# brown recluse deaths



## klawfran3 (Jun 7, 2014)

people are arguing with me how they have friends that have died from a brown recluse bite. I know that no one has ever died from one, but does anyone have the source of that information or a link to it. i am in need. thanks.


----------



## kp513 (Jun 7, 2014)

The indications here (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200505123521922) are that children may have been killed; at the very least, the authors do not refute Wasserman's assertions in the second paragraph of their reply. However, it is clearly statistically unlikely that those you know had a friend die based on the low incidence of such a severe reaction.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## klawfran3 (Jun 7, 2014)

thank you very much!


----------



## The Snark (Jun 7, 2014)

Let's clarify something. The effects of the venom of the Brown Recluse has never directly caused a death. Loxoscelism necrosis can lead to death without proper treatment.

So to give an analogy. You stand out in an open field during a lightning storm holding a 20 foot metal rod over your head. When the lightning does strike, are you going to blame the 20 foot metal rod? The rod did not cause the electrocution. All it did was facilitate the electrons as an open necrotic wound facilitates, exacerbates, bacteria and devascularization. The venom of the Loxosceles does not possess any toxins that directly or indirectly cause oxygen loss to the brain (clinical death) or non reversable brain damage (biological death).

Compare to real life threatening venoms. Latrodectus: can cause acute cardiac dysfunction resulting in loss of blood flow to the brain. Most neurotoxins operate in this manner. Rattlesnake bite. A combination of neurotoxins and hematotoxins that essentially turn the blood into a poison. Respiratory arrest occurs, the blood isn't oxygenated, and brain death results. 

Or to give a very specific analogy. AIDS has never caused a single death. It compromises a bodily function, the immune system, but by itself can not cause clinical or biological death. The commonest cause of death with a person that has AIDS is Tuberculosis. TB is a very common bacteria most people have. The immune system keeps it in check. When it goes out of control it destroys the lungs. The blood isn't oxygenated and brain death results.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Beary Strange (Jun 7, 2014)

At the point in a "factual" conversation it is qualified with "a friend/of" (whose name they just happen to not remember and it always happened "a long time ago"), that is the point at which I roll my eyes. Especially if the topic is spiders. Even more especially if it's a normie trying to school ME on spider facts.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## klawfran3 (Jun 7, 2014)

Belle Fury said:


> At the point in a "factual" conversation it is qualified with "a friend/of" (whose name they just happen to not remember and it always happened "a long time ago"), that is the point at which I roll my eyes. Especially if the topic is spiders. Even more especially if it's a normie trying to school ME on spider facts.


The person I was arguing against said almost those exact words. Made me wanna scream.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 7, 2014)

klawfran3 said:


> The person I was arguing against said almost those exact words. Made me wanna scream.


Why not? Let loose with a primal scream right in their face, throw your arms in the air then stagger off as if looking for something to snack your head against. Worth a try?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MrCrackerpants (Jun 7, 2014)

The Snark said:


> Why not? Let loose with a primal scream right in their face, throw your arms in the air then stagger off as if looking for something to snack your head against. Worth a try?


lol :biggrin:


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 7, 2014)

Death certificates and COD's are of public record and can easily be accessed.  Next time someone tells you that they had a friend who died of a Brown Recluse bite, just ask them for the friend's name and the medical facility in which they expired or in which the autopsy was performed.  Better yet, whip out your smart phone or tablet with internet capability and tell them you're going to look up and confirm it.  

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## The Snark (Jun 7, 2014)

pitbulllady said:


> Death certificates and COD's are of public record and can easily be accessed.  Next time someone tells you that they had a friend who died of a Brown Recluse bite, just ask them for the friend's name and the medical facility in which they expired or in which the autopsy was performed.  Better yet, whip out your smart phone or tablet with internet capability and tell them you're going to look up and confirm it.
> 
> pitbulllady


Primal screams are more fun and therapeutic. Maybe do both? Actually that is a very good idea. Zap every fanciful tale. You could even add you are helping build a database and would like to document these incidents. (As Ernest Gann once succinctly put it, 'As if some great but yet unspoken Genie had once again unbuttoned his pants and urinated upon the pillars of science')


----------



## klawfran3 (Jun 8, 2014)

here's a little snippet from the conversation. this sentence makes me angry because of how wrong it is: "Anecdotal evidence do have a purpose, and they demonstrate the danger of BRS bites. You should do some googling about them."

just.... UGH.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 8, 2014)

klawfran3 said:


> here's a little snippet from the conversation. this sentence makes me angry because of how wrong it is: "Anecdotal evidence do have a purpose, and they demonstrate the danger of BRS bites. You should do some googling about them."
> 
> just.... UGH.


