Hello to all

I would like to talk about insect bites which cause ulcerations and necrotic
lesions not just white tailed spiders.
There have been reports of white tail spider bites causing ulceration and
necrotic lesions. While studies have determined that the white tail spider
does not cause this effect a lot of people still believe it to be true. I
don't know but I do know of instances where a bite has caused ulceration and
necrotic lesions to occur.

The first was from a friend who had been treated by his doctor for two weeks
for a necrotic lesions which was slowly eating away the flesh from his left
thumb. After another treatment as he was leaving the surgery a friend of his
told him about using the gel from the aloe vera to stop the ulceration
spreading. After applying every day the ulceration cleared up within a week.
He sighted the insect and said it was a white tail spider.

The second was from my own mother who was working in her garden and was
bitten on the finger by something, she didn't see what it was. The bite left
a small red spot which was, according to her, very itchy. The itch persisted
for a day or so, then the bite site began to blister and weep. After three
days there was an open ulcer and by the end of the week it was the size of a
five cent piece. Nothing she tried worked, so I suggested the aloe vera and
within three days the ulcer had completely disappeared, leaving no scar.

The aloe vera is applied by cutting a segment from the leaf and then slicing
through to form two pieces which have gel and the skin of the leaf on both.
This ensures the gel stays in place. Place the gel side onto the bite site
and secure with sticking plaster leaving no opening as the gel will squeeze
out if wrapped too tightly. This dressing was changed twice a day, in the
morning and before bedtime. The gel is completely absorbed leaving only the
leaf skin behind. Store the remaining pieces of leaf in an air tight
container and place in the fridge for later use.

It is also excellent for sunburn and burns in general that have not broken
the skin. I have first hand knowledge to that effect as I have worked in the
engineering trade using oxy acetylene equipment. The result is no blistering
if applied immediately and pain seems to reduce quicker than if left alone.
Just rub the gel on the affected site.

It's obvious that aloe vera should investigated as to the treatment of these
types of instances.
I hope that others who have had a similar encounters can use this amazing
plant to help them. Something to consider at least.

Regards and happy gardening
Paul

What annteresting post!

In my own experience, nothing touches aloe vera gel for reducing sunburn. It's
also good for hives and other hurties that don't break the skin. Something stops
me from applying it to open wounds, but I couldn't say why - LOL! It just seems
'yucky'!

Regarding the spider: my old Entomology lecturer taught us that 'All spiders can
and will bite you if provoked. It just depends on whether you have a specific
response to the proteins in the spider venom. You may suffer necrotising
arachnidism or you may not. Best not to allow *any* spider to bite you, then you
can be sure!'

I had been in the habit of picking up Huntsman spiders in my bare hands. I
stopped doing that after I heard the professor's advice! If you look at the size
of the phangs on a Huntsman, I'm sure you'll agree: it's not really a great idea
to play with them!

--
Trish {|:-}
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

"Paul Valente" wrote in message
...
Hello to all

I would like to talk about insect bites which cause ulcerations and
necrotic
lesions not just white tailed spiders.
There have been reports of white tail spider bites causing ulceration and
necrotic lesions. While studies have determined that the white tail spider
does not cause this effect a lot of people still believe it to be true. I
don't know but I do know of instances where a bite has caused ulceration
and
necrotic lesions to occur.

Snip

I read about the white tail spider not causing ulcerations and such a little
while back in the paper.
What gets me is how do they come at that conclusion? I mean all these people
were bitten by a white tip, then the ulceration occurred. No science there,
just based on common sense that shows that white tips CAN cause ulceration.
Unless there is a spider that looks almost identical and the people
incorrectly identified them as white tips. People will have different
reactions, some won't be affected at all.
I know of one case personally that was similar to the one where you
mentioned, where it ulcerated to about the size of a 20cent piece. I'm not
sure what they used, if anything, but it went away.
Anyway, interesting post.

Regards and happy gardening
Paul

"Andrew G" wrote in message
...

"Paul Valente" wrote in message
...
Hello to all

I would like to talk about insect bites which cause ulcerations and
necrotic
lesions not just white tailed spiders.
There have been reports of white tail spider bites causing ulceration
and
necrotic lesions. While studies have determined that the white tail
spider
does not cause this effect a lot of people still believe it to be true.
I
don't know but I do know of instances where a bite has caused ulceration
and
necrotic lesions to occur.

Snip

I read about the white tail spider not causing ulcerations and such a
little
while back in the paper.
What gets me is how do they come at that conclusion? I mean all these
people
were bitten by a white tip, then the ulceration occurred. No science
there,
just based on common sense that shows that white tips CAN cause
ulceration.
Unless there is a spider that looks almost identical and the people
incorrectly identified them as white tips. People will have different
reactions, some won't be affected at all.
I know of one case personally that was similar to the one where you
mentioned, where it ulcerated to about the size of a 20cent piece. I'm not
sure what they used, if anything, but it went away.
Anyway, interesting post.

