is clear - we never hear of people actually being killed by them.

So compare this to tarantulas.  Yes, there is a potential for allergic response to develop.  (I'll back D-back on the issue of develop - multiple exposures really are necessary.)  But there is no reason to suspect that the allergic potential for tarantulas is anywhere near as high as for the kissing bug.  Hence, until we have many hundreds of people getting chronically bitten by tarantulas, we are not likely to see reports of notable allergic reactions and less likely to hear of deaths due to anaphylactic shock.  Doesn't mean the potential isn't out there - but the numbers aren't.


----------



## Bill S (Mar 5, 2009)

WelshTan said:


> . . i mean i've had a lifelong allergy to metals n other things that there is NO WAY i cud have come into contact with in the womb. . .


Would you be able to give an example of something that you have an allergy to that you "NO WAY cud have come into contact with"?  Allergic response really does require that the body has already built a "template" for immune/allergic response to it.  I'd have to agree with another poster that somewhere, somehow you were exposed to the substance (or to something that very closely resembled it).  I suspect you simply didn't recognize it in it's original or natural form.  We are constantly bombarded with an incredible array of chemicals and potential allergins that we otherwise don't notice and are unaware until our body starts reacting to them.


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 5, 2009)

well, just to throw this out there, remember clonal abortion and the process. b-cells are made in the bone marrow when very young. the b-cells have almost 50,000 different receptors on its surface, all for a different, specific antigen. now, when b-cells are produced in the bone marrow, there are many different receptors. receptors that are on the surface that are specific to "self" are destroyed promptly so that the body does not produce cells that would kill itself. all the other thousands upon thousands of sites are still present and have never, i repeat never, seen that specific antigen before. i do, however, agree that for anaphylaxis to occur, there has had to have been a previous exposure.


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Mar 5, 2009)

I must not have posted clearly before.  The articles in which the MD cited were in peer reviewed Medical Journals.  They are not internet articles. 

He was able to remember the location of one by using Medco.  The others he will have to physically go through his medical library of medical journals and books. He will supply those in a week or two weeks

This is the first one: 
Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 72-80


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Mar 5, 2009)

Here is an article regarding the genectic links to allergies.  It comes from a Medical Journal.  Please refer to the article referenced previously for allergic reactions to tarantula venom.  


Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., Volume 158, Number 6, December 1998, 1958-1962

Interleukin-10 and Transforming Growth Factor- Promoter Polymorphisms in Allergies and Asthma 

(The abreviation is short for The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine)


----------



## D-back (Mar 5, 2009)

Widowman10 said:


> well, just to throw this out there, remember clonal abortion and the process. b-cells are made in the bone marrow when very young. the b-cells have almost 50,000 different receptors on its surface, all for a different, specific antigen. now, when b-cells are produced in the bone marrow, there are many different receptors. receptors that are on the surface that are specific to "self" are destroyed promptly so that the body does not produce cells that would kill itself. all the other thousands upon thousands of sites are still present and have never, i repeat never, seen that specific antigen before. i do, however, agree that for anaphylaxis to occur, there has had to have been a previous exposure.


Haha...It's funny how the seemingly forgotten knowledges "spring to mind" when somebody else begins to talk about them....Thanks Widowman! 

Edit: I was talking about the first article...I'll check the others tomorrow...In my country, right know is night so I go to sleep...

When I said: 





> Lets say, the maturation of the lymphocytes is defective. They begin to produce IgEs without antigen stimulation. There is one problem...The binding site on the FAB fragment of the IgE has to match the allergen (a part of the molecule of the allergen if I want to be accurate) perfectly to trigger an allergic reaction. Lets say, its possible to "make" a binding site without the presence of an antigen (I'm not sure if that's possible). Then there's a possibility, that the randomly synthetised binding site by chance perfectly matches an allergen (maybe even a substance present in T venom) and can cause allergic reaction after the first exposure....I'm not sure if this "chain of events" can happen in real life...


I was thinking about something similar but I couldn't remember some details (I had my immunology exam 5 years ago) so I wasn't able to write it down so precisely than you... 

If I remember correctly, to produce IgEs in a significant manner, those cells with that particular receptor have to clonally proliferate and clonal proliferation occurs after the administration of the substance. But what could cause clonal proliferation without the allergen exposition?....Maybe some very unlucky person can become allergic to T venom while having B-cell lymphoma from matured B cells? That's an interesting theory....  


To Nocturnal- How do you know, you wasn't in contact with those antigens before? For example, some people had severe allergic reaction after the FIRST administration of some drugs....but that was only seemingly the first exposure...In some cases, it was proven, that the cows were treated with those drugs and they secreted the drug molecules to the milk...So in that cases, the first exposure was when the person had drunk the milk from that cow... That person didn't know about the exposure. He thought, the allergy had developed after the very first exposure...

I've tried to read that article, but only the abstract is free....in the abstract  unfortunately is nothing about the allergies which are present after the very first exposure....but there is stated: "Both immunoglobulin E– and non-immunoglobulin E–mediated immunologic mechanisms may be involved"...........the later of these two is not an allergy, but has similar symptoms and CAN occure after the first exposure. Are you sure the doctor wasn't talking about that second mechanism?...I'd like to read the whole article, but I don't have a subscription...

Edit: I was talking about the first article. I'll check the others tomorrow...in my country, right now is night so I'll go to sleep..


