6 ms·

At-home test for infected ticks could improve Lyme Disease diagnosis

• dofm 2mo ago
  Wow, this seems a pretty big deal. Here in the UK, Lyme traditionally been a marginal problem (tick bites aren't) but we now have such rapid climate change, along with rapidly increasing wild deer and boar populations, that some areas in the UK are becoming risk zones on more or less the same level of risk as some US regions. Alas the difference here is that education has not caught up to the USA: very few people have any grasp of the risk of Lyme because the high risk zones are, by and large, not well known, and they don't always correlate that well with the basic risk of acquiring a tick. I think most specialists in the UK think this is likely to lead to a pretty big increase to infections before people learn, so maybe this sort of tool will help offset that. I walk a lot in an area with some wild deer and boar, and I would love to have one of these in my cupboard as a precaution. Would be great to see them in supermarkets in high risk areas, too.
  • CGMthrowaway 2mo ago
    [flagged]
  • afavour 2mo ago
    I have a friend who got a tick bite on holiday in America many years ago. Turns out they got Lyme disease but no doctors in the UK were experienced with it so they dealt with years of misdiagnosis. I really hope any education effort can get out ahead of that.
    • dofm 2mo ago
      Yeah. I think we simply did not see it enough and to be honest far too few doctors ask the "have you travelled" question about unusual disease. It is better now, but I think the "could it be?" thought doesn't occur because the incidence has been low. There is a more severe risk around rabies. We basically do not have it in the UK or Ireland; it has been eliminated for over a century except a tiny incidence of a virus in the same family in bats. But because we have essentially eradicated it, doctors do not often think to ask about it, even in people who have travelled, which led to someone suffering awfully last year. And since a dog bite or even a fox bite in the UK or Ireland carries literally zero risk of rabies, those who are bitten or scratched while travelling abroad do not have it uppermost in their mind.
      • rnvannatta 2mo ago
        The 'have you traveled' question is much less useful with Lyme disease, because it takes potentially years to kick in. It's still important to ask, but it's not going to be surefire for Lyme disease.
    • deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    • KellyCriterion 2mo ago
      Thats interesting, since there is a lot of research around face palsy & recovery in UK.
      • _puk 2mo ago
        Yep. About 20 years ago my gran got to the facial palsy stage of Lyme's before it was even considered and diagnosed by a visiting locum doctor who'd grown up in another country. Antibiotics were given, her face recovered (albeit slowly). It's a horrendous disease.
        • KellyCriterion 2mo ago
          May I ask: Did the muscles on the side of the face with the affection also restore or does she have an muscle-atrophy until today on that side?
          • _puk 2mo ago
            The muscles came back over time. She had a droopy face that side for probably a year. But eventually you couldn't notice
    • throw93949990 2mo ago
      Publicly founded health systems are terrible whe. dealing with Lyme disease. It is impossible to simply and clearly diagnose, and separate ill people from "simulants". Something like "back pain" ormother chronic illnesses.
      • dofm 2mo ago
        Nothing really to do with public healthcare. It is literally that there is almost no medical or social experience in the UK of actually seeing developed Lyme disease up close, because it has historically been so unusual, so there are no protocols. A few thousand cases every year now, when the first indigenous case ever properly recorded in the UK was only in 1986, and it's not like in the USA where really wide areas are high risk. Some of the pockets of highest risk Lyme in the UK are no more than a few miles across. Nurse stations and pharmacy clinics are great at properly removing ticks if you know you have been bitten, and from there you will now get good advice about Lyme. But a system that has no endemic experience of Lyme is just not going to test for it. Because it's remote, and people are usually unaware they have been in risk areas, and often unaware they've even been bitten.
        • nephihaha 2mo ago
          1986 is forty years ago. We have Lymes disease in Scotland (I know someone who has it), and a large deer population which has not been properly controlled with substantial remote areas. (Much smaller than the USA but big enough to be reservoirs for the disease.)
