Ticks carrying Lyme disease confirmed in 9 national parks

[couscous]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ticks-carrying-lyme-disease-confirmed-in-eastern-national-parks/

Planning a hiking trip in an eastern U.S. national park (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/on-the-trail-maines-acadia-national-park/)? Better pack tick repellent -- a new study found these parks are home to ticks that carry Lyme disease (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lyme-disease-more-common-cdc-says/). Blacklegged ticks -- also known as deer ticks (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lyme-disease-just-got-nastier/) -- carrying Lyme disease were found in nine national parks: Acadia National Park in Maine; Catoctin Mountain Park and Monocacy National Battlefield in Maryland; Fire Island National Seashore in Long Island, N.Y.; Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania; Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C., and Manassas National Battlefield Park, Prince William Forest Park and Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. This is the first time researchers have confirmed that the ticks are living at the parks, although it’s long been suspected that the ticks were there because of human Lyme disease infections (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lyme-disease-when-it-isnt-caught-early-fallout-can-be-scary/). “We know Lyme disease is increasing both in numbers of infections and in geographic range in the United States,”...

[egilbe]

Pretty sure this isnt news any more. Wear permethrin treated clothing. I haven't seen a tick on me since I started treating my clothing.

[Hikingjim]

Smoking kills too.
But smoking in tick country with no permethrin is going too far.

[Starchild]

Didn't know that this is news, just assumed that is what it is.

[Abatis1948]

This is worth bringing up again. Many people will start their hike this year and many of them may not know this information.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[iAmKrzys]

Only 9 parks have ticks carrying lyme??? I'm surprised that it's not the case for every park in lower 48...

[Engine]

Did the ticks get a permit? I thought they weren't allowed inside the park boundary.

[Traveler]

Didn't know that this is news, just assumed that is what it is.

Its more confirmation than news. Its long been suspected or even considered a "given" there was Lyme disease in the National Parks, especially in the eastern US, but this is the first broad based study in multiple parks that has confirmed its presence. My guess is this type of scientific research will continue in the NP system to increase visitor awareness of the potential contact risk,

[tdoczi]

Only 9 parks have ticks carrying lyme??? I'm surprised that it's not the case for every park in lower 48...


lyme disease is, more or less, a strictly northeast united states phenomena. why does this surprise you?

[Traveler]

lyme disease is, more or less, a strictly northeast united states phenomena. why does this surprise you?

It used to be certainly, but like most things Lyme has migrated into other areas. High risk of exposure has spread to the upper midwest into Minnesota and Wisconsin with moderate risk across Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio back into the northeast. Lyme has also been found in Pacific states and from Texas east through Florida and north though the risk is low with only a few moderate areas.

[tdoczi]

It used to be certainly, but like most things Lyme has migrated into other areas. High risk of exposure has spread to the upper midwest into Minnesota and Wisconsin with moderate risk across Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio back into the northeast. Lyme has also been found in Pacific states and from Texas east through Florida and north though the risk is low with only a few moderate areas.

key phrase-"more or less"i have no doubt it is on occassion seen elsewhere. i've never heard of it being anywhere near as common anywhere else and certainly not in all lower 48 states. i think statements like "i'm surprised its not in parks in all 48 states" is nothing but the result of/further spreading of the baseless fear mongering that follows lyme around and spreads much faster than the disease itself.

[tdoczi]

still plenty of places where it basically doesn't exist-

https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html

[Traillium]

I'll add the most-densely populated parts of Ontario and Quebec as being infested with Lyme Disease — and it's spreading northwards at a rate of something like 12km/7miles a year in eastern Ontario.
Few Canadians know this, and even fewer are doing anything about it …
Permethrin, folks, permethrin on clothing …

[tdoczi]

and it's spreading northwards at a rate of something like 12km/7miles a year in eastern Ontario.


any documentation of this? even if the numbers you quote are off? or is this just something you heard from your sister who's friend told her that their next door neighbor's cousin said that she heard at the doctor's office that someone had read..."

[Traveler]

still plenty of places where it basically doesn't exist-

https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html

Yes, it hasn't made it to many other places that we know of at this point. However no longer is it a strictly Northeastern "phenomenon". Over the years it has expanded to other areas, making a few additional places a high contact hazard like MI and WI. Discount it if you wish, but data is data.

37953

[tdoczi]

Yes, it hasn't made it to many other places that we know of at this point. However no longer is it a strictly Northeastern "phenomenon". Over the years it has expanded to other areas, making a few additional places a high contact hazard like MI and WI. Discount it if you wish, but data is data.