----------



## D-back (Mar 5, 2009)

Nokturnal1980 said:


> Here is an article regarding the genectic links to allergies.  It comes from a Medical Journal.  Please refer to the article referenced previously for allergic reactions to tarantula venom.
> 
> 
> Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., Volume 158, Number 6, December 1998, 1958-1962
> ...


I've decided to check the articel today... ...and this one was for free...:clap: 

This article is about atopy...Atopy is of course a born "disorder". But it isn't an allergy. Atopy is a born predisposition to develop allergies after antigen stimulation. If you have atopy, you can develop an allergy (possibly even to T venom), if you don't have it, you won't develop allergies. The article is about the fact, that if a genetic disorder is present in the regulation of IL-10, you have atopy and you have a greater chance to develop an allergy...In this case, not the allergy is born, but the ability to develop it after the exposures to the allergen...


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Mar 5, 2009)

I haven't read it yet.  I've been trying to work on a research article on another topic.  I'll send an email to the doctor, I bet he headed his email wrong and that's probably an article for other research.  Let me get him to give me the right article and I'll post it.

BTW, I know what Atopy is, you tend to learn that with a master's in health care. <- not meant to be rude, please don't take it that way.


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Mar 5, 2009)

D-back said:


> Haha...It's funny how the seemingly forgotten knowledges "spring to mind" when somebody else begins to talk about them....Thanks Widowman!
> 
> Edit: I was talking about the first article...I'll check the others tomorrow...In my country, right know is night so I go to sleep...
> 
> ...



I know I wasn't exposed because I spent the first 6 months of my life in the hospital- I was not released from the hospital for the first time until I was 6 months and 9 days old.


----------



## Bill S (Mar 5, 2009)

Nokturnal1980 said:


> I know I wasn't exposed because I spent the first 6 months of my life in the hospital- I was not released from the hospital for the first time until I was 6 months and 9 days old.


How does that guarantee that your were not exposed?  Presumably you were fed while in the hospital.  Do you have something that indicates that nothing they tried to feed you contained the allergens?  

I know that there's a popular misconception that hospitals are sterile environments - I'm sure you know otherwise since you've got a masters in health care.  But even if they kept you in a sterile environment for those six months, it's probable that you were exposed to some potential allergens.

EDIT:Went back and reread an earlier message:


			
				Nokturnal1980 said:
			
		

> I was allergic to almost every form of milk they tried to feed me as a newborn.


Well, there's a whole lot of exposure to milk-related allergens.  Beginning with your first sip.  Did you show allergic reaction to that first sip?  Or only to later ones?  Even if you did react to the first one - you may have been exposed to the first allergen while in the placenta.  (Yes, I agree that would mean you were born with an allergy, but it would still have required a first exposure before it became an allergy.)


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Mar 5, 2009)

It is possible that I was exposed to some potential allergens.  Although it is possible I could have been exposed to some allergens, due to my extensive list of allergens that were documented well before I was discharged it is an extremely low probability that I was exposed to all allergens.  I say extremely low probability because most physicians and clinicians would never use the term impossible. As for feeding me, they never attempted breast milk so that rules out some exposures.  

I agree that not all areas of hospitals are entirely sterile; however, there are varying degrees of sterility.  NICUs tend to be one of the most sterile environments in a hospital.


----------



## Bill S (Mar 5, 2009)

Nokturnal1980 said:


> As for feeding me, they never attempted breast milk so that rules out some exposures.


Without knowing what your allergies are I can't point to likely first exposures - but your allergies to "almost every form of milk they tried to feed me" would have come from "almost every form of milk they tried to feed you".  The very fact that you had allergic reactions to them is PROOF that they contained allergens.  The fact that they did not attempt to feed you breast milk may have reduced one avenue of exosure, but not necessarily ruled everything in that context out.  Some of the possible allergens that you might have encountered in breast milk you may also have encountered in the placenta.



> I agree that not all areas of hospitals are entirely sterile; however, there are varying degrees of sterility.  NICUs tend to be one of the most sterile environments in a hospital.


But again, sterility does not necessarily eliminate allergens.  Undoutedly all the forms of milk they tried on you were sterile - but contained allergens that you reacted to.


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Mar 5, 2009)

I agree with the fact that the forms of milk possibly contained allergens, in fact there is no way that they could be completely allergen free.  However, I have a very long list of allergies.  Many of which were documented through blood allergy testing methods before leaving the hospital.  One of my allergies is to HDMs which would be extremely difficult to come in contact with in the sterile environment of the NICU, this allergy was documented while I was still in the NICU through blood allergy testing.


----------



## gumby (Mar 5, 2009)

My biggest issue with the doctors you work with is that it sounds like you asked a question and they gave an answer without research. Sounds to me as though it is an educated guess as opposed to pure knowledge. If they have proof thats awesome but just because you are a doctor that does not eliminate the need of proof. In addition I think it is important to label what you consider an allergic reaction to be.


----------



## Nokturnal1980 (Mar 5, 2009)

The doctor, whose opinion I value more than the others, has a high interest in envenomations.  He has treated quite a few victims of snake bites.  He was personally curious about arachnid bites because he had never treated one.  As I said, he beleives he remembers a recent article in a medical journal.  He's looking for it.

I do agree with you that the others are working from conjecture.  I only got their answers because they happened to have been in the lounge at the same time as I was talking to the first doctor.  As soon as he gives me the articles, I'll pass them along. 