The person who said that should do some Googling in regards to admissible evidence in a court of law. Good reading: http://skepdic.com/testimon.html

I'm taking that personally as when when I related how I got the royal shaft from a big name oil business their attorneys negated everything I had to state about the workplace conditions as being anecdotal. The judge concurred and told me I had to substantiate every detail with admissible documentation.


----------



## Python (Jun 8, 2014)

One problem with trying to prove anything at all with regards to the internet is the astounding number of nitwits out there. Even on something as official as a death certificate. Especially considering the number of doctors who attribute   'bites' to recluses without ever having seen the spider. Newspapers love to propagate horror stories and bloggers all have a story to tell as well. Any and all of these sources constitutes unerring proof to the average Joe on the street. Arguing with that kind of ignorance makes my head hurt. I don't even engage in those sorts of conversations any more

Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk


----------



## klawfran3 (Jun 8, 2014)

Python said:


> One problem with trying to prove anything at all with regards to the internet is the astounding number of nitwits out there. Even on something as official as a death certificate. Especially considering the number of doctors who attribute   'bites' to recluses without ever having seen the spider. Newspapers love to propagate horror stories and bloggers all have a story to tell as well. Any and all of these sources constitutes unerring proof to the average Joe on the street. Arguing with that kind of ignorance makes my head hurt. I don't even engage in those sorts of conversations any more
> 
> Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk


it gets worse too though. the person said that ABC news was a credible source, and that I am wrong for providing peer reviewed articles. ABC news published two contradictory articles on recluses too. one said that three people died (or something like that) from their bites, while another said that nobody has died from the bites. which one is it, oh propaganda channel?


----------



## The Snark (Jun 8, 2014)

By the way, while we are kicking the goat all over the landscape. A medical doctors diagnosis of ANYTHING is not proof positive. All MDs (with perhaps an exception or 2 like Michael Jackson's esteemed fizzishun) write reports of findings. Every procedure they do gets a report. In those reports they use two terminologies: Impression, and results. Impression or similar terms are what the doc basis further diagnostic procedures on. Results are what is returned by specific diagnostics. 

IE, a doctor who states death by spider bite is a fool or has a clinical diagnosis from lab, x-ray, QME or the like. In the event of death no self respecting doc will ever put himself on the line unless the evidence is overwhelming. (Blown aneurism etc) Without the clinical findings or overwhelming evidence, it requires the Qualified Medical Examiner's post mortem findings to verify the PROBABLE cause of death. In the event of a suspected spider bite, you can bet your last penny the word probable will be in that report.

So if ABC of CNN or whoever blows some hot air, that is all it is without a QME's findings and always keep in mind, a QME can always be challenged by peers or a court. 

So to make a long story short, no black and white. No positive absolute diagnosis when it comes to a bite, except in the very rarest of circumstances.

As for the geniuses who spout the crap to your face, just ask them if they were able to pass the Turing test without help.


----------



## GSA8 (Jun 8, 2014)

My favorite California quote is: "my friend in XYZ California City was bitten by a Brown Recluse..."  It is at this point I refer to: http://spiders.ucr.edu/myth.html 

The conversation typically then devolves to "Oh but I've seen one in my house."  Or "I saw the scars from my friend's mom's wound."

I only mention the UCR study because the OP is a Californian...


----------



## The Snark (Jun 8, 2014)

Upon reflection. This spider bite sensationalism, among others, is sick. Just propagating the stories borderlines on a psychosis if you look at it objectively. A legitimate mental derangement that clearly shows how skewed peoples thinking is.

Take me. As a paramed I've taken a little over 1,000 people to hospitals in my time. I'm about average in the calls I've responded to. The animal caused traumas were probably around 40. Horses followed by dogs making up most of those. No spider bites. 3 snake bites.

But go by sensationalism, why isn't the lions share, around 750 of my transports, cardiovascular disease, the major topic of discussion? Why aren't people horror struck at the thought of eating at fast food restaurants? Thousands of deaths each day. Billions of dollars spent on it every year, and a Brown Recluse gets the front page?


Just go by statistics. None of the people who read this post will have any significant spider bite. 2/3rds of you will die of 'heart attacks'. Clean the spiders out of your environment? Worry about the spiders in your arteries first, if you're a rational sentient being.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## klawfran3 (Jun 8, 2014)

Well Snark, I assume that the reason that spiders are the more popular choice for propaganda about them it because we have no physical or mental way of relating to them. They are so vastly alien to us with their exoskeletons, sensory bristles, organ placement, eye structure, emotionless face and the like, that the average joe-shmoe can not even DREAM of sympathizing with one. I know that everyone on this forum, even me, loves, cares for, and is amazed by spiders and arthropods because of this, but the average public sees it completely opposite. They have no way of knowing anything about them other than from their looks, and lets face it: they can be very intimidating and creepy if you don't understand them. The average public is also not interested in learning about them, as they're only interested in TV and celebrities and other mind numbing garbage. The only exposure they get to spiders and insects are the news reports published by ABC and FOX about how some lady in who-knows-where-the-hell claims she was bitten by the worlds deadliest spider while she was gardening, only to be followed up by photos of people with their skin gouged out by the "spider." As this is their only exposure to  spiders and "information" on them, 100% of their exposure was bad information, so how could they know any better. We know that all of it is untrue, and our exposure is basically all good, so we can figure out how wrong the news reports are by referencing to our knowledge. The average person can not do that. And such, they believe every single bad thing thrown their way and ignore the good information because it fits with their mental image on how spiders are the scourge of man kind. That's why they are so hard to argue with, because nobody wants to be told they're wrong. What makes things worse is that now with the internet, everyone has a voice. Now every person who wants to say something on the subject can say it. What this means to us is that there are more spider haters than spider lovers, and according to society: if everyone knows or likes it it must be good/true. So now we have the entirety of the internet using public pulling up false articles and BS information from their most trusted sources (ABC and FOX), and since everyone agrees that that is true, that means it HAS to be true, not the peer reviewed, highly researched articles that we can pull up.

we're fighting a losing battle because the average person is too lazy to do research.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LythSalicaria (Jun 8, 2014)

Even the Wikipedia article on the species states that it's relatively rare for the bite to be medically significant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_recluse_spider#Bite

This article might be relevant to your argument. It covers sensationalism over spider bites and misdiagnoses as well as argues about the distribution of the species. http://www.cfp.ca/content/50/8/1098.full.pdf

...also, slightly off topic, but I posted what I thought was an accurate bite report on this species, only to find out that they haven't made it to Canada. Mea cupla, I'm always learning. Now I'm off to edit said bite report before anyone else reads it. ::

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RzezniksRunAway (Jun 8, 2014)

This chart is also helpful:




LOL. =)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## The Snark (Jun 8, 2014)

klawfran3 said:


> Well Snark, I assume that the reason that spiders are the more popular choice for propaganda about them it because we have no physical or mental way of relating to them. They are so vastly alien to us with their exoskeletons, sensory bristles, organ placement, eye structure, emotionless face and the like, that the average joe-shmoe can not even DREAM of sympathizing with one.
> we're fighting a losing battle because the average person is too lazy to do research.


Could you dig a little deeper there? The average human can't relate to it's own body. It's as alien to them as spiders. Name the 3 largest organs of the body? What is the system of the largest? Name the 6 largest bones. The smallest? What is the rule of nines and when it is used? And on and on. Even the most fixated on parts of the body are regarded as a layman viewing a spider. What is the correct name for a boob-breast and where did the word originate? Name the visible parts of the female genitalia and why isn't the word vagina among them?

The fact is people have blinders on and they are selectively clueless. They deliberately misinform themselves. Why? But at the same time they stridently demand the right to express completely uninformed fantasies and expect them to be taken as facts. There is a term for that in psychology, hysterical delusion.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RzezniksRunAway (Jun 9, 2014)

The Snark said:


> Name the visible parts of the female genitalia and why isn't the word vagina among them?


People using the word vagina when referring to celebrities inability to keep clothing on makes me angry. It's basic human anatomy. 

There's a huge disconnect with humans and their bodies. You'll readily go to the doctor for allergy medication to treat the sinus issues caused by chemical scents, eye drops to treat the dry eye that the allergy medications cause, sleeping pills to help you sleep, heartburn medication because your diet is crap, laxatives/antidiarrheals for the fun side effects of heartburn meds... and the list goes on and on. 

Because I'm still a 12 year old boy at heart, the rule of 9's chart cracks me up. Male figure, circle around the groin, 1%. Makes me think they're telling the model it's in the 1st percentile.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 9, 2014)

RzezniksRunAway said:


> Because I'm still a 12 year old boy at heart, the rule of 9's chart cracks me up. Male figure, circle around the groin, 1%. Makes me think they're telling the model it's in the 1st percentile.