37953

i'm not discounting anything, the data is the data. i just think hyperbole like "i'm surprised it isn't in all states in the lower 48" is counterproductive. for example, while it wasnt my initial point, it is actually more prevalent in alaska than in a lot of states in the lower 48, a good amount in fact.

also, your contention about the southeast, based on my reading of the data, is overstated by more than a little. there are southeastern states where lyme is still essentially non existent. texas and florida have a large number of cases but are very big states, it is deceiving to point those. the rate of incidence in those areas is very very low.

again, i said "more or less" a problem in the northeast united states. dat that clarifies and makes a more precise picture of that statement is helpful, but i think the data presented hardly refutes that statement. it is largely concentrated, overwhelmingly so, in the northeast, with some significant amounts in somewhat adjacent areas, and rare occurrences elsewhere. the statement "i'm surprised it didn't show up in all 48 states" shows much more of a detachment from the actual data. not engaging in and buying into here say and hyperbole isnt discounting data.

[tdoczi]

Yes, it hasn't made it to many other places that we know of at this point. However no longer is it a strictly Northeastern "phenomenon". Over the years it has expanded to other areas, making a few additional places a high contact hazard like MI and WI. Discount it if you wish, but data is data.



37953

i'm not discounting anything, the data is the data. i just think hyperbole like "i'm surprised it isn't in all states in the lower 48" is counterproductive. for example, while it wasnt my initial point, it is actually more prevalent in alaska than in a lot of states in the lower 48, a good amount in fact.

also, your contention about the southeast, based on my reading of the data, is overstated by more than a little. there are southeastern states where lyme is still essentially non existent. texas and florida have a large number of cases but are very big states, it is deceiving to point those. the rate of incidence in those areas is very very low.

again, i said "more or less" a problem in the northeast united states. dat that clarifies and makes a more precise picture of that statement is helpful, but i think the data presented hardly refutes that statement. it is largely concentrated, overwhelmingly so, in the northeast, with some significant amounts in somewhat adjacent areas, and rare occurrences elsewhere. the statement "i'm surprised it didn't show up in all 48 states" shows much more of a detachment from the actual data. not engaging in and buying into here say and hyperbole isnt discounting data.


and really, look at the map you are showing me. it proves my point, not discounts it.

[tdoczi]

sorry about the double post, that was a weird glitch of some sort

[Traveler]

also, your contention about the southeast, based on my reading of the data, is overstated by more than a little. there are southeastern states where lyme is still essentially non existent. texas and florida have a large number of cases but are very big states, it is deceiving to point those. the rate of incidence in those areas is very very low.

again, i said "more or less" a problem in the northeast united states. dat that clarifies and makes a more precise picture of that statement is helpful, but i think the data presented hardly refutes that statement. it is largely concentrated, overwhelmingly so, in the northeast, with some significant amounts in somewhat adjacent areas, and rare occurrences elsewhere. the statement "i'm surprised it didn't show up in all 48 states" shows much more of a detachment from the actual data. not engaging in and buying into here say and hyperbole isnt discounting data.

and really, look at the map you are showing me. it proves my point, not discounts it.

Perhaps I should clarify, I didn't say the Southeast (including TX and FL) had anything other than a low risk, which the map clearly shows low risk in most of the Pacific and Southeastern States, with some moderate areas in the Pacific States. That was what I was referring to.

[Bronk]

Migrating birds carry ticks from northern Canada to South America. Lyme disease has been documented in every state and province in North America. There are several types of ticks that carry diseases, including Lyme. It isn't just deer ticks.

[tdoczi]

Perhaps I should clarify, I didn't say the Southeast (including TX and FL) had anything other than a low risk, which the map clearly shows low risk in most of the Pacific and Southeastern States, with some moderate areas in the Pacific States. That was what I was referring to.

and i didnt say that lyme disease only existed in the northeast. i stand by my statement. aside from a small area in MN (worth noting) your map shows that lyme disease is more or less concentrated in the northeast.

as is often the case in these discussions, i think the difference in viewpoint is one of possibility versus commonality or likelihood. lyme is POSSIBLE in lots of places. it is very common or very likely in very few though. nearly anything is POSSIBLE. i could inadvertently carry an infected tick on my person to some foreign country that has never seen a single case of lyme ever and help to cause the first one they've ever seen. it is possible, but so? statistically speaking, if one wants to assess the risk of contracting lyme in that country, it is meaningless. i think you're seeing "low risk" and reading it more like "average risk" etc. low risk, to me, means yes we have seen lyme cases there, but you are overwhelmingly unlikely to contract lyme in these places. if you factor in that we are risk averse and tend, i think, to exaggerate risk at least slightly very often, that something is offically designated "low risk" says quite a bit about just how very low the chances that one would contract lyme in that region are.

i am interested in what is likely or common. lyme disease is not likely or common in the vast majority of the US. your map does not disprove this, it proves it.

[tdoczi]

Lyme disease has been documented in every state and province in North America.

citation? there are already multiple sets of very reputible data referenced in this very thread that state otherwise.

[illabelle]

Yes, it hasn't made it to many other places that we know of at this point. However no longer is it a strictly Northeastern "phenomenon". Over the years it has expanded to other areas, making a few additional places a high contact hazard like MI and WI. Discount it if you wish, but data is data.