Honestly, I don't think we will get a definitive answer even if he finds the articles.  My concern is I'd hate to see people rule out the possibility of an allergic reactions.  I think it could make people a little to careless if they think there is no risk of an allergic reaction.  I always like to air on the side of caution rather that flipancy.


----------



## D-back (Mar 6, 2009)

Nokturnal1980 said:


> I agree with the fact that the forms of milk possibly contained allergens, in fact there is no way that they could be completely allergen free.  However, I have a very long list of allergies.  Many of which were documented through blood allergy testing methods before leaving the hospital.  One of my allergies is to HDMs which would be extremely difficult to come in contact with in the sterile environment of the NICU, this allergy was documented while I was still in the NICU through blood allergy testing.


Proteins in milk  (especially in cow milk) are potent allergens...It's quite common to develop an allergy to those proteins. If it happens, it's possible to have allergy on a protein, what is present in every form of milk...
Sterility has nothing to do with an allergen free environment...Yes, in sterile conditions there is a lot less allergens, but they are present everywhere. HDM is a common allergen and is present nearly everywhere in the environment. It can be present in the food. For example, the milk can easily contain HDM (because HDMs can be present in the organism of the mother or the cow) and sterilisation of the milk can't eliminate it from the milk....


----------



## D-back (Mar 6, 2009)

Nokturnal1980 said:


> Honestly, I don't think we will get a definitive answer even if he finds the articles. * My concern is I'd hate to see people rule out the possibility of an allergic reactions.  I think it could make people a little to careless if they think there is no risk of an allergic reaction.*  I always like to air on the side of caution rather that flipancy.


I completely agree with you!


----------



## D-back (Mar 6, 2009)

Hmm...When the OP started this thread, he asked about the possibility to have an allergy to T venom. Most of the posters agreed, that it's possible, but not likely. A severe reaction is even less likely, but we can't rule out the possibility...

Having said that, IMO the conversation about the possible ways of exposure to some allergens like HDMs is not relevant in this thread (and also pointless- we simply can't prove if someone was exposed to an allergen 20 years ago or wasn't...) I was one of those who started this so I'm sorry  I have a suggestion: if someone wants to discuss it further, lets start a thread in the Watering hole, which is off-topic...What do you think?

Nokturnal- I'm still interested in that article, so when the doc finds it, please post it or send me a PM...Thanks!


----------



## Bill S (Mar 6, 2009)

D-back said:


> Having said that, IMO the conversation about the possible ways of exposure to some allergens like HDMs is not relevant in this thread (and also pointless- we simply can't prove if someone was exposed to an allergen 20 years ago or wasn't...) I was one of those who started this so I'm sorry  I have a suggestion: if someone wants to discuss it further, lets start a thread in the Watering hole, which is off-topic...What do you think?


Even while I was posting my messages in this thread I thought we were getting a bit off topic.  But... it did serve to get the point across that an allergy to tarantula bites would not spontaneously appear, but would require multiple exposures.  That in itself is a noteworthy point.

And I do think a pretty good case was built that allergies to tarantula venom are possible, even if highly uncommon.

Beyond that - I'm not much interested in milk allergies.


----------



## rustym3talh3ad (Mar 11, 2009)

so i just read every response on every page and I still wouldn't say we've answered this question fully. We've merely said that all things are possible, and even though i love what you've discussed lets go ahead and branch off and ask this question..."What, makes T venom different than Spider venom or Scorpion Venom". I've personally never been bitten by a T but have been stung by both Pandinus imperator "Emperor Scorpion" (numerous times) and Hedrurus Arizonensis "Desert Hairy Scorpion". Now understanding that these two have low level toxins I know I'm not at much risk, but what changes this ones venom from say Leiurus quinquestriatus "Death Stalker Scorpion" where within MINUTES of the sting you could die AND further more is Anaphylactic shock a result of such sting from said scorp, or any scorp for that matter? What separates Arachnid venom per species? What bonds do we see in Scorp's; Bees/wasp/hornet; True spiders; that doesn't appear in Tarantulas?

Any sited work or documented literature would be greatly appreciated on this as I'm trying to take a more educational approach to this matter and stray away from opinions and anecdotal information. All posts are welcome but if facts can be provided much praise! :worship: 

p.s. - im not trying to hi-jack th thread but its been quite some time since the OP, so i figured i could branch a bit, if not please let me know.


----------



## joshuai (Mar 11, 2009)

rustym3talh3ad said:


> so i just read every response on every page and I still wouldn't say we've answered this question fully. We've merely said that all things are possible, and even though i love what you've discussed lets go ahead and branch off and ask this question..."What, makes T venom different than Spider venom or Scorpion Venom". I've personally never been bitten by a T but have been stung by both Pandinus imperator "Emperor Scorpion" (numerous times) and Hedrurus Arizonensis "Desert Hairy Scorpion". Now understanding that these two have low level toxins I know I'm not at much risk, but what changes this ones venom from say Leiurus quinquestriatus "Death Stalker Scorpion" where within MINUTES of the sting you could die AND further more is Anaphylactic shock a result of such sting from said scorp, or any scorp for that matter? What separates Arachnid venom per species? What bonds do we see in Scorp's; Bees/wasp/hornet; True spiders; that doesn't appear in Tarantulas?
> 
> Any sited work or documented literature would be greatly appreciated on this as I'm trying to take a more educational approach to this matter and stray away from opinions and anecdotal information. All posts are welcome but if facts can be provided much praise! :worship:
> 
> p.s. - im not trying to hi-jack th thread but its been quite some time since the OP, so i figured i could branch a bit, if not please let me know.


verry interesting point, I would be curious to hear responses to this view, thank you


----------



## rustym3talh3ad (Mar 11, 2009)

ditto...like i said, even if they ARENT backed up by documents i wouldnt mind knowing whats what...someone has to know enuff about the topic to post some sorta info on it...id assume anyway


----------



## skips (Mar 11, 2009)

So, I think i've talked to enough professors and zookeepers with master's degrees in biology to make a well educated conjecture.  I will try to find some journal documentation.

