i have the reference to black widows somewhere in a book, packed away..will see if i still have it.Prove that. Post one reliable source that says that.
You see, the antivenin for black widows was invented in 1956 by a man named Struan Sutherland. If scientists thought the latrodectus genus wasn't medically signifficant, there would be no need for antivenin. I've never read anything similar to what you've just written.
From arachnophiliac:
Either way I've posted at least a smidgen of data backing up my opinions, while the only thing you've done is ignore the last half of the paper and discounted anything that disagrees with your preconcieved notions, saying 'I've seen bad information come out of peer reviews' as your only defense.
While I'm not doubting peer reviewed papers are occassionally inaccurate, you've posted nothing so far which can lead me to believe you've even read one peer-reviewed journal article on the subject of invertebrate envenomation. Posting blatantly false information doesn't help your case, either.
I've highlighted in bold and made the text huge that says the type of necrosis you're telling me is common is, in fact rare. Anybody who reads that paragraph will conclude the same thing.
Hell...your treasured necrosis isn't even an effect of the venom, rather a side effect from a secondary infection. There might be a little tissue damage, but I highly doubt there would be an open wound associated with the bite as a direct result of the enzymes.
Also, there is no way that wheel bug bites are even in the 'top 10' list for painful envenomation. I could name 30 insects which have physical symptoms worse than anything I've read in the Arilus literature. This is only one article, out of maybe 10 I've read with bite information and they all say essentially the same thing. Healing time...a month maximum in all but extreme cases. Some redness, some numbness, maybe some sloughing but definitely no necrosis except in some extreme cases.
as far as the other..nothing i posted was blatantly false.
it was based on what i read, was told, and experienced myself.
you disagree with it, simple as that.
i say the data you provide is subjective..and non cohesive, and unconclusive.
all of your data is incomplete.
i don't need a ''peer review'' to determine this.