Regards and happy gardening
Paul

I also read the story about White-Tailed spiders not being responsible for
the necrosis that occurs on some people. The reports said that they couldnt
find ANY necrotic agent in the WT venom. What they did acknowledge, though,
was that certain people seem to be pre-disposed to a reaction for certain
types of spider venom.
It begs the question that if you were able to,. to get a WT to bite a number
of people, and see how many get the necrotic reaction. Not likely to get
many applicant for the test, though...

I have a cousin who had a golf-ball sized chunk of thigh removed late last
year. She is adamant that the only spider they found was a WT when she was
bitten.

Never had a spider bite, but interesting to think about aloe-vera. Got a
heap of it growing in the garden, so may be worth trying if it happens.
Works very well for burns.

Cheers,

Rod.......Out Back

rod,
the venom is not the problem, it's the bacteria on the fangs. the
white tail is a scavenger eating dead and rotting corpses of other
spiders. Bacteria that is on the fangs is anaerobic (think that is it)
and does not like open air. So after a bite the bacteria starts an
ulceration under the skin and tends to migrate further once that area of
the lesion is exposed to air. This tends to occur in some people.

ax

Rod Out back wrote:
"Andrew G" wrote in message
...

"Paul Valente" wrote in message
...

Hello to all

I would like to talk about insect bites which cause ulcerations and

necrotic

lesions not just white tailed spiders.
There have been reports of white tail spider bites causing ulceration

and

necrotic lesions. While studies have determined that the white tail

spider

does not cause this effect a lot of people still believe it to be true.

I

don't know but I do know of instances where a bite has caused ulceration

and

necrotic lesions to occur.

Snip

I read about the white tail spider not causing ulcerations and such a

little

while back in the paper.
What gets me is how do they come at that conclusion? I mean all these

people

were bitten by a white tip, then the ulceration occurred. No science

there,

just based on common sense that shows that white tips CAN cause

ulceration.

Unless there is a spider that looks almost identical and the people
incorrectly identified them as white tips. People will have different
reactions, some won't be affected at all.
I know of one case personally that was similar to the one where you
mentioned, where it ulcerated to about the size of a 20cent piece. I'm not
sure what they used, if anything, but it went away.
Anyway, interesting post.


Regards and happy gardening
Paul


I also read the story about White-Tailed spiders not being responsible for
the necrosis that occurs on some people. The reports said that they couldnt
find ANY necrotic agent in the WT venom. What they did acknowledge, though,
was that certain people seem to be pre-disposed to a reaction for certain
types of spider venom.
It begs the question that if you were able to,. to get a WT to bite a number
of people, and see how many get the necrotic reaction. Not likely to get
many applicant for the test, though...

I have a cousin who had a golf-ball sized chunk of thigh removed late last
year. She is adamant that the only spider they found was a WT when she was
bitten.

Never had a spider bite, but interesting to think about aloe-vera. Got a
heap of it growing in the garden, so may be worth trying if it happens.
Works very well for burns.

Cheers,

Rod.......Out Back

"Rod Out back" writes:
Never had a spider bite, but interesting to think about aloe-vera. Got a
heap of it growing in the garden, so may be worth trying if it happens.

After you've given the aloe a good try, if it doesn't seem to be halting
the necrosis then try the bleach as I reported some years back (not from
first hand experience, thankfully). A quick search on google for my name
and "spiders" should turn up the thread/s. It's easy to remember, "white
spider" -- "White King". I seem to recall that it can be effective even
months after the bite.

Works very well for burns.
Amazingly well for sunburn, too. Relief is immediate.
--
John Savage (news address invalid; keep news replies in newsgroup)

Rod Out back wrote:

It begs the question that if you were able to,. to get a WT to bite a number
of people, and see how many get the necrotic reaction. Not likely to get
many applicant for the test, though...

Close enough to the MJA study. In this prospective study, 130 people
with a definitely-IDed white tail bite were identified and followed. Not
one developed a necrotic ulcer. The conclusion? " Bites by Lampona spp.
cause minor effects in most cases, or a persistent painful red lesion in
almost half the cases. White-tail spider bites are very unlikely to
cause necrotic ulcers, and other diagnoses must be sought."

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...b10785_fm.html

Another study followed 750 definite spider bites in Australia (various
different spiders), and again zero necrotic ulcers were identified.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...e&db=PubMed&li
st_uids=12391384&dopt=Abstract

If necrotising arachnidism does exist in Australia, it is much, much
rarer than a lot of people seem to think.