As most may know there are several ways toxins work and even between genus's the methods of toxicity change.  They could inhibit sodium channels which would stop all nerve impulses (probably the most common type of neurotoxin).  Another common mode would be to inhibit re-uptake of neurotransmitters or inhibiting their breakdown.  This would basically mean that you are constantly stimulating nerve impulses (another neurotoxin).  The opposite would be to inhibit release of neurotransmitters.  In botulism (the ever prevalent classic example) t-snares which are needed for the release of acetylcholine are broken down by the botulism toxin.  This inhibits stimulation of muscle contraction.  If no muscles contract, you get no wrinkles, thus botox is born.  A hemotoxin or proteolytic toxin would destroy tissues with more of an acidic effect, thus making the organism pre-digested upon eating.  The differences in activity of a venom between species is determined by the sequence of amino acids present which determines structure.  The protein's structure (think of it as a key) directly determines which types of molecules (li.e. the lock the key fits) it can bind to and effect (ex: sodium channels).  

each person has a slightly different set of genes and therefore different surface proteins, so the lock changes and some keys that fit one person may not fit another AS WELL.  They may still fit, but not have as much of an effect.

after all that, ANYTHING can induce an allergic reaction.  To say that a substance is too small to effect the body is laughable.  It really depends on what types of locks the key can fit.  Many locks have complicated structures and require a complicated key to fit, some not.  If a small molecule had no effect on the body, alcohol would be pointless.  I'm going to stop writing this long post, but if you want examples I'll keep writing.


----------



## skips (Mar 11, 2009)

Also worth noting, a bee's venom may have the same general effect as T-venom (ex: proteolytic nature).  But it is highly unlikely they're similar in structure, and therefore being allergic to bees does not mean she is allergic to T venom.

Oh, and of course you can develop allergies over time--it happens all the time.  You are not born with them always (in fact i'd venture to say its about 50/50) and it does not take repeated exposures to develop an allergy though you may develpe memory T-cells (or some related mechanism) that would act more strongly with repeated exposure.  Poison ivy is the most common example.  You may have the allergy (I dont), but you may lose it over time.  Also, you may be allergic to some species of poison ivy or bees but not others.  It's highly variable within literal relatives (like literally my sister or brother, not phylogenetic relative).  I'm not allergic to poison ivy, but uncle is.


----------



## skips (Mar 12, 2009)

What separates Arachnid venom per species? What bonds do we see in Scorp's; Bees/wasp/hornet; True spiders; that doesn't appear in Tarantulas?


sorry, I thought this was interesting and wanted to know if anybody agrees.  I'm not incredibly familiar with Tarantula prey items.  But it occurs to me that scorpions often take on much larger prey than themselves, which could be a selection pressure for stronger venom.  If something about what T's hunt wouldn't impart that selection pressure to have higher toxicity, it wouldn't make sense to put the energy into making more costly venom, assuming that it is costly to produce the more toxic venom.  In other words, if you don't need the higher cost venom, then it aint broke so don't fix it.


----------



## rustym3talh3ad (Mar 12, 2009)

skips said:


> What separates Arachnid venom per species? What bonds do we see in Scorp's; Bees/wasp/hornet; True spiders; that doesn't appear in Tarantulas?
> 
> 
> sorry, I thought this was interesting and wanted to know if anybody agrees.  I'm not incredibly familiar with Tarantula prey items.  But it occurs to me that scorpions often take on much larger prey than themselves, which could be a selection pressure for stronger venom.  If something about what T's hunt wouldn't impart that selection pressure to have higher toxicity, it wouldn't make sense to put the energy into making more costly venom, assuming that it is costly to produce the more toxic venom.  In other words, if you don't need the higher cost venom, then it aint broke so don't fix it.


ok i was with u up until this last post....im not following? explain.


----------



## skips (Mar 12, 2009)

rustym3talh3ad said:


> ok i was with u up until this last post....im not following? explain.


Well, the question was basically (as I took it) why are some species of scorpion rediculously toxic and others not so much, or what determines toxicity between scorpions, which according to this thread have low toxicity levels, and scorpions in which some have high toxicity.

In one theory, the high potency venom may have a higher energy (nutrient cost) to maintain.  Therefore, if it's absolutely necessary for the organism to have high toxicity/high cost venom then the organism will have that venom.  Say the scorpion preys on larger organisms, without that venom the scorpion would die.  But, if it can find smaller prey items why put the energy into the high cost venom.  

even if the venom isn't high cost.  If it was potent enough to work 100% of the time, the scorpion or T would run the risk of running it's food source dry.  Take humans for example.  How many species of fish have we forced extinct because our methods of catching them are just that good?