          • dofm 2mo ago
            > 1986 is forty years ago. Epidemiologically recent (and also dofm-recent because I'm old). But the graphs typically show that Scotland ballooned in the last twenty years, from below a hundred a year into the thousands. Apparently in the UK it is now mostly stable, so it is endemic in deer. Much more common in middle-aged people who are I guess more likely to walk the dog and be keen active gardeners.
  • CalRobert 2mo ago
    Certainly had to convince my gp a few years ago that indeed there is Lyme in Ireland
    • nephihaha 2mo ago
      It certainly exists in Scotland. Wouldn't surprise me if it got there.
  • throw93949990 2mo ago
    Maybe it is a raise of dog ownership in UK as well. They bring ticks inside houee, and shed it in public parks. Our dog used to have like 50 ticks everytime it returned from run.
    • dofm 2mo ago
      People are more aware of ticks because of dog ownership, I think, but I don't know if this is a real risk because of the widespread use of tick repellent treatments for dogs (which are their own little eco-disaster). COVID lockdowns changed us and we're a bit more outdoorsy. But mostly it is the deer population. There are now four times as many wild deer in the UK as there were before the first indigenous case of Lyme was detected. From under half a million to well over two million over that timeframe. In the south east around where I am, wild boar are now a potentially significant vector in the high risk areas, too — we've gone from literally zero to a couple of thousand wild boar in the same forty-year period of time just in the 20 miles around me. They apparently can carry upwards of a hundred without suffering.
      • dd8601fn 2mo ago
        > (which are their own little eco-disaster). I'm worried that I don't want to know the answer to this, but why? I use one of the common types on my dogs and that stuff is crazy effective on ticks.
  • dyauspitr 2mo ago
    It started around Connecticut in the 70s and has been spreading out radially since then. I believe it’s still not a huge problem in the western United States (there are other tick borne diseases there however). Soon it will spread across the world and tick bites will be serious business everywhere.
    • CGMthrowaway 2mo ago
      Correct. The outbreak was first recognized in 1975 in Old Lyme, Connecticut, directly across the Long Island Sound from the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (a lab which had been doing explicitly offensive biological weapons research until at least 1969), which led to an unverified theory about an escaped bioweapon. Genetic studies and museum tick specimens prove the bacteria existed in North America for thousands of years before the lab was built. Whether there was gain of function done on it is not publicly verified.
      • jtfrench 2mo ago
        I live near Plum Island. Just look at the Google Map reviews to get an idea of the sentiment. Camp Hero, Plum Island…lotta material for Netflix series coming out of Long Island.
  • balderdash 2mo ago
    One thing pointing out is that deer aren’t really the disease reservoir for Lyme disease (it’s primarily mice) - but deer are key for tick population growth.
    • deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
  • bhk 2mo ago
    Ah, yes, climate change, which also explains how Lyme disease, first diagnosed in the US in the northern midwest and northeast, later spread southward. I'm sure it works in mysterious ways in your neighborhood as well.
  • nephihaha 2mo ago
    Ticks are much more common in Scotland thanks to deer population and high rainfall. Ticks prefer damp conditions to drought conditions, so this last summer wouldn't have been good for them. The damp makes it easier to survive while they are waiting for passing hosts. They also like long grass and overgrown areas. England in comparison is much more built up. We do have Lyme disease here unfortunately. I know someone who has it.
    • dofm 2mo ago
      Yeah — you definitely get more ticks! I think everyone I know who lives in the Highlands or walks in it has been bitten, and that is one of the Lyme risk zones. But weirdly almost all of the peak risk areas for Lyme (and the encephalitis disease) are in the south. This would suggest risk is about deer population density rather than absolute numbers. So for example the New Forest, Thetford Forest and Exmoor have higher density populations of smaller deer like muntjac and sika. It appears obviously worse in smaller protected forests that have large deer populations. The risk in Thetford Forest is really high.
