I think you are missing the point of my comments (and NM's and several others if I have read them correctly).
I don't think anyone is refusing to believe that a white-tailed spider bite can be nasty.
However there is some sort of myth that says that if you are bitten by a wts, the effects will be nasty and that it is the only spider bite that has that effect.
It is easy to see how such a myth develops. Once the wts gets a bit of a reputation, if someone is bitten by something and it turns nasty, the assumption is that it must have been a wts. If it doesn't get infected, the assumption is that it wasn't a wts. So before long, there are an enormous number of anecdotal reports of wts bites causing all sorts of problems when in fact the majority of them were not a wts bite.
How do you explain the fact that when a careful study of 130 wts bites was done, the effects of the bites were not as disastrous as people assume they will be?
The situation as I see it (from listening to people's stories and reading information from medical sources)
- Any bite or injury can be a problem.
- Some people bitten by a white-tailed spider will experience nasty symptoms.
- Some people bitten by other things will experience nasty symptoms.
- Some bites don't cause any serious effects.
- Some people bitten by a white-tailed spider will not have serious symptoms.
- Some people bitten by other things will not have serious symptoms.