----------



## D-back (Mar 12, 2009)

I think, when talkning about the effects of a venom (any venom), it's important to separate 3 things: direct toxicity of the toxins contained in the venom (Na channel blocking and so on), possible allergic reaction (IgE antibodies) and similar symptoms not caused by a true allergy (without IgE). 

The allergic reaction has nothing to do with the strenght of the toxins. Even a non-toxic substance can kill you if causes anaphylactic schock (this shock isn't related to the specific neurotoxic etc effects of the toxines-- anaph. shock is an abnormal reaction of the body to a substance)...

I've tried to translate the deffinition of allergic reaction from a Slovak clinical immunology textbook: "Allergic reaction is an ABNORMAL, hypersensitive response of the immune system against the substance what causes the allergy. The symptoms are generated by a massive release of vasoactive substances what in the case of an allergic reaction is triggered by IgE antibodies. One exposure causes specific IgE production, the symptoms occure after the next exposure. The hypersenisitivity doesn't have to develop right after the first exposure.To develop an allergy, the patient has to be atopic (born predisposition to develop hypersensitivity against allergens)."....the anaphylactic shock is the most severe form of the allergic reaction... EDIT: of course, some substances have greater potential to cause allergy in atopic people than others...

If a substance contained in the venom can cause the release of those vasoactive substances without IgE antibodeis, that's not an allergy. That reaction is only allergy-like.....a major difference between the two is, that in this case, you don't have to be atopic, so this reaction can occure in the case of every human...


----------



## skips (Mar 12, 2009)

D-back said:


> I think, when talkning about the effects of a venom (any venom), it's important to separate 3 things: direct toxicity of the toxins contained in the venom (Na channel blocking and so on), possible allergic reaction (IgE antibodies) and similar symptoms not caused by a true allergy (without IgE).
> 
> The allergic reaction has nothing to do with the strenght of the toxins. Even a non-toxic substance can kill you if causes anaphylactic schock (this shock isn't related to the specific neurotoxic etc effects of the toxines-- anaph. shock is an abnormal reaction of the body to a substance)...
> 
> ...


I agree, all good distinctions to make.  And I would say if we're talking technically about the mechanism of the allergy we would have to be specific about all that.  I just think differentiating between anaphilaxis and allergy is maybe too in depth for the discussion.  People want to know, "If I get stung, will there be an adverse reaction?" not what the specific definition of an allergy is.  And I would still say the guiding principle for why T venom may not cause a reaction and Scorps might is structure of the toxin protein, i.e. can/will it be recognized by the host as a threat, or will it bind a specific molecule to have an adverse effect?  but I should restate, that's just my educated guess.  You'd have to ask a histopathologist.


----------



## D-back (Mar 12, 2009)

skips said:


> I agree, all good distinctions to make.  And I would say if we're talking technically about the mechanism of the allergy we would have to be specific about all that.  I just think differentiating between anaphilaxis and allergy is maybe too in depth for the discussion.  People want to know, "If I get stung, will there be an adverse reaction?" not what the specific definition of an allergy is.  And I would still say the guiding principle for why T venom may not cause a reaction and Scorps might is structure of the toxin protein, i.e. can/will it be recognized by the host as a threat, or will it bind a specific molecule to have an adverse effect?  but I should restate, that's just my educated guess.  You'd have to ask a histopathologist.


Hi! I posted the definition only because IMO it's important to define what the allergy and the direct toxic effect is.....I think this, because the direct toxic effect of a T's bite isn't really dangerous to healthy humans (maybe it can kill a small child--for example a newborn or a seriously ill adult) ..............on the other hand, anaphylactic shock can easily kill a healthy adult ( but the chance to have anaph. shock after a T bite is VERY small )......one can kill you, the other can't..this is why I think, we should know what's the difference between them...they also require different treatment

I don't know anything about scorp venom, but I think (please, correct me if I'm wrong) that in the case of the "hot" scorps, the people are killed by the direct toxic effect of the toxins in the venom, what has nothing to do with allergy. If that's true, the "dangerous" scorps are more dangerous only because they  have stronger toxins in their venom.


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 12, 2009)

yes, in the case of "hot" scorps, any animal really, the person/victim is killed by the effects of the venom, NOT an allergic reaction. but, an allergic reaction can kill even the healthiest, strongest person on earth.


----------



## DrJ (Mar 12, 2009)

Widowman10 said:


> yes, in the case of "hot" scorps, any animal really, the person/victim is killed by the effects of the venom, NOT an allergic reaction. but, an allergic reaction can kill even the healthiest, strongest person on earth.


It may need to be pointed out that no healthy adult has ever died due to a sting from a "hot" specie of scorpion.  Not even Leiurus quinquestriatus has been known to kill a healthy adult...maybe small children, and fragile elderly, or those who have severely weakened immune systems, but never a healthy individual who is fully developed.


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 12, 2009)

DrJ said:


> It may need to be pointed out that no healthy adult has ever died due to a sting from a "hot" specie of scorpion.


ever? i highly doubt that and would need to see some hard evidence. even in mexico? even in africa? really...


----------



## DrJ (Mar 12, 2009)

Widowman10 said:


> ever? i highly doubt that and would need to see some hard evidence. even in mexico? even in africa? really...


I think the lack of evidence otherwise is convincing enough.

Nope, no dead healthy dudes in Mexico or Africa.  As I stated earlier, no Leiurus or Androctonus specie has ever killed a healthy adult.  Both being much worse than any specie found in the Americas.