Yet those morons become geniuses when it comes to something like the Brown Recluse.
That chart was on the wall on the women's side of the dorm at the ambulance company, with an arrow and the caption 'kick here'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RzezniksRunAway (Jun 9, 2014)

Hahaha. Reminds me of the one fire company that had an out-dated infant CPR dummy labeled with the cuts of meat. The emergency fields either give you a sense of humor, or they slowly kill you.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 9, 2014)

RzezniksRunAway said:


> Hahaha. Reminds me of the one fire company that had an out-dated infant CPR dummy labeled with the cuts of meat. The emergency fields either give you a sense of humor, or they slowly kill you.


Or both. The public doesn't want to know 1/10th of what goes on in emergency services. The average work week makes Brown Recluse bites a trivial joke. Code brown anyone? HUA over a cliff again. Child vs vehicle. Discussing what's the worst barf composition when the big spit comes while doing CPR. Some say beer and crab. Personally I think lasagna and wine. Not as much distance but the color and composition is superb and the wine compliments the aroma wonderfully.
I got my start driving retired hearses converted to ambulances, the company providing both services.
Think job X is dangerous? NFPA: 1 out of every 4 fire fighters will be seriously injured or killed in the line of duty.


----------



## LythSalicaria (Jun 9, 2014)

The Snark said:


> Yet those morons become geniuses when it comes to something like the Brown Recluse.


And now, thanks to the internet, any one of those morons with an internet connection can post articles/blog entries/forum threads, propagating misinformation and making it all the harder for those of us looking for truth and hard facts to find what we're after. :wall:

I clearly remember a Librarian at my second high school (located in Southern Ontario) claiming that she had been bitten by a brown recluse. A high school librarian...an educator. :unhappy:

I guess it just goes to show - ignorant people can be found in all walks of life.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 9, 2014)

LythSalicaria said:


> And now, thanks to the internet, any one of those morons with an internet connection can post articles/blog entries/forum threads, propagating misinformation and making it all the harder for those of us looking for truth and hard facts to find what we're after. :wall:
> 
> I clearly remember a Librarian at my second high school (located in Southern Ontario) claiming that she had been bitten by a brown recluse. A high school librarian...an educator. :unhappy:
> 
> I guess it just goes to show - ignorant people can be found in all walks of life.


This is where the Wiki comes into it's own. Google it, get the wiki page, confirm that's what you wanted, then zap on down to the references and citations. An operation that could take an hour or more in a library in less than a minute.

I still don't understand the wiki bashing. You get an assignment in class. You go to the library and research it. You write your paper and you turn it in. The professor takes one glance and asks for citations. It doesn't matter if your paper is solid substantiated facts or pure fantasy, the citations and references are mandatory. So I just dialed up Brown Recluse Wiki and went straight to the bottom of the page. 42 citations and references. Speed reading through them shows nearly all are cited authorities. About 15 are specifically refuting the supposed dangers and dispelling the idiotic rumors. Said and done in 30 seconds.
Or is Vetter's reasearch, the Journal of Tropical Medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine, `American Journal of Emergency Med, the Aus journal of Medicine etc not good enough because they are mentioned on a wiki page?


----------



## klawfran3 (Jun 9, 2014)

The Snark said:


> This is where the Wiki comes into it's own. Google it, get the wiki page, confirm that's what you wanted, then zap on down to the references and citations. An operation that could take an hour or more in a library in less than a minute.
> 
> I still don't understand the wiki bashing. You get an assignment in class. You go to the library and research it. You write your paper and you turn it in. The professor takes one glance and asks for citations. It doesn't matter if your paper is solid substantiated facts or pure fantasy, the citations and references are mandatory. So I just dialed up Brown Recluse Wiki and went straight to the bottom of the page. 42 citations and references. Speed reading through them shows nearly all are cited authorities. About 15 are specifically refuting the supposed dangers and dispelling the idiotic rumors. Said and done in 30 seconds.
> Or is Vetter's reasearch, the Journal of Tropical Medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine, `American Journal of Emergency Med, the Aus journal of Medicine etc not good enough because they are mentioned on a wiki page?


I don't get wikipedia's bashing either. Sure, people are able to change up the wording as a joke or change it, but I believe it notifies the proper wikipedia authorities to go and see if the newly written portion is correct and cited. If it isn't, they pull it right off and set it back to how it was. Wikipedia is often very correct and full of good information.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Jun 9, 2014)

klawfran3 said:


> I don't get wikipedia's bashing either. Sure, people are able to change up the wording as a joke or change it, but I believe it notifies the proper wikipedia authorities to go and see if the newly written portion is correct and cited. If it isn't, they pull it right off and set it back to how it was. Wikipedia is often very correct and full of good information.


It isn't whether it is correct or not. That is what gets pounded into college students constantly and what all those endless hours doing research are about. The papers you write are pure scientific methodology. The instructor gives an assignment, a theory. Your paper supports or refutes that theory. You read the material you researched then check the references - ALWAYS!! 

Example. Some bio-science course I took. The prof gave the assignment, "Calhoun is full it s***. Prove it or prove me wrong."

Off I toddle to the library. I find a half dozen publications and white papers on the subject. Every one of them is written by Calhoun! So go by wiki bashing standards, the page is crap or accurate and the professor is full of it. Which? This is a very common ploy professors use. They want you to research the research. Reach your own conclusion. If you don't you're pissing your tuition money down the toilet and that MS just isn't ever going to happen. 

So instead of researching the subject, I researched Calhoun. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! A dozen papers pop up of his peers shooting him in the ass. I search for other authorities. Calhoun overwhelms the field but there are little snippets of others doing the same as Calhoun. I end up taking a 50 mile drive to USC and come up with alternatives that refute Calhoun. I get the citations. A lab tech refers me to UC Davis and I blow $20 on phone calls to a prof there. He gives me a verbal I can quote, and cites his letters and background.

I head back to the class and submit my paper. Yes, Calhoun is full of it get's me a D-. The papers I read at USC and the quote from the Prof jacks that up to a B. If I had followed up on that Prof and his data I would have cruised with an A.  

So, no. The wiki is just data. Right and wrong. When you dial it in you are doing research. Take it verbatim and you're a fool. Follow the proper methodology and you get some smarts.

This mentality of people today, spoon fed facts and crap, all assumed as true because it is on their favorite news program is what is truly full of s***. Wiki is wiki. A data source and jumping off point. It's up to the reader and their discerning. If only those news watchers and wiki bashers would follow the most basic reasoning: Nothing is true until you fail to prove it is false and if your methodology is weak, you are feeding yourself s***.


Why oh why do people insist on being morons? Demand they are morons and go out to prove it every day. Moron goes up to moron and states, Brown Recluse ate my baby. Check facebook in an hour for baby eating spiders.

Moron goes up to the professor and says Brown Recluse ate a baby. Professor says what?? WHAT?? The obvious. Prove it or take an F. You say, 'I read it on a wiki page!'. The prof instantly replies... ? "Here's your F." Or you reply, 'I read in on a wiki page. Citations were A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and X. I discount C, G and X for this reason." And the prof does what?


The advantage of using the wiki is the citations and, unlike research material in a library, it is constantly being updated, subjected to peer reviews, and being refined. And there is a simple trick involved, just as I learned with Calhoun. Check Brown Recluse wiki. Vetter, Vetter, Vetter, he's all over it just like Calhoun. So I research Vetter using scientific methodology. Prove him wrong. I can't. Can't find a single qualified source that directly refutes him. But there's a whole lot of peer review and support of his findings. He passes the test and his research becomes a working hypothesis. Still subject to query, but overwhelming evidence refuting his theories are presently lacking. That you can take to the prof and expect a passing grade.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## GSA8 (Jun 9, 2014)

That is precisely the issue with using a wiki as an academic source, most that do use them do not perform the proper research to show that the wiki data is credible, or otherwise.  Wikis have certainly come a long way, and I believe the mentality that "wiki data is garbage" is a remnant of the day when anyone could contribute to a wiki and there was no quality control and no due diligence.  As an academic, you have a much different view point, you understand due diligence, but as the world proves EVERY day, not everyone is an academic, nor do they give a shit about due diligence.

  I have gotten into the habit of simply unfriending people that mindlessly re-post things on social media sites like "A brown recluse ate my baby."  I try to do my part by educating them with references to studies and solid data that illustrates the err of their way, however, when it happens multiple times, I feel that my attempted remedying is falling on deaf ears and I simply click that wonderful little unfriend button.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Jun 10, 2014)

The Snark said:
			
		

> So, no. The wiki is just data. Right and wrong. When you dial it in you are doing research. Take it verbatim and you're a fool. Follow the proper methodology and you get some smarts.
> 
> This mentality of people today, spoon fed facts and crap, all assumed as true because it is on their favorite news program is what is truly full of s***. Wiki is wiki. A data source and jumping off point. It's up to the reader and their discerning. If only those news watchers and wiki bashers would follow the most basic reasoning: Nothing is true until you fail to prove it is false and if your methodology is weak, you are feeding yourself s***.


