With the change in the political landscape, borders will be strengthened, and the ticks will have a much harder time getting in.Originally Posted by Engine
R they building tick border walls sprayed with essential oils?
Like the whole "head to toe in chemicals" type of over reactions?
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...
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...ng-to-studies/
http://www.miskeptics.org/2011/06/do...st-mosquitoes/
LOTS of studies demonstrate the effectiveness of varying essential oil or other than picardin, permethrin, or DEET alternatives.
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...
Homina homina homina!
Better read on.
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]. 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], and 200 million people globally use DEET each year [83]. 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]. 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 [85,86]. Its toxicology has been more closely scrutinized than any other repellent, and it has been deemed safe for human use [82,87], including use on children [88], pregnant women [89], and lactating women [84]. 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]. However, many plant-based repellents contain compounds that should be used with caution (Table (Table11).
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] and can have beneficial environmental impact when planted in intercropping systems to prevent soil erosions [92]. 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], 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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/prevent...otect_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.
+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.
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.
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote