I'm a Wilderness First Responder and in the latest curriculum the Sawyer extractor is no longer recommended for snake bite; recent research studies showed that it had no positive effect, could damage tissues, and delayed getting to the best course of action - which is immediate evacuation for treatment. (For insect stings, still OK to use, though not always effective.)

There's a "wrap" treatment for elapid bites (coral snakes and all kinds of tropical snakes not found here) that shows some promise - but evacuation with elevation of the bitten limb if possible is still the way to go for those and for all pit viper bites.

(Oh - and definitely no "cut and suck" treatments - those have been out for years as they cause damage, expose the wound to further chance of infection, and get very little venom out!)

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0196064403008138

A bit of science to back up bmisf

Too bad too. I always thought of it as a suitable 'life over limb' tool for when immediate evacuation isn't possible.

I guess when you consider how deep you cna be injected by snake fangs when compared to a bee for example, it makes a bit of sense.

Sorry about the gross factor on this but have been curious for years. I have never owned an Extractor. But those of you that have do you think it would be very effective on the occasional clogged pore (zit)? Are the cups malleable enough to fit the contour of say the crease of your nose?

Again sorry for the gross but very curious.

Thanks

That's an interesting study, however I wish they took a few more data points.

During the study Extractor was applied after a 3 minute delay. Therefore, the conclusion should be edited to read (bold added by me):

This begs the question of what the results would be for shorter delays.

My personal protocol for snakebite in the wilderness is to apply the Extractor as soon as the scene is safe - if it will not slow me down.

If I'm bit on the foot while solo, I'm heading straight for the nearest road while calling for help while I can still walk. If I stop to take my boot off it might mean the difference between making it to help or not - I might not even be able to get the boot back on.

"...you'll want something just in case..."

We keep a sharp eye out, watch where we place our hands and feet, and a 2" .38 with shot shells. Where we "work" in AZ has marginal or less cell service, no government radios that work worth a darn, and a 30 min drive to the nearest hospital. Being just over the river from CA (where all of the services are) just makes it worse...

Just playing with mine, and trying to remember how hard it was to pop a zit, my guess is that it won't have enough suction to do the job. But that is just a guess...

Not taking off your shoe is a great point. If you take off your shoe, the chances of you getting it back on are very slim. This can be the case with even a simple sprain. You'd be better off cutting your shoe to expose the wound or, as was mentioned, moving quickly while you still could (if that were of benefit), or wrapping your foot in the prescribed way with your shoe still on.

OBG

Thanks for the info/opinion

Cameron

I've tried to use it on zits before, for the hell of it, and wasn't impressed. It often wouldn't even break the head of the zit. Opening the zit first resulted in a minor, incomplete drainage and a bit of a hickey.

Maybe if I built a shop vac adapter for it...

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0196064403008138

A bit of science to back up bmisf

Perhaps it is a bit of science, but the test seems to have left out something that could be important. Rattlesnake venom contains strong anticoagulants. We are, after all, talking about the extraction of fluids and any coagulation of blood could certainly hinder that process. The radioactively tagged fake venom should have the same or similar anticoagulants.

Further, tests should have been done at 1 and 2 minute intervals and varying depths as well.

It may be science, but but it doesn't seem to be particularly good science to me.