Re: Does the tick have to be on you for 24 hours to infect?

[Guest guest]

There have been case reports where ticks have been attached for less than 2 hours, with a resulting EM rash occurring. The studies are difficult to interpret, as all the studies have been done on mice and rats; while in real life we have to deal with humans. It is also difficult to determine when the tick became attached, and it would be unethical to deliberately allow tick attachment in a human study, There is some evidence that several hours are needed before transmission of infection; but there is also evidence that the infection can be transmitted much faster than expected. I would not count on having 24 hours to get a tick off me when I am trying to prevent infection. Anne Mears, RN, MSN/IHmcfighter@... From: BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism [mailto:BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism ] On Behalf Of ConstantikesSent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:52 PMTo: Lyme and autism; Lyme AidSubject: Does the tick have to be on you for 24 hours to infect? I'm sorry if this a question that has been asked a million times, but I've heard that if you get a tick off within 24 hours of being bitten then you cannot get Lyme -- or that the risk is substantially decreased? Is this true? I have a feeling that it's false, but I'm not sure. Thanks,

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Anne. I appreciate that information. Subject: RE: Does the tick have to be on you for 24 hours to infect?To: BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 12:58 AM

There have been case reports where ticks have been attached for less than 2 hours, with a resulting EM rash occurring. The studies are difficult to interpret, as all the studies have been done on mice and rats; while in real life we have to deal with humans. It is also difficult to determine when the tick became attached, and it would be unethical to deliberately allow tick attachment in a human study, There is some evidence that several hours are needed before transmission of infection; but there is also evidence that the infection can be transmitted much faster than expected. I would not count on having 24 hours to get a tick off me when I am trying to prevent infection.

Anne Mears, RN, MSN/IHmcfighter@... From: BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism [mailto:BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism ] On Behalf Of ConstantikesSent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:52 PMTo: Lyme and autism; Lyme AidSubject: Does the tick have to be on you for 24 hours to infect?

I'm sorry if this a question that has been asked a million times, but I've heard that if you get a tick off within 24 hours of being bitten then you cannot get Lyme -- or that the risk is substantially decreased? Is this true? I have a feeling that it's false, but I'm not sure. Thanks,

[Guest guest]

I had 3 ticks in one day last month.One was attached for maybe an

hr. ,the other 2 didn't attach.I didn't see any nimphs, but there

could have been ones I missed.I live on the outskirts of a town in

Kansas.I walked to the middle of my 3 acres,and back one time to get

a piece of trash.I got sick 2-3 days later.My moms husband got sick

with Lyme that same day.He had a rash,but not in the location of any

known tick bite.He never found a tick.They live in the middle of my

same town.I am thankful I knew what to TELL the primary care it was :-) :-) .

I didn't have a rash.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE LYME IN KANSAS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Angry about the denial, Tammy F.

There have

been case reports where ticks have been attached for

less than 2 hours, with a resulting EM rash

occurring. The studies are difficult to interpret, as

all the studies have been done on mice and rats; while

in real life we have to deal with humans. It is also

difficult to determine when the tick became attached,

and it would be unethical to deliberately allow tick

attachment in a human study, There is some evidence

that several hours are needed before transmission of

infection; but there is also evidence that the

infection can be transmitted much faster than

expected. I would not count on having 24 hours to get

a tick off me when I am trying to prevent infection.

Anne Mears,

RN, MSN/IH

mcfighter@...

From:

BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism

[mailto:BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism ]

On Behalf Of Constantikes

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:52 PM

To: Lyme and autism; Lyme Aid

Subject:

Does the

tick have to be on you for 24 hours to infect?

I'm sorry if this a

question that has been asked a million

times, but I've heard that if you get a

tick off within 24 hours of being bitten

then you cannot get Lyme -- or that the

risk is substantially decreased? Is this

true? I have a feeling that it's false,

but I'm not sure.

Thanks,

[Guest guest]

very True, Tick does NOT have to be attached for 24 hrs to transmit infection,

Have living proof of this!

>

> There have been case reports where ticks have been attached for less than 2

> hours, with a resulting EM rash occurring. The studies are difficult to

> interpret, as all the studies have been done on mice and rats; while in real

> life we have to deal with humans. It is also difficult to determine when

> the tick became attached, and it would be unethical to deliberately allow

> tick attachment in a human study, There is some evidence that several hours

> are needed before transmission of infection; but there is also evidence that

> the infection can be transmitted much faster than expected. I would not

> count on having 24 hours to get a tick off me when I am trying to prevent

> infection.

>

>

>

> Anne Mears, RN, MSN/IH

>

> mcfighter@...

>

>

>

> From: BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism

> [mailto:BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism ] On Behalf Of

> Constantikes

> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:52 PM

> To: Lyme and autism; Lyme Aid

> Subject: Does the tick have to be on

> you for 24 hours to infect?

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I'm sorry if this a question that has been asked a million times, but I've

> heard that if you get a tick off within 24 hours of being bitten then you

> cannot get Lyme -- or that the risk is substantially decreased? Is this

> true? I have a feeling that it's false, but I'm not sure.

>

> Thanks,

>

>