[pct-l] FW: Ticks

[kgreen@photon.com (Keith Green)]

With regard to the earlier discussion of ticks in section G North of Joshua
Springs: Below is Dr. Kimsey's (UC Davis Entomology Professor) latest
response.  He is offering to share his knowledge of ticks with the PCT-L so
if anyone has any questions of any kind regarding ticks and the diseases
they carry I suggest taking advantage of the opportunity we have here.

-K

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert B. Kimsey [mailto:rbkimsey@ucdavis.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 1:20 PM
To: Keith Green; batdorff@coosnet.com
Subject: Re: Ticks


 Keith:
       Well, as a serious hiker (in a former life), I am drawn to the idea
of assisting hikers with worries about ticks and your group would seem to be
of the sort that it would be fun to help.  I miss my days in the mountains!
    My reticence in becoming involved has evolved from the truly horrific
politics that have come to nearly dominate the medical arena associated with
tick borne disease.
    Where I can be of assistance is with the biology of ticks and the
process of pathogen transmission. The diagnosis and geographic prevalence of
particular disease agents is fraught with medical misconceptions and is not
something I care to deal with.
    So where would you have me begin?  I can certainly help with safe tick
removal.
    For example: none of the commonly applied compounds such as oil,
greases, finger nail polish remover, gasoline or dynamite can have the
effect of causing an attached tick to "back out" of a host.  Early in the
attachment process ticks usually secrete a relatively viscous saliva which
hardens and usually glues the mouth parts to the surrounding collagen in the
dermas of the skin.  There is some variation in how this occurs and in what
tissue but the end result is that the tick apparently no longer has the
option of voluntarily detaching, but must wait until the inflammatory
process of the skin overcomes  immunosuppressive properties of normal tick
saliva, resulting in degeneration of the glued collagen, at which point the
tick falls off.
    Thus, the tick must be physically removed.  All sorts of weird and
wonderful techniques seem to have been used; to describe and then dismiss
each would take more paper than there are forests left.  The bottom line is
that the tick should be gently and slowly pulled straight out; a pair of
common forceps used to grasp the end "head" end of the body are very useful.
There are all sorts of gimmicks and gadgets sold on the market today for
this purpose today- I have a drawer full the damn things I have been sent by
various companies for "evaluation".  I suppose if a person has developed a
particular attachment to one or another of these devices and it works for
them then so be it.  Personally, I carry forceps while hiking for numerous
other uses and do not see the need for redundancy.
     Contrary to popular belief it does not seem to be possible to squeeze
or press on a tick hard enough to cause it to regurgitate, or to squeeze
potentially infectious "guts" into the bite wound.  Anyone can experiment
with this by placing a tick on a rock and pressing on it with a stick to see
if it barfs- it will not even if you press hard enough to burst the tick.
Even after a period of attachment to a host, following removal ticks cannot
be induced to regurgitate in this way.  Thus, even using fingers to pull the
tick off is acceptable.  The bottom line is get the tick off fast- the
longer it is attached the greater the risk of pathogen transmission
(presuming the tick is infected and the host is susceptible).
    What more would you like to hear about?
    In passing- I called no one a liar nor would I.  Actually, while hiking
in Panama I made the mistake of crossing through a Tapir wallow once and was
suicidal for a month while recovering from seed tick bites,  I also have
stories to tell about ticks in Texas that are even worse!
b