Note, I did not say "adult"; I said, "healthy adult."  Africa, being well known for poverty, malnurishment, and AIDES, is not exactly a place roaming with healthy adults...so if an adult did die, they were probably found to be extremely malnurished and infected with AIDES.  But, I haven't found too many records of too many adults dying due to scorpion stings to begin with.  So, it is safe to say that no healthy adult has ever died due to a scorpion sting.


----------



## the nature boy (Mar 12, 2009)

DrJ said:


> It may need to be pointed out that no healthy adult has ever died due to a sting from a "hot" specie of scorpion.


Nope.  
http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/s1-29/2/249


----------



## DrJ (Mar 12, 2009)

the nature boy said:


> Nope.
> http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/s1-29/2/249


That link made my computer freeze.  I just restarted it and don't feel like clicking the link.  If you read it, tell me what it says...please?  I would be interested to know whether those that died were truly healthy adults or not...or even if it was specified.


----------



## DrJ (Mar 12, 2009)

Nevermind, I was able to link to it in a seperate window this time.  

This is the important info:



> 1. The clinical manifestations in 22 cases of poisoning by scorpions are summarized. Some of these occurred in the southern part of Israel (Jerusalem and vicinity) and the others in the northern part (Tiberias and vicinity). These cases were observed by the author in the course of 12 years (1935–47).
> 
> 2. A study of the symptoms indicates that the majority of them originate in the vegetative nervous system.
> 
> ...


Note, only 6 deaths were recorded out of the 22...and those 6 deaths were children, not healthy adults.


----------



## skips (Mar 12, 2009)

D-back said:


> Hi! I posted the definition only because IMO it's important to define what the allergy and the direct toxic effect is.....I think this, because the direct toxic effect of a T's bite isn't really dangerous to healthy humans (maybe it can kill a small child--for example a newborn or a seriously ill adult) ..............on the other hand, anaphylactic shock can easily kill a healthy adult ( but the chance to have anaph. shock after a T bite is VERY small )......one can kill you, the other can't..this is why I think, we should know what's the difference between them...they also require different treatment
> 
> I don't know anything about scorp venom, but I think (please, correct me if I'm wrong) that in the case of the "hot" scorps, the people are killed by the direct toxic effect of the toxins in the venom, what has nothing to do with allergy. If that's true, the "dangerous" scorps are more dangerous only because they  have stronger toxins in their venom.


Ok, I concede that the distinction makes sense.  

I'm still very surprised at the claim that no scorpion has ever killed a healthy adult, but if you can back it up you can back it up.  I guess I have to believe it.


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 13, 2009)

the nature boy said:


> Nope.
> http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/s1-29/2/249


ok, first, thank you for posting a link. buuut, the link does nothing to support anything. all it talks about is 22 random stings in israel. ok? it says that 6 people died, all young. nothing about what we are talking about here (assuming that i understand everything correctly). 



skips said:


> I'm still very surprised at the claim that no scorpion has ever killed a healthy adult


they have. very very rarely, but they have. it's probably one in a million or more, but that is still a possibility. enough of a possibility to negate a statement like "a scorp has _never_ killed a healthy adult." let's be careful with absolute statements, as they are usually always wrong. 



DrJ said:


> Note, only 6 deaths were recorded out of the 22...and those 6 deaths were children, not healthy adults.


again, as stated before, this is a very very small sample taken only in israel. this does not prove anything. a healthy adult can die (albeit, a very remote and rare possibility) from a scorp sting. 





all that being said, all that was off-topic and should probably taken to the scorpion forum, where this topic has been debated in-depth many times. sorry for the off-topic-ness. back to allergies to T venom (which is very possible ). 

anyone know if T venom is similar in structure to scorp venom? i ran across a report (while searching info for this off-topic post actually) of a couple people dying from anaphylaxis occuring from a scorpion sting.


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 13, 2009)

i think it is much harder to support an absolute claim than to be on the safe (and accurate) side of a claim. to say something absolute like: "a healthy adult has _NEVER_ died from scorp sting" is not good. it's one in a million (and we're not talking about death from allergy or anaphylaxis), but it's still a possibility and does not warrant an absolute claim.




anyway, end of rant/discussion. (except if it pops up in the scorp forum )


----------



## SylverTear (Mar 13, 2009)

ph0bia said:


> Not true at all. Some people are born with allergies. People with nut allergies are born with them, not developped, some people have the same with Ts.



Actually, on a side note, allergies CAN be developed.  According to my allergist, the immune system changes several times throughout your lifetime.

In my case, I had no allergy issues until I turned about 18 or 19 at which point I suddenly began to get very sick all the time.  I was tested for allergies previously and was allergic to some types of nuts.  After being tested again, I was SEVERELY allergic to the state of Florida :wall: 

Yet...I still live here lol.:? 

Also, if you get bit by fire ants enough times over a long period of time, you can develop an allergy to them.  If that is the case, you can get bit by one fire ant and go into anaphalactic shock, where before you could get bit by a dozen with only a minor irritation.


----------



## Bill S (Mar 13, 2009)

DrJ said:


> It may need to be pointed out that no healthy adult has ever died due to a sting from a "hot" specie of scorpion.


