On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:53:14 -0400, Jim Elbrecht >
wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:22:56 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:03:51 -0400, James Post >
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 07:35:16 -0400, Jim Elbrecht >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Best tool we've found to remove them without leaving parts behind, or
>>> >squeezing someone else's blood into the host is the Tick Twister-
>>> >http://www.amazon.com/ProCollar-Tick...dp/B000OH6D96/
>>> >
>>> >Looks like a crowbar, but you spin it and get the entire tick. Which
>>> >you can then explode with a match or cigarette.<g>
>>> >
>>> >Jim
>>>
>>> You can just put a drop of any type of cooking oil on the tick while
>>> it's still embedded and it will back out of the animal. Then just pick
>>> it up with tweezers and put it into a small jar of rubbing alcohol.
>>
>>
>>Good tip, if it works!
>
>It didn't for us. Picture 4 adults going 'Hurray- one of the dogs
>has a tick-- what 'remedy' will we try this time?!'
>
>alchohol- fail
>oil- fail
>nail polish- fail
>match [made even more fun with a squirming dog- I know he was saying
>"use fire on your own damn ticks!'] - fail
>
>Crowbar-twisty thing. So easy we haven't tried anything else.
>
>All of the 'authorities' [our vet, the CDC, the NIH, Health Dept, etc]
>say to get the tick out as quickly as possible without damaging or
>squeezing it to minimize transfer of infected blood that the tick
>might be carrying.
>
>The Tick-twisters do exactly that- for about $5 and another gadget on
>the key chain.
>
>Jim

Sorry to hear it didn't work for you Jim. It does take 10-30 seconds
for the tick to back out. It can cause the tick to regurgitate some of
the blood back into the wound, which can be a risk if that tick is a
carrier of disease. The only problem with the "crow-bar" type method
is that it sometimes leaves part of the tick in the wound. Hey, ticks
are nasty. For the safest method, and to avoid the regurgitation
problem, the crow-bar type method would be the best.