37953


Interesting that all of Virginia shows up as minimal to low risk, but go north just a tiny bit, and the risk becomes high? And who could have guessed that ticks would know to stay west of the NV/CA line? I like data, but sometimes it gets compiled and presented in ways that undermines credibility. I'm guessing there are significant differences by state in data collection, interpretation, and reporting.

[Leo L.]

Just wondering whether you have ticks carrying this virus that causes Meningo Enzephalitis?
This for many decades has been the bigger problem with ticks here in Europe, only recently Lyme getting more attention.

[Bronk]

citation? there are already multiple sets of very reputible data referenced in this very thread that state otherwise.While I wouldn't normally put a lot of stock in CDC data (I believe their methodology results in under reporting of Lyme), their own data show Lyme in every state:

https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html

[tdoczi]

While I wouldn't normally put a lot of stock in CDC data (I believe their methodology results in under reporting of Lyme), their own data show Lyme in every state:

https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html


sure, fair enough if you want to count less than 5 cases in 10 years as being seen in the state, which i guess technically it has been.

so, serious question for the cautious types- if you were to go hiking in colorado, which has reported 3 cases of lyme since 2005 and none since 2010, would you still do the head to toe clothing soaked in chemicals thing?

[FreeGoldRush]

Just wondering whether you have ticks carrying this virus that causes Meningo Enzephalitis?
This for many decades has been the bigger problem with ticks here in Europe, only recently Lyme getting more attention.

The southeast is full of ticks that carry many diseases other than Lyme. I believe there are over 300 known bacteria carried by ticks. The CDC lists 15 of them that are apparently of particular interest. Techniques for avoiding ticks should probably be used regardless of where you are on the trial (or trail, depending on your point of view).

https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/diseases/

[nsherry61]

. . . so, serious question for the cautious types- if you were to go hiking in colorado, which has reported 3 cases of lyme since 2005 and none since 2010, would you still do the head to toe clothing soaked in chemicals thing?
I probably shouldn't answer this, since I don't consider myself "the cautious type".
BUT:
Interestingly, your wording suggests that you are personally of "the caution type" when it comes to chemicals to protect one's self from outside risk while maybe being cavalier to the outside risk of tick born illness?

As for Colorado, instead of lyme disease, you get to be worried about other tick born diseases like rocky mountain spotted fever. So, to answer your questions, I would suggest that yes, I would still treat my cloths with permethrin, providing me with much lower risk of health consequences than being infected with a tick-born illness.

That all being said, permethrin treated cloths are only one tool in the toolbox. We survive for years with relatively low risk by regularly inspecting ourselves and cloths, "head to toe", to reduce risk.

In the end, I'm lazy. If treated cloths reduce the effort I put into self inspection by some amount and increase my safety at the same time, I will use permethrin when it is available and reasonably convenient. Heck, it also reduces the nuisance of mosquitoes providing one more reason to consider it a useful tool.

[tdoczi]

I probably shouldn't answer this, since I don't consider myself "the cautious type".
BUT:
Interestingly, your wording suggests that you are personally of "the caution type" when it comes to chemicals to protect one's self from outside risk while maybe being cavalier to the outside risk of tick born illness?

not at all, but its a point worth considering, dont you think?

mostly i'm fascinated by the (over) reactions people have towards various "dangers" in the world.

i should maybe try and pick a different state than colorado, but i'm sure theres some grave danger anywhere if you're of the sort to look for it.

[tdoczi]

I probably shouldn't answer this, since I don't consider myself "the cautious type".
BUT:
Interestingly, your wording suggests that you are personally of "the caution type" when it comes to chemicals to protect one's self from outside risk while maybe being cavalier to the outside risk of tick born illness?

As for Colorado, instead of lyme disease, you get to be worried about other tick born diseases like rocky mountain spotted fever. So, to answer your questions, I would suggest that yes, I would still treat my cloths with permethrin, providing me with much lower risk of health consequences than being infected with a tick-born illness.

That all being said, permethrin treated cloths are only one tool in the toolbox. We survive for years with relatively low risk by regularly inspecting ourselves and cloths, "head to toe", to reduce risk.

In the end, I'm lazy. If treated cloths reduce the effort I put into self inspection by some amount and increase my safety at the same time, I will use permethrin when it is available and reasonably convenient. Heck, it also reduces the nuisance of mosquitoes providing one more reason to consider it a useful tool.

sidenote- RMSF is actually more common in places much closer by than colorado.

https://www.cdc.gov/rmsf/stats/index.htmlx

[trailmercury]

I am a practicing family physician in Vilas county in northern Wisconsin.
Lyme Disease education and diagnosis/treatment is a significant part of my practice in the warmer months.
Based on the most recent research conducted by the University of Wisconsin, the nymphal deer tick carries the borrelia bacteria at a rate of 30-35% in our county
so basically 1/3 of the deer ticks around here are vectors for the disease.
Definitely significant to me and the patients of the community I serve.