As someone else pointed out, absolute statements like "never" are a bit out there.  And as usual, proof of a negative is completely lacking.  *DrJ* is making an extreme claim and under the premise that it's someone else's job to do the homework on this, otherwise he's correct.  I don't buy that.  *DrJ*, it's your job to present the evidence to support your claim.  There's plenty of evidence out there that people have died from scorpion stings, and you haven't shown evidence that your narrow range of conditions is exempt.  (You're already dancing around the term "healthy" - and I suppose it could be argued that a person who dies isn't healthy.)

On a slightly different drift from the original topic - there was an article in our local newspaper a few days ago about the seasonal rise in scorpion stings and spider bites.  Yes, it did discuss the death of a child from a _Centruroides_ sting.  And it also mentioned that there had been four deaths from spider bite reported by the Arizona Health Services between 1995 and 2005.

To bring this back to topic, I should mention that all deaths reported here for either spider bite or scorpion sting were apparently due to toxic action by the venom, not to allergic reaction.


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 13, 2009)

SylverTear said:


> Actually, on a side note, allergies CAN be developed.  According to my allergist, the immune system changes several times throughout your lifetime.
> 
> In my case, I had no allergy issues until I turned about 18 or 19 at which point I suddenly began to get very sick all the time.  I was tested for allergies previously and was allergic to some types of nuts.  After being tested again, I was SEVERELY allergic to the state of Florida :wall:
> 
> ...


yes, allergies do develop over time, no doubt about that. and multiple stings by a fire ant _can_ cause an allergy. not always, but again, if anything is introduced into you twice, the possibility exists for a massive allergic reaction to it the second time, with anaphylactic shock occuring rare, but sometimes. it could even happen from the 100th to the 101st sting too, number of times does not have much to do with it from what i understand, it could potentially occur anytime.



Bill S said:


> To bring this back to topic, I should mention that all deaths reported here for either spider bite or scorpion sting were apparently due to toxic action by the venom, not to allergic reaction.


i'm not aware of the spider bite cases, but in the scorpion case (child), the venom would have caused the death, and not an allergic reaction. 

interestingly, if they are filing deaths correctly, a person that dies from an allergic reaction would not be filed under scorpions or bees or whatever, but under anaphylaxis.


----------



## D-back (Mar 13, 2009)

Widowman10 said:


> interestingly, if they are filing deaths correctly, a person that dies from an allergic reaction would not be filed under scorpions or bees or whatever, but under anaphylaxis.


I don't know the US system, but in my country, there is a primary, secundary and tertiary cause of death...in this case, I think the scorpion sting would be the tertiary cause of death...How do you do these statistics in the States?.........ajajaj.. we're going a bit off topic...


----------



## Bill S (Mar 13, 2009)

Widowman10 said:


> i'm not aware of the spider bite cases, but in the scorpion case (child), the venom would have caused the death, and not an allergic reaction.


Perhaps you didn't read the last sentence in my posting?



			
				Bill S said:
			
		

> To bring this back to topic, I should mention that all deaths reported here for either spider bite or scorpion sting were apparently due to toxic action by the venom, not to allergic reaction.


And to clarify what you said (if I'm interpreting it correctly), toxic action of the venom caused the death, and not an allergic reaction.  That's slightly different than saying simply that the venom caused the death.  If a person is allergic to the venom, and has an anaphylactic reaction to the venom, then venom would be the cause of death - but as an allergen rather than a toxin.


----------



## D-back (Mar 13, 2009)

Bill S said:


> If a person is allergic to the venom, and has an anaphylactic reaction to the venom, then venom would be the cause of death - but as an allergen rather than a toxin.


Logically yes...but official statistics aren't always logical. If a doctor has to fill papers after the patient's death, he has to follow a certan protocol. In that case, in my country, I think the primary cause of death is the collapse of the circulation, the secondary is anaphylactic shock, the tertiary is envenomation....


----------



## DrJ (Mar 13, 2009)

Bill S said:


> As someone else pointed out, absolute statements like "never" are a bit out there.  And as usual, proof of a negative is completely lacking.  *DrJ* is making an extreme claim and under the premise that it's someone else's job to do the homework on this, otherwise he's correct.  I don't buy that.  *DrJ*, it's your job to present the evidence to support your claim.


Just for your info, I have researched this out and have never once ran across anything that mentioned a healthy adult dying due to a scorpion sting...if I were to provide evidence of that, it would be hundreds of articles that only mention immunosuppressed, young, or elderly patients that died as a result.  So, you demanding "proof" requires your doing the homework as well.  How can one prove something that does not exist?  If no healthy adult has died from a scorpion, that is not news.  Only if a person dies, is it news.  

The only spider I am aware of that brings any "risk of death" to healthy adults is the Atrax robustus (or Sydney Funnel Web Spider).  Though there have not been any reports to look at exactly(still haven't found evidence to support that this creature has ever killed a healthy adult), this is considered the most dangerous.  Most other "dangerous" spiders don't pose much threat to healthy adults.  

I would say that the only reason this spider poses more threat than do other spiders or scorpions is in the amount of venom it is able to produce and inject.  A large envenomation is more dangerous than a small one.


----------



## wedge07 (Mar 13, 2009)

The Brazilian Wandering spider is the world's most venomous spider and has caused many deaths, but the Sydney Funnel web is the most dangerous due to its aggressive nature.