      • nephihaha 2mo ago
        I can understand Thetford. There are masses of those small Chinese water deer in East Anglia. I saw quite a few about and as roadkill. No one really seems to hunt them so they would be an ideal vector.
• jensensbutton 2mo ago
  As a parent in the US northeast who likes taking their kids camping and hiking, ticks have been an ongoing conversation this year. I think this is going to sell well.
  • beej71 2mo ago
    When I think about moving to the NE from out west, ticks are one of my main reservations. I think, given how many people and dogs recreate out there, I might have it blown out of proportion.
    • SyneRyder 2mo ago
      Not necessarily out of proportion, the Lyme numbers have really spiked there in recent years if you check the official stats. I'd written a longer reply about my time last year in upstate NY, but what I wrote was "tinted"... so the shorter version: within just a 2 month stay I did find infected ticks on me (submitted to testing - I was happy with nyticks.org). Everytime the cat came into the house, first step was always to get out the tick mitt and brush off the ticks from the cat. And it felt weird how Lyme was normalised there, almost like a phase of life it's assumed you go through, having to take months off work due to crippling pain and paralysis until the meds work. Coming from Australia, none of this felt "normal". That said: it's a truly beautiful place. Outdoor recreation seems to be "what you do" out there... but when it's that beautiful, it'd be a shame not to take advantage of it. Even though I'm not much of a nature person or a hiker.
      • pimeys 2mo ago
        Not only Lyme... In the seaside Finland the tick-borne encephalitis cases are going up. And that's no joke either, but at least you get a vaccine for that... if you remember to take it three times before the ticks wake up in springtime.
    • miek 2mo ago
      I live in the NE and just picked up Lyme for the second time in 3 years. My child and several friends have had it in the past few years. The problem is that some tick species are unbelievably small and easy to miss. With winters not being as cold, they don't die off as much as they traditionally would. I'd hate to move, but if we keep getting infected, it's not out of the question.
• monster_truck 2mo ago
  Sign me up. Used to be a big Event Of The Year when my grandpa found one after spending all day out in their 'garden' (a few acres bordering deep woods). I remember being maybe 11 when he found one, let me try and figure out how to crush it, I couldn't. He showed me how to use the butt of a butterknife and leverage to get the fuckers I don't live anywhere near a proper forest and we've had several close calls this year, I caught one crawling across my scalp when I was getting into bed last month. Went and got tested just to be safe I know feeding crows is really fun, but please don't. It's very important that they get hungry enough to eat mice sometimes. Same goes for deer, the past couple of years I've had them walk _towards_ me and my dog instead of bolting, presumably because someone is feeding them (by hand, not garden raiding)
  • codingdave 2mo ago
    Getting a tick is no big event. It is just something that happens if you live near woods. I own a forest, and get ticks on occasion. Gross, but no big deal. Grab a tick-pulling tool and gently coax them out. Don't crush them or force them out with a blunt object, you are just as likely to tear their head off and leave it stuck in you, which just makes it more likely for you to get sick. Just remove them before 24 hours, and it is highly unlikely they'll give you a disease. Ticks also get attached to humans in tall grass and forest edges, not from the trees. Walking through open fields is a more likely way to get a tick than walking through the woods, because that is where the deer sleep. They bed down in tall grass, and the ticks come along for the ride. So be wary of the grass, not the woods. As a matter of fact, the best thing you can do to keep ticks away from your home if you live out in the country is to keep 8-10 feet of grass cut really short at the perimeter of your property or wherever it meets the woods. Young deer often walk towards people, too. They aren't born afraid of humans, and have natural instincts to freeze, not flee. So when their mama hides them, it is just as likely to be near humans, not in the woods with the coyotes. They'll learn the fear soon enough (definitely during hunting season), but until then they certainly have youthful curiosity. Even so, "sign me up" is still a good answer. Home testing sounds great.