[trailmercury]

A good number of my patients do indeed overreact though, as tdoczi is pointing out.

[double d]

still plenty of places where it basically doesn't exist-

https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html
Excellent post-with CDC data-very good information. I do know a person who got Lyme disease (hiking in Northern Wisconsin), nasty stuff-it really knocked him out for a while and this guy is in very good athletic shape. Stay safe hiking.

[double d]

I am a practicing family physician in Vilas county in northern Wisconsin.
Lyme Disease education and diagnosis/treatment is a significant part of my practice in the warmer months.
Based on the most recent research conducted by the University of Wisconsin, the nymphal deer tick carries the borrelia bacteria at a rate of 30-35% in our county
so basically 1/3 of the deer ticks around here are vectors for the disease.
Definitely significant to me and the patients of the community I serve.

Thank you for the data and information-as you of course experience this issue on a regular basis-many people spend a lot of time in the outdoors of Northern Wisconsin.

[Traveler]

sure, fair enough if you want to count less than 5 cases in 10 years as being seen in the state, which i guess technically it has been.

so, serious question for the cautious types- if you were to go hiking in colorado, which has reported 3 cases of lyme since 2005 and none since 2010, would you still do the head to toe clothing soaked in chemicals thing?

I'm not really a cautious type, but given the potential for a variety of illnesses from ticks, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever being one of a few to avoid in CO, I would probably use easily available protection from them either via Deet or clothing based repellent.

[nsherry61]

. . .mostly i'm fascinated by the (over) reactions people have towards various "dangers" in the world. . .
Point deeply appreciated.

The best part is the increased dangers people put themselves into to avoid perceived dangers that are functionally irrelevant.

Toxic chemicals to avoid low risk bugs as suggested in your earlier post,

Guns to protect ourselves from bears or other people when our own guns are more dangerous to us than the perceived dangers of bad people or animals. . . For you gun enthusiasts out there, I concede that a person that is well trained and regularly trains and manages their gun in a safe way may be an exception. However, I have met very, very, few gut toting people that have used and trained enough in relevant situations or practiced frequently enough to have carrying a gun truly be a net safety advantage instead of a disadvantage. . . and, I use guns, mostly for fun, but sure as heck don't carry them for personal protection. . . for that I wear good shoes and practice a firm, non-confrontational tongue.

What other silly things do people do that increase danger to themselves in trying to be safe?

[Traveler]

What other silly things do people do that increase danger to themselves in trying to be safe?

Driving to the trailhead.

[Lauriep]

Taking preventative measures to reduce your risk of contracting a tick-borne disease is really important.

Tick-borne diseases are certainly one of the most significant health risks on the A.T. Lyme is the most prevalent disease, but A.T. hikers have also contracted erlichiosis, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and anaplasmosis (which can be fatal if not treated), and are potentially at risk for other tick-borne diseases. Northern Virginia to southern New England have traditionally been the area with the most reports, but hikers have reported contracting Lyme in every state. Virginia especially seems to be having more cases. The area around Pearisburg seems to be a relatively new hot spot, and if you look at the CDC map linked above, you'll see there is a high concentration from around Pearisburg down toward Damascus.

The good news is there are things you can do to greatly reduce or potentially eliminate the your risk by doing the following:


Do thorough tick checks daily, and immediately after passing through prime tick territory (after walking directly through vegetation). Carry fine-point tweezers and a mirror for those hard-to see places
Avoid sitting directly on logs or leaf litter where ticks thrive (sit on a pad or tarp)
Wear permethrin-treated clothing--including socks, gaiters, hats, buffs, etc. Purchasing pre-treated clothing is the cheapest and most convenient in the long run if you are outside a lot. You can also send your clothing away to InsectShield.com -- $9.95/per piece (or for a pair of socks), and it lasts for 70 washings. Factory treated clothing may be more effective at repelling ticks--certainly in the long term. The chemical bonds more tightly to the fabric with a high-heat process at the factory. Spraying can be a hassle, especially when hiking - you need a well-ventilated area protected from wind and rain, and time for the chemical to dry.
Spray pack, boots and possibly tent. (Permethrin won't adhere to non-porous fabrics/materials)
Tuck light-colored pants into socks and light-colored shirt into pants


I'm just waiting for some very attractive or immensely popular hiker to start wearing their long pants tucked into their socks who's big on Facebook and Instagram to make these a sexy new trend. Or is there someone out there I've missed?