This.  So much this.  This is why my family tries to claim I "love arguing" and "only Dustin can be right" - because I want sources.  Not memes.  Not links to an article that doesn't cite or link back to its sources for verification.  I want something that points me in the direction of the paper/study/poll/research the info came from, so I can see it and see what it sourced and try and figure out what it says versus what the author of the articld wants it to say.  And then I try and search out its opposite with similar articles, weigh the data *then* form an opinion.  

But, hey, who needs to research and be informed when memes and sound bites can be regurgitated with even less thought than it takes to vote for an Americam Idol?


----------



## klawfran3 (Jun 10, 2014)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> This.  So much this.  This is why my family tries to claim I "love arguing" and "only Dustin can be right" - because I want sources.  Not memes.  Not links to an article that doesn't cite or link back to its sources for verification.  I want something that points me in the direction of the paper/study/poll/research the info came from, so I can see it and see what it sourced and try and figure out what it says versus what the author of the articld wants it to say.  And then I try and search out its opposite with similar articles, weigh the data *then* form an opinion.
> 
> But, hey, who needs to research and be informed when memes and sound bites can be regurgitated with even less thought than it takes to vote for an Americam Idol?


those "kickass fact" memes that go around bother the hell out of me. not a single source what so ever and yet everyone eats them up like they were cake.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 10, 2014)

It seems we are onto something, thanks to the ravening Hobo spider, the Brown Recluse, the Latrodectus that lives in peoples hair, the whatevertheheckitis spider that lays eggs under your skin, the spider that lurks under toilet seats on planes, the clock eating spider and so on. Really, this seems to be a workable formula:
Blow that crap =< high skool ejukasun. Go 'huh' and scratch your head =college level ed and/or uses words of > 2 syllables on occasion. Laughs hysterically = University educated.

Well?


----------



## RzezniksRunAway (Jun 11, 2014)

UGH. So, I'm currently dealing with informing someone that there's probably only a 5% chance in hell that the spider they just smashed in their warehouse is L. reclusa. My friend found a spider at work (autoparts warehouse) and was trying to catch it to release it when he was informed (by a guy probably standing no where near the spider) that it was a Recluse. It was then smashed. I told him there's a chance because of the shipments, but that it most likely was not what they claim it was. I went on to inform him of bite misidentification, reluctance to bite, blah blah blah...

"My mom almost lost her hand to a recluse, the doctor said it was one"
If he had said that they preserved the body and had a positive ID on a L. reclusa, I might have been swayed...but nope nope nope. 

Surely it had nothing to do with the rampant MRSA cases in the hospitals in our area. Two of the hospitals you're lucky if you escape without MRSA, it's almost like they're purposely infecting people for the cash. 


In "things that are called L. reclusa but are not" news, I caught a big, fat female C. mildei last night running like mad across my living room wall. Identified her via a hand loupe and photos of epigynum on BugGuide. Put her in a container over night and she escaped.


----------



## Smokehound714 (Jun 12, 2014)

Many 'deaths' are far more likely caused by MRSA, strep, etc..  So many diseases and pathogens cause virtually identical effects, including necrotic lesions.

  MRSA is well-known for being so similar to recluse bites, that doctors must perform different tests to find out which ailment it REALLY is.

  In fact, necrosis from a recluse bite is fairly uncommon, something to 30% of the bites becoming severe.  Even then, it's self-limiting.

  These spiders dont deserve the fear they receive..  You'll often see trolls on other sites copypasta'ing images of SICARIUS victims as Loxoceles.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Jun 12, 2014)

Smokehound714 said:


> Many 'deaths' are far more likely caused by MRSA, strep, etc..  So many diseases and pathogens cause virtually identical effects, including necrotic lesions.
> 
> MRSA is well-known for being so similar to recluse bites, that doctors must perform different tests to find out which ailment it REALLY is.
> 
> ...


Diagnosing a necrotic wound can be extremely complex. Say a patient comes in with an improperly cared for wound that has been open, weeping, for a couple of weeks. Pathology checks and returns the presence of necrotic tissue. That can have several dozen causes ranging from stupidity not taking proper antiseptic precautions to bacteria to virus to an agent inhibiting blood profusion to a neurotoxin to wound contamination to a hematotoxin to cardiovascular disease to a compromised immune system and you get the picture. 