Lara

Thank Christ someone chimed in with the facts eventually in this thread ! In Australia the media has ‘beat up’ the myth that white-tail bites cause necrotising arachnidism. Nice work Lara, you rock !
The study published last year that Lara alludes to by Isbister and Gray is the most powerful and convincing evidence to date that white-tails don’t cause necrotising arachnidism. They only included patients that had captured the spider that bit them on the spot, and they had all spiders identified ‘in the flesh’ by experts. Impressively, and relevant to Paul’s post (above) suggesting that there could be an odd species distribution accounting for anecdotal reports of white-tail induced ulceration, they went as far as identifying all ‘white-tips’ (Different Lampona genus spiders) down to the species level.
130 certified white-tail bites, zero necrotic lesions. Relevant to the above post from “ax”, they also confirmed zero infections.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12914510

There is another interesting study relevant to Isbister and Gray’s final conclusion (see Lara’s post, directly above), particularly their assertion that “Previously we have shown that there were no necrotic lesions when all spider types in Australia were analysed. These data suggest that spiders are an extremely uncommon cause of necrotic or cytotoxic lesions, and should be considered only at the end of a long list of other differential diagnoses”

This seems to amount to a tactfully phrased (but wise) suggestion that when patients present with necrotic lesions that they think were caused by a spider bite, they are most likely to be wrong (and inadvertently misleading the physician to their own detriment).

One group has investigated this specific question scientifically, and just published their results this year. Probably because white-tails do not actually cause necrotic lesions, the sample size (the number of people that actually presented with existing lesions that the patients themselves believed were caused by white-tails) was small, 11. So the study is nowhere near as powerful as Isbister and Gray’s. But like the venom study alluded to by ‘Rod’ above, it is completely concordant with their conclusions.
Physiologically verified alternative causes of ulceration ? All 11 patients. Their conclusion:
“In this series, all cases initially referred as WT spider bites or necrotic arachnidism were found to have alternative diagnoses with appropriate investigations. This demonstrates that spider bites are an unlikely cause of necrotic ulcers and that all ulcers should be properly investigated with bacterial, fungal and mycobacterial cultures and skin biopsy for histopathology”.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14748912

So why does the myth persist. ? In my humble opinion it is the product of a combination of irresponsible media hype, and human psychology.
Applying principals of psychology, I think people would often feel embarrassed when they develop necrotic skin lesions, because they’re disfiguring and ugly. People are more comfortable believing that such ailments are due to external causes, that are clearly ‘not their fault’, rather than an internal deficiency or the like. I hope this suggestion doesn’t offend anyone.
Cheers, Owen Proudfoot

Thank Christ someone chimed in with the facts eventually in this thread
! In Australia the media has ‘beat up’ the myth that white-tail bites
cause necrotising arachnidism. Nice work Lara, you rock !
The study published last year that Lara alludes to by Isbister and Gray
is the most powerful and convincing evidence to date that white-tails
don’t cause necrotising arachnidism. They only included patients that
had captured the spider that bit them on the spot, and they had all
spiders identified ‘in the flesh’ by experts. Impressively, and
relevant to Paul’s post (above) suggesting that there could be an odd
species distribution accounting for anecdotal reports of white-tail
induced ulceration, they went as far as identifying all ‘white-tips’
(Different Lampona genus spiders) down to the species level.
130 certified white-tail bites, zero necrotic lesions. Relevant to the
above post from “ax”, they also confirmed zero infections.
http://tinyurl.com/43bxw

There is another interesting study relevant to Isbister and Gray’s
final conclusion (see Lara’s post, directly above), particularly their
assertion that “Previously we have shown that there were no necrotic
lesions when all spider types in Australia were analysed. These data
suggest that spiders are an extremely uncommon cause of necrotic or
cytotoxic lesions, and should be considered only at the end of a long
list of other differential diagnoses”

This seems to amount to a tactfully phrased (but wise) suggestion that
when patients present with necrotic lesions that they think were caused
by a spider bite, they are most likely to be wrong (and inadvertently
misleading the physician to their own detriment).

One group has investigated this specific question scientifically, and
just published their results this year. Probably because white-tails
do not actually cause necrotic lesions, the sample size (the number of
people that actually presented with existing lesions that the patients
themselves believed were caused by white-tails) was small, 11. So the
study is nowhere near as powerful as Isbister and Gray’s. But like the
venom study alluded to by ‘Rod’ above, it is completely concordant with
their conclusions.
Physiologically verified alternative causes of ulceration ? All 11
patients. Their conclusion:
“In this series, all cases initially referred as WT spider bites or
necrotic arachnidism were found to have alternative diagnoses with
appropriate investigations. This demonstrates that spider bites are an
unlikely cause of necrotic ulcers and that all ulcers should be
properly investigated with bacterial, fungal and mycobacterial cultures
and skin biopsy for histopathology”.
http://tinyurl.com/5smqy

So why does the myth persist. ? In my humble opinion it is the product
of a combination of irresponsible media hype, and human psychology.
Applying principals of psychology, I think people would often feel
embarrassed when they develop necrotic skin lesions, because they’re
disfiguring and ugly. People are more comfortable believing that such
ailments are due to external causes, that are clearly ‘not their fault’,
rather than an internal deficiency or the like. I hope this suggestion
doesn’t offend anyone.
Cheers, Owen Proudfoot


--
Owen Proudfoot