By the way, long-distance hikers are especially vulnerable to tick-borne disease for some of these reasons:


they are exposed for extended periods during peak Lyme season in prime areas -- weeks or months on end in the mid-Atlantic and southern New England in mid-May through July
it's challenging to do thorough tick checks in hard-to-see and hard-to-reach spots that ticks are especially fond of if you are hiking solo (as most long-distance hikers are)
hikers have infrequent access to showers and well-lit bathrooms with mirrors (showers are good for washing off unattached ticks, but won't dislodge a tick that's already attached)
hikers are often extremely tired at the end of the day, and it's easy to skip the tick check if you didn't see any ticks (but deer tick nymphs are very tiny--about the size of a speck of dirt)
some symptoms of Lyme are similar the everyday aches and pains that experience on a thru-hike
long pants (either treated and/or tucked in socks) or bug pants over shorts may not be viewed as an attractive option, especially in hot, humid weather
a long-distance hiker's immune systems may be compromised by months of extreme exertion combined with poor diet and inadequate sleep
thru-hikers become "experts" on many other aspects of gear and hiking after a couple of months of hiking through areas and times of low risk, and may feel confident they have the knowledge and gear they need. They aren't seeing ticks or hearing about tick-borne illness. The area and time of high risk creeps up on them gradually, and they may be complacent or uninformed about the risks when this happens.


I encourage everyone to view the Appalachian Trail Conservancy's website and the videos posted there at www.appalachiantrail.org/health and do additional research on websites including the CDC and Tickencounter.org.

[Mr. Bumpy]

I am a practicing family physician in Vilas county in northern Wisconsin.
Lyme Disease education and diagnosis/treatment is a significant part of my practice in the warmer months.
Based on the most recent research conducted by the University of Wisconsin, the nymphal deer tick carries the borrelia bacteria at a rate of 30-35% in our county
so basically 1/3 of the deer ticks around here are vectors for the disease.
Definitely significant to me and the patients of the community I serve.

I'm curious to know who you think gets it - what type of outdoor type, or does it matter. Is it people who consider themselves traditional outdoorsmen - hunters, fisher, loggers, family front country campers as compared to someone who considers them self a backpacker, i.e. premise being that a backpacker may put more thought or preparation into avoiding the vector?

[Dogwood]

Lyme Disease is NOT a tick only transferred bacterial disease. The bacteria associated with Lyme Disease can be carried by spiders, fleas, mites, and mosquitos.

There's much more that one can do to prevent Lyme Disease than applying insect repellents.

[Deacon]

Did the ticks get a permit? I thought they weren't allowed inside the park boundary.

With the change in the political landscape, borders will be strengthened, and the ticks will have a much harder time getting in.

[Dogwood]

R they building tick border walls sprayed with essential oils?

[Offshore]

mostly i'm fascinated by the (over) reactions people have towards various "dangers" in the world.



Like the whole "head to toe in chemicals" type of over reactions?

[Offshore]

R they building tick border walls sprayed with essential oils?

No, because there don't seem to be a lot of large-scale, peer-reviewed studies that actually show essential oils to be effective. But soak that wall in permethrin and send the bill to the ticks and make them pay - oh wait, that's stupid idea...

[Dogwood]

No, because there don't seem to be a lot of large-scale, peer-reviewed studies that actually show essential oils to be effective...

Might want to update your opinion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16041723

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25817806

http://bugofff.com/the-best-mosquito-repelling-plants-according-to-studies/

http://www.miskeptics.org/2011/06/does-catnip-essential-oil-protect-against-mosquitoes/

LOTS of studies demonstrate the effectiveness of varying essential oil or other than picardin, permethrin, or DEET alternatives.

[rafe]

Dogwood, did you read the reports you posted? This is from your first link:

"Although essential oils are exempt from registration through the EPA, they can be irritating to the skin and their repellent effect is variable, dependent on formulation and concentration. Repellents containing only essential oils in the absence of an active ingredient such as DEET should not be recommended as repellents for use in disease endemic areas, and those containing high levels of essential oils could cause skin irritation, especially in the presence of sunlight."

Doesn't sound like much of a recommendation to me...

[rocketsocks]

Homina homina homina!

[Dogwood]

Better read on.

[Offshore]

Might want to update your opinion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16041723

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25817806

http://bugofff.com/the-best-mosquito-repelling-plants-according-to-studies/

http://www.miskeptics.org/2011/06/does-catnip-essential-oil-protect-against-mosquitoes/

LOTS of studies demonstrate the effectiveness of varying essential oil or other than picardin, permethrin, or DEET alternatives.