----------



## Bill S (Mar 13, 2009)

There are also deaths on record for different species of _Loxosceles_ spiders.  In Arizona the only two really significantly dangerous ones are _Loxosceles_ (either _arizonica_ or a couple other species) and black widows.  The Article that cited 4 deaths in Arizona between 1995 and 2005 did not specify which species caused those deaths.


----------



## Bill S (Mar 13, 2009)

DrJ said:


> ... So, you demanding "proof" requires your doing the homework as well.


No, I am not in any way obligated to do any homework to support or refute your claims.  The person making the claim should support their claim.



> How can one prove something that does not exist?


My point precisely.  You are making claims that cannot be supported.  Hence, they do not carry a lot of weight.  

It would be far more meaningful if you were able to cite actual statistics and sources.  For example, if you could cite a study that investigated actual death reports in countries where records were kept of scorpion envenomations, and quote statistics that indicated that all adults who were treated for scorpion stings recovered - you'd have something.  There are agencies that record such things in different countries, and organizations such as the World Health Organization that may maintain international records of scorpion stings.  (I know they used to have records of snakebite deaths in many countries.)  If you want to make credible claims about who dies or doesn't die from scorpion stings - do some research and provide data.  No data - no credibility.  And simply making an absolute statement and waiting for someone to challenge it won't convince anyone.


----------



## DrJ (Mar 14, 2009)

wedge07 said:


> The Brazilian Wandering spider is the world's most venomous spider and has caused many deaths, but the Sydney Funnel web is the most dangerous due to its aggressive nature.


More venomous, but not nearly as dangerous.  The funnel web has a much greater capacity to kill.  



Bill S said:


> There are also deaths on record for different species of _Loxosceles_ spiders.  In Arizona the only two really significantly dangerous ones are _Loxosceles_ (either _arizonica_ or a couple other species) and black widows.  The Article that cited 4 deaths in Arizona between 1995 and 2005 did not specify which species caused those deaths.


Hmmmm…I doubt very highly that any of those deaths involved adults.  No north American spider poses much threat to healthy adults.



Bill S said:


> No, I am not in any way obligated to do any homework to support or refute your claims.  The person making the claim should support their claim.


The actual claim was that a healthy adult has died due to a scorpion sting…there is no evidence to support it.  That being so, we can “claim” that no healthy adult has ever died due to the sting of a scorpion.


----------



## the nature boy (Mar 14, 2009)

Widowman10 said:


> ok, first, thank you for posting a link. buuut, the link does nothing to support anything. all it talks about is 22 random stings in israel. ok? it says that 6 people died, all young. nothing about what we are talking about here (assuming that i understand everything correctly).


My bad.  Not paying attention, thought the question was about human deaths due to scorps.


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 15, 2009)

the nature boy said:


> My bad.  Not paying attention, thought the question was about human deaths due to scorps.


that's fine dude, no worries  

thanks for posting a link though, that's always good.


----------



## wedge07 (Mar 15, 2009)

DrJ said:


> More venomous, but not nearly as dangerous.  The funnel web has a much greater capacity to kill.


This is true.  The funnel web will actually bite more than once.


----------



## DrJ (Mar 16, 2009)

wedge07 said:


> This is true.  The funnel web will actually bite more than once.


And, if you watched Crocodile Dundee, we learned that a "funnel web spider can kill a man in 8 seconds, just by lookin' at him."  lol.  

*To our dismay, research has found this to be untrue, but highly amusing.


----------



## WelshTan (Mar 17, 2009)

how can i put this. . .i think its quite hard to bring up actual statistics of "deaths contributed to T's or scorps" for a few reasons. . .1) all deaths wud have had to be documented and isted in books or on the internet.... 2) in "deprived" countries they simply do not always have the medical facilities, medical equiptment or knowlege to determine or document deaths . . .3) there are god knows how many people who have gone missing and died for their bodies to never be found or only found after serious decomposition has occurred. ..  for example areas of africa where they dont have homes, toilets, food and wander for days n weeks in search of a little water. . .sadly some go missing, never return to their families, there is no knowing if they have died or for that reason what they have died from, whether it be malnutrition, exaustion, AIDS or for say a scorp sting. . .. there is simply no way that someone cud say "cos they havnt found any documented deaths they cant happen". . .people have to have put the information available to the public to find. . .if the info isnt there it mite simply mean that sumone hasnt made it available. . .dont bite my head off if u think i'm wrong but thats my opinion anyway


----------



## WelshTan (Mar 17, 2009)

may i also add a point. . ..  off the subject but a relevant comparison .  . .i was adopted as my biological father committed murder wen i was a baby, he died before i cud "get the truth out of him" after i tracked him down. . he definitely went down for murder n spent 15yrs in jail, i have searched on the internet and in libraries for any documentaion n the news articles relating to the crime. . .i have found nothing n the crime happened 30 yrs ago. . .just because i cant find the media on it doesnt mean it didnt happen cos it did. . .thats y i think it wud be not right to say that no one has ever died from a scorp sting or T bite to be honest


----------



## DrJ (Mar 19, 2009)

To get the best information, the law enforcement department where your dad was convicted and imprisoned should have a rather substantial amount of documentation on the case.  There should also be a little snippet somewhere in a local newspaper (though, you'd have to dig through thousands in the library).  The thing is, these things are never covered in detail by the news, so finding anything on it would be tough.  I would suggest asking the law enforcement facility if you could see any records regarding the case, and explain that you are his daughter...you never know.  What's the worst that could happen?  Either they'd let you see some of it, or none of it.


----------