So they take culture samples. That can take up to 10 days. But open weeping wounds that haven't been properly treated can have a huge list of bacteria present. In that list may be a causitive infector, a secondary infector, an opportunity infector or a resident bacteria that just got in on the culturing.

So take the two above lists and you can see it quickly turns into a guessing and sleuthing game. Then enter Recluse or other venom. That is undetectable. The only way to positively detect it is mechanism of injury, spider caught in the act and properly identified, or elimination of all other possible causes which is usually impossible.

The problem is it's an open wound. A closed wound with pus is going to usually get cultured as a positive. As example, a gram negative bacteria. But an open wound is loaded with crap. I'm reminded of a lab tech showing me a culture that returned 7 virulent bacteria. Which came first? 

Then you have the MRSA bandwagon. MRSA is a prime infector but also an opportunity infector. Contrary to popular beliefs, MRSA is not commonly found in hospitals. Repeat NOT. While resistant to antibiotics it is not resistant to the gallons of powerful antiseptics housekeeping sloshes all over the place on all 3 shifts 24/7. Escapees, incidents of repeated infections of a given bacteria are immediately brought before the infection control committee. The bio med tech(s) the lab and designated nurses go on a hunt taking samples to be cultured. The hospital gets turned upside down and inside out. Almost always the mechanism transporting the bacteria is quickly traced to a given locale. The most common is a Pseudomonas commonly found in burn injuries and transmitted by the baths in physical therapy. And then there are a lot of other strains of staph.

And it comes back to the chicken or the egg. What was the origin cause? Loxoscelism, which is only diagnosed by the spider virtually being caught in the act or all possible other causes have been eliminated. Wading through this morass of probables, it is easy to see why there is a tendency to jump at a convenient victim like loxoscelism. Because it can't be positively disproved.

And the MRSA found? How did it get in on things and where did it come from? Check your shoes. To be more precise, take a culture from your shoes once a week for a year. The odds are at least one culture will have MRSA. Any filthy area but especially certain occupations come in contact with it regularly. It is extremely common in areas that have cattle, dairies, other herd animals, open refuse disposal sites, effluent treatment areas and again, you get the picture. The vast majority of bacterial infections contracted in hospitals come from peoples shoes.

Confusing enough?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kaimetsu (Jun 12, 2014)

Back to recluse arguments again i see.  This peer reviewed scientific paper is a must read for anyone interested in the topic but unfortunately most idiots spreading brown recluse myths don't even believe in science.  

http://docserver.esa.catchword.org/deliver/cw/pdf/esa/freepdfs/00222585/v39n6s25.pdf

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## The Snark (Jun 12, 2014)

Kaimetsu said:


> Back to recluse arguments again i see.  This peer reviewed scientific paper is a must read for anyone interested in the topic but unfortunately most idiots spreading brown recluse myths don't even believe in science.
> 
> http://docserver.esa.catchword.org/deliver/cw/pdf/esa/freepdfs/00222585/v39n6s25.pdf


A good read. That's a ref on the Wiki page.


----------



## klawfran3 (Jun 12, 2014)

Kaimetsu said:


> Back to recluse arguments again i see.  This peer reviewed scientific paper is a must read for anyone interested in the topic but unfortunately most idiots spreading brown recluse myths don't even believe in science.
> 
> http://docserver.esa.catchword.org/deliver/cw/pdf/esa/freepdfs/00222585/v39n6s25.pdf


That was a very enjoyable read. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Livia (Jun 15, 2014)

klawfran3 said:


> people are arguing with me how they have friends that have died from a brown recluse bite. I know that no one has ever died from one, but does anyone have the source of that information or a link to it. i am in need. thanks.


My aunts father died from a brown recluse bite on the neck that went untreated....ill link to the obituariy when i can find it His name was john stuart though


----------



## Kaimetsu (Jun 16, 2014)

Did they have the spider that bit him and was it identified by an arachnologist?