And you may want to read some of your own links. From the first one (and the last I bothered to read):
It is commonly assumed that plant-based repellents are safer than DEET because they are natural. However, some natural repellents are safer than others, and it cannot be assumed that natural equates to safe [18 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B18)]. DEET has undergone stringent testing and has a good safety profile. An estimated 15 million people in the U.K., 78 million people in the U.S.A. [82 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B82)], and 200 million people globally use DEET each year [83 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B83)]. Provided that DEET is used safely, i.e. it is applied to the skin at the correct dose (such as that in a commercial preparation) and it is not swallowed or rubbed into the mucous membranes then it does not cause adverse effects [84 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B84)]. DEET has been used since 1946 with a tiny number of reported adverse effects, many of which had a history of excessive or inappropriate use of repellent [85 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B85),86 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B86)]. Its toxicology has been more closely scrutinized than any other repellent, and it has been deemed safe for human use [82 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B82),87 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B87)], including use on children [88 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B88)], pregnant women [89 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B89)], and lactating women [84 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B84)]. In contrast, plant-based repellents do not have this rigorously tested safety record, with most being deemed safe because they have simply been used for a long time [90 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B90)]. However, many plant-based repellents contain compounds that should be used with caution (Table ​(Table11 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/table/T1/)).
It is also commonly stated that plant based repellents are better for the environment than synthetic molecules. While plant volatiles are naturally derived, distillation requires biomass energy, extraction commonly uses organic solvents that must be disposed of carefully, growing the plants uses agrichemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides (unless sourced from a sustainable and organic source). However, if carefully practiced, cash cropping of plants used for repellents provides a vital source of income for small scale farmers in developing countries [91 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B91)] and can have beneficial environmental impact when planted in intercropping systems to prevent soil erosions [92 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B92)]. Therefore, it is important to carefully source of repellent plants to avoid pitfalls associated with unsustainable cropping practices. Another common misconception is that garlic is an effective repellent. It does have a moderate repellent effect when rubbed on the skin [93 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/#B93)], although there are far more effective repellents available that also have a more pleasing odour. The consumption of garlic however, has not been shown to be effective at repelling mosquitoes.

[Offshore]

Might want to update your opinion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059459/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16041723

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25817806

http://bugofff.com/the-best-mosquito-repelling-plants-according-to-studies/

http://www.miskeptics.org/2011/06/does-catnip-essential-oil-protect-against-mosquitoes/

LOTS of studies demonstrate the effectiveness of varying essential oil or other than picardin, permethrin, or DEET alternatives.

Don't make the mistake that just because something is natural or plant based, its safer or more effective - besides other than your first link (which does not support your thesis), the remaining links are related to mosquitos when this thread is about ticks...

[Dogwood]

You opined about studies lacking efficacy of essential oils. I gave you plenty of studies that demonstrate differently than what you stated.Not looking for a debate. It's not a thesis which is a word you seem to throw around often.

You're cherry picking out questionable essential oil opinions which I know were included in those links to demonstrate that we should look at a wider breadth of info and to correct you on that one point that studies are lacking. :)

"Don't make the mistake that just because something is natural or plant based, its safer or more effective."

Absolutely. :)

[Deacon]

Don't make the mistake that just because something is natural or plant based, its safer or more effective - besides other than your first link (which does not support your thesis), the remaining links are related to mosquitos when this thread is about ticks...

And for anyone that's actually had Lyme disease, you only go with absolutely works without going through trial and error testing. My son went on a retreat in the Maine woods unaware of ticks, and has been battling Lyme for seven months now. It is not pretty. He couldn't work for weeks, even though he is improving.

[Offshore]

And for anyone that's actually had Lyme disease, you only go with absolutely works without going through trial and error testing. My son went on a retreat in the Maine woods unaware of ticks, and has been battling Lyme for seven months now. It is not pretty. He couldn't work for weeks, even though he is improving.

That's the biggest issue that I have with the pseudoscience that pops up here (and in other places) that generally takes the form of unproven or demonstrably wrong claims like "all chemicals are bad" and "natural is better/safer/just as effective as". People are making health decisions based on bad information from sources whose qualifications cannot be verified. Whether or not the person giving the advice means well is immaterial. A lot of people take dangerously inaccurate information as truth because it fits their preconceived notion or they are unwilling or unable to do their own research. The result is that people make health decisions based on anonymous, unfounded claims on the internet - from sources who could care less if you came down with Lyme. But hikers, don't believe me or any other poster here or elsewhere. Here's a good source to start to educate yourself on ticks and Lyme courtesy of the University of Rhode Island www.tickencounter.org The site contains peer-reviewed information that is more accessible to non-scientists than NIH abstracts, making the information less likely to be misinterpreted.

[FreeGoldRush]

I use permathrin on my clothes and it works quite well. When it comes to Lyme disease there just is not good evidence that the symptoms blamed on Lyme disease are caused by Lyme disease. I've talked to Lyme disease patients who were really in bad shape. Their health problems are very real. But the only basis for their belief that Lyme disease is causing their symptoms seems to be a blood test showing they have (or had) the bacteria. Keep in mind that many people test positive for Lyme and have no symptoms. Also consider that you probably won't get a Lyme disease test at all unless you have some health issue and you are trying to attribute it to something. Given my skepticism I still cringe when waking through tall grass leaning across the trail. Those places are tick heaven.

[bosborne]

But hikers, don't believe me or any other poster here or elsewhere. Here's a good source to start to educate yourself on ticks and Lyme courtesy of the University of Rhode Island www.tickencounter.org (http://www.tickencounter.org) The site contains peer-reviewed information that is more accessible to non-scientists than NIH abstracts, making the information less likely to be misinterpreted.

