







Have you seen the recent news story about the girl who was bit by a black widow in Massachusetts? If you haven't, you can check it out here or here or here





However, after reading the article, the entire mishap sounds to be a misdiagnosis. I'm not a medical doctor nor a medical entomologist, but black widow bites result in some pretty distinct symptoms. Let me go through the article to explain why I think a black widow was not involved.





The first part of the story I have a problem with is the initial diagnosis of a spider bite. As has been previously shown , most diagnosed spider bites are not actually spider bites. There are no tests nor definitive signs to confirm a spider bite (with the exception of latrodectism -envenomation by a black widow-which is possible to diagnose based on the symptoms).





My second problem lies with how the injury was determined to have been caused by a black widow in particular. According to the first article I linked to, the doctor used the necrosis to help diagnose the bite. Black widows inject a neurotoxin which affects nerve cells; although necrosis can be associated with a black widow bite, the necrosis is caused by bacteria rather than the venom . Necrosis is not a defining symptom of a black widow bite.





While this girl may indeed have been bitten by a black widow, none of the reasons for the diagnosis nor the treatment seem to indicate this is the case. Spiders are often used as scapegoats for red marks, infections, and necrosis of the skin. If actual signs of latrodectism were present in this girl, I hope the news articles are updated. If no signs of latrodectism were present, I certainly hope the doctor admits to not having any proof of the girl's injury being caused by a black widow. Stories like this help perpetuate the fear that people have of spiders. Spiders are fascinating creatures and don't bite nearly as often as people think they do.