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 16, 2014)

Livia said:


> My aunts father died from a brown recluse bite on the neck that went untreated....ill link to the obituariy when i can find it His name was john stuart though


Livia, unless the spider that actually bit your aunt's father was caught at the time that it bit him, AND identified by an arachnologist or entomologist, there is absolutely NO. WAY. that his death can be accurately pinned on a spider!  We have repeated it ad nauseum, but some folks still don't get the message, that doctors are NO more qualified to diagnose a "spider bite" or ID a spider, which in most cases they have not seen, than I am qualified to diagnose cancer or perform a heart cath on someone.  WAAY too often, doctors misdiagnose every skin sore or lesion that shows up in their clinic as a "spider bite" and fail to pinpoint the real cause, and unfortunately that not only reinforces that myth of deadly spiders, but leads to people actually dying from treatable conditions like MRSA, which go unchecked until they reach that point of no return.  Doctors are also prone to blaming a spider when there was a serious underlying illness already present that had nothing to do with a spider, such as liver failure from a lifetime of hard drinking and drug use, the old " well, we know he drank like a fish and his liver was toast already, but he got bit by a 'Brown Recluse' months ago, so it had to have the spider that killed him" card played.  Spiders make even more convenient scapegoats than snakes because people can always claim that they never saw the spider but it just HAD to have been one.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## The Snark (Jun 17, 2014)

pitbulllady said:


> Livia, unless the spider that actually bit your aunt's father was caught at the time that it bit him, AND identified by an arachnologist or entomologist, there is absolutely NO. WAY. that his death can be accurately pinned on a spider!  We have repeated it ad nauseum, but some folks still don't get the message, that doctors are NO more qualified to diagnose a "spider bite" or ID a spider, which in most cases they have not seen, than I am qualified to diagnose cancer or perform a heart cath on someone.  WAAY too often, doctors misdiagnose every skin sore or lesion that shows up in their clinic as a "spider bite" and fail to pinpoint the real cause, and unfortunately that not only reinforces that myth of deadly spiders, but leads to people actually dying from treatable conditions like MRSA, which go unchecked until they reach that point of no return.  Doctors are also prone to blaming a spider when there was a serious underlying illness already present that had nothing to do with a spider, such as liver failure from a lifetime of hard drinking and drug use, the old " well, we know he drank like a fish and his liver was toast already, but he got bit by a 'Brown Recluse' months ago, so it had to have the spider that killed him" card played.  Spiders make even more convenient scapegoats than snakes because people can always claim that they never saw the spider but it just HAD to have been one.
> 
> pitbulllady


This is actually extremely ironic. Go to a  family doc you will almost certainly end up getting referred to a specialist. Er docs automatically refer. But when it comes to a spider bite, a completely different discipline, they tend to turn into experts!


----------



## kp513 (Aug 2, 2014)

The Snark said:


> Let's clarify something. The effects of the venom of the Brown Recluse has never directly caused a death. Loxoscelism necrosis can lead to death without proper treatment.
> 
> So to give an analogy. You stand out in an open field during a lightning storm holding a 20 foot metal rod over your head. When the lightning does strike, are you going to blame the 20 foot metal rod? The rod did not cause the electrocution. All it did was facilitate the electrons as an open necrotic wound facilitates, exacerbates, bacteria and devascularization. The venom of the Loxosceles does not possess any toxins that directly or indirectly cause oxygen loss to the brain (clinical death) or non reversable brain damage (biological death).
> 
> ...


I wanted to add some correction to this, based on my own literature search. By and large this is correct, as the effects of Loxosceles are rarely significant, and when they are, they tend to involve dermonecrosis. However, when death occurs (at least according to most papers I've seen), it occurs due to systemic hemolysis (the bursting of red blood cells). In these cases, the primary agents in Sicarrid species' venom, spingomyelinase proteins (also the primary dermonecrotic agent) hijack the body's complement immune system. A cascade of enzymes and facilitating proteins eventually creates a membrane attack complex, creating a pore in the blood cell, killing it. For both Loxosceles and Sicarius species, this is the suspected method of human fatality, and is thus a direct causative agent of biological death.

These are the papers from which most of my info has come, but feel free to corroborate or dispute it if you've seen a more recent or contradictory study. http://www.jimmunol.org/content/155/9/4459.short http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X98994748

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Aug 2, 2014)

Thanks very much for the info, kp513.
So we do have two proven mechanisms that can cause death from Loxoscelism: Haemolysis and rhabdomyolysis. Unfortunately the exact specifics as an LD50 are lacking and the life threatening degree of envenomation, threshold, is entirely unknown and most likely would vary from patient to patient as venom profusion varies drastically and the actual cause of death would most often be renal failure followed by hepatic and on down the organ chain.
Unfortunately this dials modern medicine right back to it's dark ages with amputation being the most reliable remedy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