    • dermacentor 2mo ago
• hedora 2mo ago
  Why can't the government or a generic drug manufacturer just produce the Lyme Disease vaccine? It is safe and the patent has expired! (Also, I have the same question about the poison ivy immunotherapy pills that were common in the US before the FDA.)
  • lokar 2mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination
    • vintermann 2mo ago
      All those people who claimed to get autoimmune problems after the vaccine, must have been people who went to quite a bit of trouble to get the vaccine in the first place, so I'm not so sure it can all be written off as health panic.
      • lokar 2mo ago
        A problem with vaccines and the public is that when you perform any intervention on many many people, some will happen to (randomly) suffer some issue. To them, it is obviously causation, regardless of what the math (that they do t understand) says.
        • pbhjpbhj 2mo ago
          A further problem is that vaccines generally aren't perfect, some people do get sick. Some people may even die. It's a population-based approach. They save far-far more people. Unfortunately vaccine-denialists will say 'ah this person died from getting a vaccine, we shouldn't vaccinate anyone'. Even if the vaccine saves millions of lives.
          • vintermann 2mo ago
            People who volunteer for a new vaccine can't exactly be called vaccine denialists. I guess the prospect of a Lyme vaccine would appeal a little more to hypochondriacs, but isn't it also possible that this vaccine sometimes triggered whatever autoimmune issues which Lyme possibly triggers? I don't want to dismiss everyone who claims long-term effects after a Lyme infection.
• mainmailman 2mo ago
  Another step towards a vaccine, I hope.
  • fuckyah 2mo ago
    [dead]
• fuckyah 2mo ago
  [dead]
• aliljet 2mo ago
  Does diagnosis offer a better prognosis for those that are infected?
  • maxerickson 2mo ago
    Yes, it's treatable with antibiotics and people that are treated get less sick. As stated in the article, prophylactic treatment with Doxycycline is the standard of care. Testing the tick is an alternative to that rather than something that should be expected to increase treatment... The article also mentions that symptoms sometimes persist after treatment with antibiotics.
    • dofm 2mo ago
      It also has the broader public health benefit of reducing the preventative use of that class of antibiotics, which lowers the risk of antibiotic resistance generally. (In an ideal world we'd never use them preventatively.) Could be a very big deal if it could be made properly inexpensive. COVID tests were, after all.
  • dofm 2mo ago
    Absolutely yes, because the most severe risks are associated with the bacteria reaching the heart and into the nervous system, which is a relatively slow process. There's a window of a couple of weeks. If you could know as soon as you were bitten whether there was any risk of infection at all, that would be very valuable information. I think it's only a one in ten chance that an infected tick would transmit the infection, anyway. But you would know whether you needed to even book an appointment.
    • bethekidyouwant 2mo ago
      As long as you’re not getting bitten by a tick more than once a year if you do get bitten every time take the high dose antibiotic seems simple enough that’s what we do here at at least
      • 2mo ago
• acheron 2mo ago
  Great. Let's get working on preventing/curing alpha-gal allergy though. Or actually let's just eradicate all ticks.
  • itintheory 2mo ago
    I developed alpha-gal allergy. I've gotten many tick bites over the years, though none from 'lone star' tick afaik. I don't eat meat normally, so it was only a rare chance occasion when I ate something that triggered an allergic reaction: hives all over, tightness in the throat. It wasn't full anaphylaxis though, fortunately. After some research I thought it might be this allergy, but it wasn't until ~12 years later and an encounter with some pork dumplings which led to a similar reaction that I became convinced and got the blood test.
    • rnvannatta 2mo ago
      To get alpha-gal allergy you need to get bitten by the lone star tick. It's caused by the alpha-gal in the tick's saliva. Even a nymph can do it though.
  • jtfrench 2mo ago
    I’m in.
