logo
Ticks spread to new regions across America, bringing dangerous diseases and need for vigilance

Ticks spread to new regions across America, bringing dangerous diseases and need for vigilance

Fox News4 hours ago

Ticks are spreading outside their comfort zone – and into ours, according to experts.
As cooler regions experience milder winters, those areas are becoming more hospitable to many tick species, Bob Hottel, an entomologist with Orkin, the pest control company, told Fox News Digital. This is because ticks prefer warmer climates.
While the insects previously would go dormant in the cold — leaving them unable to travel very far — they're now able to stay active longer, clinging to hosts that carry them outside their typical regions.
In recent years, experts at Binghamton University Tick-borne Disease Center in New York have reported that tick-borne illnesses - typically confined to specific regions – are beginning to show up in other parts of the country.
"Deer ticks are active any time it's over 39 degrees, so we have a lot longer active periods for ticks now, unfortunately," Yetrib Hathout, professor of pharmaceutical sciences and director of the tick-born disease center, told Binghamton University previously.
The number of concerning tick species has risen from one to five in the last 15 years, according to experts at Ohio State University.
Given the spread of ticks, Ohio State University's Buckeye Tick Test Lab is now identifying "the most dangerous ticks that spread diseases."
Hottel of Orkin said it's important for people to stay vigilant as they're frequently outdoors at this time of year.
He said people need to exercise caution regarding certain species, the bites they can deliver and the disease they can cause.
"Tick surveillance and tick screening are important."
The blacklegged tick (or deer tick) is best known for transmitting Lyme disease, especially in the Northeast, Midwest, and Appalachian regions.
While many people are aware of Lyme disease carried by the deer tick, fewer are aware of other dangerous diseases such as alpha-gal syndrome, which is spread by the lone star tick; it can trigger an allergy to red meat.
The American dog tick, found mostly east of the Rockies, can spread Rocky Mountain spotted fever, tularemia, and even cause tick paralysis.
Its cousin, the Rocky Mountain wood tick, poses similar risks in high-elevation areas of the Rockies.
"Some of the pathogens that are only found in the South, like the Rickettsia species that causes spotted fever, are migrating up north," according to Hathout.
"That's why tick surveillance and tick screening for other things are important. And I think it's important to do it regularly."
Hottel told Fox News Digital, "Awareness is the first step in protecting yourself from tick-borne illness."
Among the precautionary steps to take, say experts: Wear long clothing, use tick repellents and check for ticks after outdoor activity.
Knowing which species to watch for can also help prevent serious tick-borne illness.
For more Lifestyle articles, visit foxnews.com/lifestyle
"Another reason for the spread of ticks is the expansion of human developments into wildlife habitats, which helps ticks more easily find human hosts," said Hottel.
Ticks find their hosts by detecting animals' breath and body odors, or by sensing body heat, moisture and vibrations, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
"Some species can even recognize a shadow," the CDC site says.
In addition, ticks pick a place to wait by identifying well-used paths.
Then they wait for a host, resting on the tips of grasses and shrubs.
Ticks can't fly or jump — but many tick species wait in this position known as "questing."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Has AI already rotted my brain?
Has AI already rotted my brain?

Fast Company

time30 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

Has AI already rotted my brain?

Five years ago, I bought an e-bike. At the time, the motor-equipped two-wheelers were burdened with an iffy reputation. Was it way easier to get up a hill on one than on a bike without a battery? Absolutely. Did that mean people who rode them were lazy or even cheaters? Some cycling enthusiasts thought so. But what if the boost provided by your e-bike motivated you to make longer trips and more of them—all powered, in part, by your own pedaling? Having logged almost 10,000 miles on my Gazelle, I'm certain it's been a guilt-free boon to my well-being. Data backs me up. I thought about that recently while reading about a new study conducted at MIT's Media Lab. Researchers divided subjects ages 18 to 39 into three groups and had them write essays on topics drawn from the SAT questions answered by college applicants, such as 'Do works of art have the power to change people's lives?' One group relied entirely on unassisted brainpower to complete the essay. A second group could use a search engine. And the third could call on ChatGPT. The study subjects wore EEG helmets that captured their brain activity as they worked. After analyzing that data, the researchers concluded that access to ChatGPT didn't just make composing an essay easier. It made it too easy, in ways that might negatively impact people's long-term ability to think for themselves. In some cases, the ChatGPT users merely cut and pasted text the chatbot had generated; not surprisingly, they exhibited little sense of ownership over the finished product compared to those who didn't have a computerized ghost on tap. 'Due to the instant availability of the response to almost any question, LLMs can possibly make a learning process feel effortless, and prevent users from attempting any independent problem solving,' the researchers wrote in their report. 'By simplifying the process of obtaining answers, LLMs could decrease student motivation to perform independent research and generate solutions. Lack of mental stimulation could lead to a decrease in cognitive development and negatively impact memory.' The study reached those sobering conclusions in the context of young people growing up in an era of bountiful access to AI. But the alarms it set off also left me worried about the technology's impact on my own brain. I have long considered AI an e-bike for my mind—something that speeds it through certain tasks, thereby letting it go places previously out of reach. What if it's actually so detrimental to my mental acuity that I haven't even noticed my critical faculties withering away? After pondering that worst-case scenario for a while, I calmed down. Yes, consistently opting for the most expedient way to accomplish work rather than the one that produces the best results is no way to live. Sure, being overly reliant on ChatGPT—or any form of generative AI—has its hazards. But I'm pretty confident it's possible to embrace AI without your reasoning skills atrophying. No single task can represent all the ways people engage with AI, and the one the MIT researchers chose—essay writing—is particularly fraught. The best essays reflect the unique insight of a particular person: When students take the actual SAT for real, they aren't even allowed to bring a highlighter, let alone a bot. We don't need EGG helmets to tell us that people who paste ChatGPT's work into an essay they've nominally written have lost out on the learning opportunity presented by grappling with a topic, reaching conclusions, and expressing them for oneself. However, ChatGPT and its LLM brethren also excel at plenty of jobs too mundane to feel guilty about outsourcing. Each week, for example, I ask Anthropic's Claude to clean up some of the HTML required to produce this newsletter. It handles this scut work faster and more accurately than I can. I'm not sure what my brain waves would reveal, but I'm happy to reinvest any time not spent on production drudgery into more rewarding aspects of my job. Much of the time, AI is most useful not as a solution but a starting point. Almost never would I ask a chatbot about factual information, get an answer, and call it a day. They're still too error-prone for that. Yet their ease of use makes them an inviting way to get rolling on projects. I think of them as facilitating the research before the old-school research I usually end up doing. And sometimes, AI is a portal into adventures I might otherwise never have taken. So far in 2025, my biggest rabbit hole has been vibe coding —coming up with ideas for apps and then having an LLM craft the necessary software using programming tools I don't even understand. Being exposed to technologies such as React and TypeScript has left me wanting to learn enough about them to do serious coding on my own. If I do, AI can take credit for sparking that ambition. I'm only so Pollyanna-ish about all this. Over time, the people who see AI as an opportunity to do more thinking—not less of it—could be a lonely minority. If so, the MIT researchers can say 'We told you so.' Case in point: At the same time the MIT study was in the news, word broke that VC titan Andreessen Horowitz had invested $15 million in Cluely, a truly dystopian startup whose manifesto boasts its aim of helping people use AI to 'cheat at everything' based on the theory that 'the future won't reward effort.' Its origin story involves cofounder and CEO Roy Lee being suspended from Columbia University after developing an app for cheating on technical employment interviews. Which makes me wonder how Lee would feel about his own candidates misleading their way into job offers. With any luck, the future will turn out to punish Cluely's cynicism. But the company's existence—and investors' willingness to shower it with money—says worse things about humankind than about AI. You've been reading Plugged In, Fast Company 's weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to you—or if you're reading it on can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@ with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I'm also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard.