I would like to add a +1 to this recommendation for tickencounter.org, from the University of Rhode Island, this looks to be one of the most balanced sources of information I've ever seen on ticks in the US. This site makes the statement "Repellents containing DEET are not sufficient to protect against tick bites", on this page: http://www.tickencounter.org/prevention/protect_yourself.

[Traveler]

I would like to add a +1 to this recommendation for tickencounter.org, from the University of Rhode Island, this looks to be one of the most balanced sources of information I've ever seen on ticks in the US. This site makes the statement "Repellents containing DEET are not sufficient to protect against tick bites", on this page: http://www.tickencounter.org/prevention/protect_yourself.

Well, sort of. The lack of a word looks like this damns DEET, when it doesn't. From the reference posted, this sentence follows the above bold print. " The best protection you can achieve is by using a repellent that contains Permethrin on your clothes and one that contains DEET for your skin."

DEET alone as a deterrent is probably what is being referred to given the content of the second sentence that recommends both. The absence of the word "alone" makes it appear the site is providing conflicting information when I doubt thats the case.

[Offshore]

Well, sort of. The lack of a word looks like this damns DEET, when it doesn't. From the reference posted, this sentence follows the above bold print. " The best protection you can achieve is by using a repellent that contains Permethrin on your clothes and one that contains DEET for your skin."

DEET alone as a deterrent is probably what is being referred to given the content of the second sentence that recommends both. The absence of the word "alone" makes it appear the site is providing conflicting information when I doubt thats the case.

+1 on that interpretation. Essentially, your permethrin-treated clothing should be a first line of defense. DEET applied to your skin is not sufficient as a primary defense, but has value as a secondary defense.

[Dogwood]

That's the biggest issue that I have with the pseudoscience that pops up here (and in other places) that generally takes the form of unproven or demonstrably wrong claims like "all chemicals are bad" and "natural is better/safer/just as effective as". People are making health decisions based on bad information from sources whose qualifications cannot be verified. Whether or not the person giving the advice means well is immaterial. A lot of people take dangerously inaccurate information as truth because it fits their preconceived notion or they are unwilling or unable to do their own research. The result is that people make health decisions based on anonymous, unfounded claims on the internet - from sources who could care less if you came down with Lyme. But hikers, don't believe me or any other poster here or elsewhere. Here's a good source to start to educate yourself on ticks and Lyme courtesy of the University of Rhode Island www.tickencounter.org (http://www.tickencounter.org) The site contains peer-reviewed information that is more accessible to non-scientists than NIH abstracts, making the information less likely to be misinterpreted.


Absolutely, that does occur. However, I hope you aren't applying your opinions to me simply because you disagree with the efficacy of essential oil opinion you incorrectly stated or that the NCBI, U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health is some crackpot pseudo scientific buy this product outlet. There're REAL scientific based studies and FAIR conclusions offered at NCBI that research a broad range of studies! You would know that IF you had been willing to be open to learning something beyond tightly held incorrect opinions.

[Offshore]

Absolutely, that does occur. However, I hope you aren't applying your opinions to me simply because you disagree with the efficacy of essential oil opinion you incorrectly stated or that the NCBI, U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health is some crackpot pseudo scientific buy this product outlet. There're REAL scientific based studies and FAIR conclusions offered at NCBI that research a broad range of studies! You would know that IF you had been willing to be open to learning something beyond tightly held incorrect opinions.

Yes, I am applying this to your post in the sense that the majority of links that you provided to support your claims are related to mosquitos - when the subject of the thread and insect of concern is the black legged tick. Further, I never stated that NCBI, NLM, or NIH were crackpot pseudo science. Their articles that you referred to are not applicable to ticks despite your attempts to misrepresent them as so. As far as not being open to learning, that's simply not true. Explain to me though what exactly is to be learned about effectiveness of essential oils against Lyme disease carrying ticks from studies (no matter who conducted them) of mosquitos. As far as tick safety is concerned, the majority of your post's information is useless - and if someone read your post without looking at the links and realizing it was unrelated to ticks, potentially dangerous. I'd be happy to read anything that is both from a reputable source and applicable to the topic of ticks. I can't comment on your qualification to make health-related recommendations, but you're not off to a great start.

[Dogwood]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23528036
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22129397
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/prev/natural-repellents.html

In the last CDC link, although the Center for Disease Control states the EPA has not studied the efficacy of essential oil( peppermint, thyme, eucalyptus, garlic, etc.) as TICK REGISTERED repellents and tick killing agents the GOV'T CDC site clearly states: Natural Compound-based Products that Repel or Kill Ticks
and then lists those natural compounds with essential oils being one possible solution.

If you had explored the original links in the right side margins and supporting cited documentation you would have been exposed to this information about 'natural' compounds - essential oils - relating to biting vectors including ticks...:-?

You're not off to a very good start learning something different than entrenched beliefs demonstrating an unwillingness to research beyond cherry picked negative excerpts that only support current paradigms are you?

With a an obvious lack of effort to expand beyond current intellectual entrenched norms yes the unknown and unexplored information would seem useless.

...Any affiliation with retailing of insecticides or insect repellents? Are you involved in the manufacturing or promotion of industrial scale chemicals or in the chemical industry?

[trailmercury]

Thank you for the data and information-as you of course experience this issue on a regular basis-many people spend a lot of time in the outdoors of Northern Wisconsin.

You are welcome.

[trailmercury]

I'm curious to know who you think gets it - what type of outdoor type, or does it matter. Is it people who consider themselves traditional outdoorsmen - hunters, fisher, loggers, family front country campers as compared to someone who considers them self a backpacker, i.e. premise being that a backpacker may put more thought or preparation into avoiding the vector?
There is no "typical" Lyme patient in Lyme country.
All of those types that you mention have had it...Obviously the more one is in the out of doors in tick season, the higher the risk, but precautions are the key...There are a lot of loggers here and they tend to be tough macho guys who don't use bug spray, sunscreen etc. I don't know for sure if that demographic gets the disease proportionally more...
Dogs can bring the ticks into the house and then the tick can crawl off and end up taking a blood meal on a human who rarely even leaves their house!

[shelb]

Ugh! That sucks!

However, I really thank you for providing that info.... I normally do not ever wear protection for ticks...

[Offshore]

...Any affiliation with retailing of insecticides or insect repellents? Are you involved in the manufacturing or promotion of industrial scale chemicals or in the chemical industry?

No, I actually work in environmental science and risk assessment for over 30 years (on the white hat side). I'm always willing to look at new alternatives if there is a body of research from peer-reviewed reputable sources - but for essential oils and ticks, its just not there. You're also making the mistake of assuming that anything plant based or natural is safe and is better than a synthetic version. So, I'll continue to treat my clothing with permethrin and you can use essential oils. If you decide to use essential oils despite the lack of evidence of efficacy, be sure and ask the manufacturer what type of QC is used to verify the purity of the oil - if any.

[Engine]

No, I actually work in environmental science and risk assessment for over 30 years (on the white hat side). I'm always willing to look at new alternatives if there is a body of research from peer-reviewed reputable sources - but for essential oils and ticks, its just not there. You're also making the mistake of assuming that anything plant based or natural is safe and is better than a synthetic version. So, I'll continue to treat my clothing with permethrin and you can use essential oils. If you decide to use essential oils despite the lack of evidence of efficacy, be sure and ask the manufacturer what type of QC is used to verify the purity of the oil - if any.

This afternoon Fed Ex is scheduled to deliver our clothing which was sent of to Insect Shield for treament last week. Two pair of socks, pants, shorts, and a couple of shirts for two hikers came to a total of $111.00. Cheap insurance against Lyme...

[ScareBear]

Dogwood is caught up in his "all-natural and it will all be better dogma". Nothing new...

[Dogwood]

... I'm always willing to look at new alternatives if there is a body of research from peer-reviewed reputable sources - but for essential oils and ticks, its just not there. You're also making the mistake of assuming that anything plant based or natural is safe and is better than a synthetic version. So, I'll continue to treat my clothing with permethrin and you can use essential oils. If you decide to use essential oils despite the lack of evidence of efficacy, be sure and ask the manufacturer what type of QC is used to verify the purity of the oil - if any.


Dogwood is caught up in his "all-natural and it will all be better dogma". Nothing new...

I can't make someone understand who isn't willing to make the effort to understand despite succinctly stating obvious exactly opposite to what you both incorrectly are stating here.

I previously stated, "Don't make the mistake that just because something is natural or plant based, its safer or more effective."

Absolutely. :)

From this example, your tendencies to ignore or delete information to support only pre existing beliefs are obvious so neither of you have been willing to look at alternatives as you state Offshore or imply ScareBear.

[FreeGoldRush]

It is reasonable to simply do your own testing. I've been in the woods enough and had enough ticks on me to confirm that permethrin is FAR better than nothing. Dogwood likely has the same exerperience with his essential oils. Just pick your favorite poison and check your clothing often during the day for ticks.

The best defense is to simply not allow vegetation to brush against you. I am always telling my wife and son to step where the grass isn't brushing up against them. It also seems that ticks can be very dense in some areas and not in others. Sometimes you can walk through tall grass that cannot be avoided and immediately find five ticks crawling on your clothing. Other times you can do the same and not find any ticks. If you do walk through grass and are not taking a moment to check your shoes and legs for ticks right away, then you may be surprised at what turns up. You may look a bit like you are paranoid of bugs, but it is invaluable at keeping ticks from attaching to you. We never sit and rest in grassy areas either, which is something you see hikers doing. Ouch.

[-Rush-]

Did the ticks get a permit? I thought they weren't allowed inside the park boundary.

Everyone knows they stealth camp.