• vaylian 2mo ago
  The most interesting part: > After carefully removing the tick with either tweezers or a tick-removal tool, you place it into the kit’s “Tick Crusher.” The grinder pulverizes the tick’s chitinous exterior, exposing the internal contents where the Borrelia burgdorferi is located
• lima 2mo ago
  Unfortunately, there are major issues with this approach. The vendor claims "lab-level accuracy" (conveniently omitting the actual accuracy numbers), but the test is a lateral flow test, which means its Limit of Detection is going to be orders of magnitude worse than molecular tests. Tick tests do not require FDA clearance, so their claims are most likely unreviewed. Existing lab tests for ticks are almost universally based on PCR. Ticks are small (especially nymphs) and extracting enough material can be tricky even for molecular testing, so I can't imagine an LFT test working terribly well, especially for nymphs, which are responsible for a lot of Lyme infections due to being easy to miss. The other, bigger problem is that the test result is mostly useless. The risk of Lyme transmission from an infected tick ranges rougly from <1% for a fresh bite (<24h) to ~10-25% once the tick is engorged (72h+). A positive tick test result would be insufficiently predictive of Lyme disease transmission on its own to justify taking antibiotics in most cases in the absence of other symptoms. And you can't trust negative results either due to limited sensitivity, so you can't rule out transmission either. In my opinion, tests like this can lead to worse overall health outcomes due to unnecessary treatment or withholding prophylaxis from someone who otherwise qualifies.
  • layla5alive 2mo ago
    The standard isn't to avoid antibiotics until symptoms occur. The standard for a sufficiently attached deer tick in a high risk area is PEP: Lyme post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a single dose of doxycycline (200 mg for adults, or weight-adjusted for children) taken within 72 hours of removing a high-risk blacklegged tick bite to prevent Lyme disease.
    • lima 2mo ago
      CDC recommends prophylaxis only if the tick is engorged. In my country, guidelines do not recommend prophylaxis at all (for better or worse - personally, I would take a single doxycyclin dose for a >24h high-risk tick bite, Lyme is no joke). However, guidelines universally recommend against testing ticks. For instance, IDSA says this: > Knowing tick characteristics (ie, species, life stage, and an assessment of the degree of blood engorgement) is helpful for anticipatory guidance and in determining if antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent Lyme disease is appropriate [127]. Tick identification is available in most commercial laboratories and at some local health departments. Studies from the United States and Europe have shown that detecting B. burgdorferi sensu lato in Ixodes spp. ticks, however, poorly predicts either subsequent disease (0–12.4%) [126, 128–133] or asymptomatic seroconversion (0–4.7%) [126, 129, 130, 132, 134]. This is likely due to a variety of factors that influence the likelihood of transmission and the observation that most Ixodes spp. ticks discovered by patients have been attached for <48 hours [61, 62, 135]. (https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/lyme-disease/ https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/lyme-disease/) The point is that the test is likely not useful to reliably inform any sort of prophylactic treatment, especially if the risk of transmission is high enough to warrant prophylactic treatment in the first place, in which case the PEP is indicated regardless of the tick test. Sure, it modifies the prior probabilities, but what's the clinical significance of that?
• WarmWash 2mo ago
  This is great (if it's accurate) but the real gem would be a vaccine, which is apparently also coming out soon.
  • SoftTalker 2mo ago
    There was a vaccine over 20 years ago. It was discontinued due to low demand. https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/about/lyme-disease-vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/about/lyme-disease-vaccine.html Looks like there are clinical trials of a new vaccine, maybe demand will be higher this time around. The link also mentions a PrEP-type of treatment, which would be given seasonally. My bet is on that one, big pharma loves nothing more than a treatment that isn't quite a cure, but requires constant maintenance.
• jambalaya8 2mo ago
  I saw a commercial for this. I am not sure it makes much sense unless you literally are 100% sure that was the only tick. And it is like I think $40 or $50 a test. I am sure the women I saw discussing the satisfaction they got enjoyed crushing up those little bad guys, and maybe some placebo-like relief, but the truth of the matter is the only really reliable tests for Lyme Disease are blood tests.
• PLMUV9A4UP27D 2mo ago
  I live in Finland, and if I would be following this advice; > "If you have an embedded tick where there’s a chance of infection, then go to your doctor and get a dose of antibiotics as a prophylactic, just to be on the safe side." ...I would be eating antibiotics 5 months per year each year of my life. I've had 13 ticks this summer, and it's the least I've ever had in a summer ever I think. I sometimes go over a 100 on a summer. But I've just had Lyme's disease once confirmed, but before that I had anti-bodies (which I got to know through a research project i participated in). There's a lot of research on ticks going on in Finland, and I participate in two citizen science projects* this summer; for one I collect the ticks and send them to the researchers, the other project I just post observations. I quickly realized it was a hassel to submit to both projects every time I found a tick on me or the cats. So I used Claude Code to build my own self-hosted app that stores my profile, location etc and submits my findings to both of the projects. Simple and nice litte project. I have a thought of publishing the app in some form, but haven't thought about it much. *https://www.punkkilive.fi/en https://www.punkkilive.fi/en and https://punkkipankki.fi https://punkkipankki.fi
• p0w3n3d 2mo ago
  According to evidence based medicine, infected tick's bite is not equal to infection of the patient. It means that the test can be false positive and based solely on it, people would start exhausting treatment for nothing
  • murderfs 2mo ago
    The "exhausting treatment" is a single pill, once.
    • p0w3n3d 2mo ago
      for lyme disease? Can you share which? I believe in my country this is treated differently...
      • murderfs 2mo ago
        The prophylactic treatment for potential exposure to Lyme is a single dose of doxycycline within 72 hours of being bitten: https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/resources/pdfs/lyme-pep-low-ink-p.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/resources/pdfs/lyme-pep-low-ink-p.p... If you catch it early before it takes hold, the treatment is almost inconsequential. If you delay, it's up to a 4 week course of antibiotics.
        • p0w3n3d 2mo ago
          Thanks! That's quite important information worth saving
• deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
• ElijahLynn 2mo ago
  Buried way way down: LymeAlert, which will sell for about $50, is designed to detect the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, the pathogen known to cause Lyme disease, in a tick. The test kit, which remains effective for up to 12 months, is simple to use. After carefully removing the tick with either tweezers or a tick-removal tool, you place it into the kit’s “Tick Crusher.” The grinder pulverizes the tick’s chitinous exterior, exposing the internal contents where the Borrelia burgdorferi is located. A patent-pending buffer solution readies the sample for testing. The user then inserts a test strip into a slot in the grinder. The strip’s chemically treated nitrocellulose paper functions as an immunochromatographic assay that can detect the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi.
• threetwigs 2mo ago
  [dead]
• algoth1 2mo ago
  There are MANY facebook groups filled with people fully convinced that they have Lyme disease. These groups teach that virtually any and every symptom is caused by the infection and that basically everyone has it. As if this wasn’t insane enough, the people in the group will push each other to go on antibiotics - via so called lyme literate doctors - until they are on the verge of death due to the side effects. Worse: if a lab test is negative they say you should treat by symptom (referring people back to the massive list of virtually every known symptom as proof that they have lyme). It gets worse: even if you get really bad reactions to the treatment, they say you are having a herxheimer reaction and to keep pushing. It gets worse: having followed many of those groups for years, it’s rare that anyone actually gets better from whatever symptom they were having that led them down the self destructive path of lyme self-diagnosis. Well, it actually is a bit worse: even if by some chance you did had a positive lyme test, and if by chance you did got years worth of antibiotics, SOT treatments, etc etc etc… and now you have finally a clean test- well actually it’s bartonella, or parasites, or babesia, or EBV or whatever … so you must carry on. And, it’s not that these people are idiots, it’s just that they fall into a very specific category: 1) have real symptoms, 2) have no real answers from medicine, 3) have internet access, 4) have no notion, not even a tiny spec, of the existence of a concept called falsifiability. So when i read that there’s a new at home test for lyme… on tics(!) i can only imagine the massive amount of suffering this will cause on these poor people… and i imagine many if them will put their blood on the test and come up with all kinds of ways to use this to find yet another proof that they have it
  • ryandrake 2mo ago
    We are quickly entering a medical dark age due to the conspiracy theorists, “Do Your Own Research-ers,” YouTube influencers, and other kinds of Internet-borne DIY self diagnosis.