Local Anesthesia Pain: A Predictor of Post-Cesarean Pain?
Local Anesthesia Pain: A Predictor of Post-Cesarean Pain?

Medscape

time30 minutes ago

  • Medscape

Local Anesthesia Pain: A Predictor of Post-Cesarean Pain?

TOPLINE: A higher intensity of pain during infiltration of local anesthesia during cesarean delivery was associated with increased pain at 24 hours postpartum and lower global health ratings, although the quality of recovery scores remained unaffected. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a prospective observational study at a university-affiliated tertiary care center between August 2019 and September 2023 to evaluate local anesthesia pain as a predictor of severity of post-cesarean pain and recovery quality. A total of 114 women (median age, 32 years; 52.6% White) undergoing cesarean delivery with neuraxial anesthesia were included in the final analysis. Pain during infiltration of local anesthesia was assessed prior to the neuraxial procedure using a numerical rating scale of 0-100 after lidocaine injection, and participants were categorized into mild (n = 83), moderate (n = 24), and severe (n = 7) pain groups on the basis of their scores. The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed at 24 hours postpartum, using six pain scores (average and peak pain at rest, with movement, and with uterine cramping). Secondary outcomes were recovery, assessed using the 11-item Obstetric Quality of Recovery questionnaire (ObsQoR-11), and a global health rating, evaluated with numerical rating scale scores of 0-100, with the numbers indicating worst and best imaginable health states, respectively. TAKEAWAY: Significant differences were found among the three pain groups for all primary outcomes. Average and peak pain at rest (P = .0002 and P = .003, respectively), as well as peak pain during movement (P = .002), were significantly associated with pain during infiltration of local anesthesia. Global health ratings were significantly different among the pain groups, but ObsQoR-11 scores were not. Only the global health rating showed a significant association with local anesthesia pain (P = .008). The study found low sensitivity but high specificity in using pain scores during infiltration of local anesthesia for predicting severe post-cesarean pain and poor recovery at 24 hours post-cesarean delivery. IN PRACTICE: 'Our findings underscore the potential of ILA [infiltration of local anesthesia] as only one component of a multifactorial approach to predicting postoperative pain,' the researchers reported. SOURCE: The study was led by Christine McKenzie, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It was published online on June 20, 2025, in the International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia. LIMITATIONS: The single-center design and focus on scheduled cesarean deliveries may limit the generalizability of the findings. The low number of patients reporting severe pain during local anesthesia infiltration may have affected the study's power. The study did not account for anxiety or other mental health conditions, which may affect the internal validity of the findings. DISCLOSURES: The authors reported having no conflicts of interest or funding sources for this study. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

This Isn't Really About Defunding Planned Parenthood — Except It Is
This Isn't Really About Defunding Planned Parenthood — Except It Is

Bloomberg

time30 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

This Isn't Really About Defunding Planned Parenthood — Except It Is

The South Carolina case before the Supreme Court was about whether a woman could sue the state to enforce a provision of Medicaid law. But the implications are much broader. Save Most decisions of the US Supreme Court are not about what news reports say they're about, and Thursday's ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is no exception. The dispute isn't really about whether states can defund Planned Parenthood. It's about whether a patient can sue to enforce a previously obscure provision of the Medicaid Act. Except, of course, the case is about whether states can defund Planned Parenthood, and everybody knows it. And whatever side one takes on that hot-button issue, there's reason to be concerned about the implications. Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store