    • bad_username 2mo ago
      What didn't help was the response to the pandemic by governments and the scientific establishment, that supplied an unfortunate and pretty devastating blow to public trust in these institutions.
• giardini 2mo ago
  Why test ticks for Lyme Disease? Make a cheap, accurate test for Lyme disease in humans! Jeez! Chasing ticks, c'mon, really, my f*ing intelligence is insulted by the suggestion.
  • stevage 2mo ago
    I think so that you can take antibiotics early and prevent actually getting Lyme disease.
    • giardini 2mo ago
      But honestly what are the odds that you would find and successfuly test the very tick that infects you with Lyme disease? Gotta be pretty slim!
      • stevage 2mo ago
        If there are areas where the chance of getting Lyme per bite is 10% then...about that?
  • balderdash 2mo ago
    Yeah - I just want to know early that I need to start treatment not “I might be infected”
  • rnvannatta 2mo ago
    In order to be at risk for Lyme disease the tick has to have fed on you for a couple days, in which case its plump and more noticeable. If a tick has feasted on you for a few days, it's a singular pill of doxycycline at this stage to not get ill. Similar to rabies, Lyme disease itself slowly disseminates through the flesh over months, by the time it's spread you are very sick.
• susiecambria 2mo ago
  If not this, then what? Like others, I was interested in the article because of Lyme and other diseases. Ticks really do suck. I appreciate all the science-y comments though I understand very little. I appreciate comments about personal experiences with ticks, getting bitten, and getting sick. I’m left with this: If this test is not really a viable solution (or at least one solution) to the problem of the unaffordability of visits to the doctor, what is a better solution. I would put all options on the table and move things like universal health care to the “working on it but not helpful right now” pile of solutions.
  • balderdash 2mo ago
    Growing up near the epicenter of Lyme disease (which is awful) - it’s not that hard to deal with on a regular basis (I probably take half a dozen plus attached ticks off me year. When your pre-in-post shower - tick check. Take them off, worried they were on for a while, doxycycline as prophylactic. Feel crappy afterwards doctor+blood test / maybe antibiotics. It sucks but it’s manageable. Bourbon virus and alpha gal are super scary. When you k ow about them it’s easier to manage - when you’re oblivious it’s when it’s really dangerous. What would be way more useful is a quick blood test (pin prick type à la thernos) that could diagnose early for treatment.
• balderdash 2mo ago
  A really accurate blood test for tick borne disease would be much more useful that would allow you to know you have something in a time frame you could treat the diseases early.
• petermcneeley 2mo ago
  Only some kinds ticks carry Lyme disease. Sadly I tried the e-Tick identification system and it was beyond useless.
• fenestella 2mo ago
  [flagged]
• pama 2mo ago
  Lower latency, but broader readout of the tick bacteria at: https://nyticks.org/tick-submission/ https://nyticks.org/tick-submission/ As mentioned in the article, this is not a safe way to assess Lyme disease. I still want to know what biohazards these tiny critters hold.
• donkey_brains 2mo ago
  I dunno, having had it at least once now it’s pretty obvious when it happens, and pretty quick to resolve with antibiotics when it does
• MetroWind 2mo ago
  Big "inspirational" image on top = no read :->