Archive for the ‘mosquitoes’ Category

Mosquito Resistant Clothing Prevents Bites in Trials

Mosquito-Resistant Clothing Prevents Bites in Trials

Bite-resistant textiles
Mosquitoes landing on bite-resistant fabric during an in vivo bioassay in which they fail to probe through the fabric due to its small pore size. The proboscis bends when mosquitoes try to push through the fabric. Credit: Matt Bertone.
R. Michael Roe
Grayson Cave
Laura Oleniacz, NC State News Services

North Carolina State University researchers have created insecticide-free, mosquito-resistant clothing using textile materials they confirmed to be bite-proof in experiments with live mosquitoes. They developed the materials using a computational model of their own design, which describes the biting behavior of Aedes aegypti, the mosquito that carries viruses that cause human diseases like Zika, Dengue fever and yellow fever.

Ultimately, the researchers reported in the journal Insects that they were able to prevent 100 percent of bites when a volunteer wore their clothing – a base layer undergarment and a combat shirt initially designed for the military – in a cage with 200 live, disease-free mosquitoes. Vector Textiles, an NC State startup company, has licensed the related patent rights and intends to make clothing for commercial sale in the United States.

The researchers think their computational model could be used more widely to develop clothing to reduce transmission of diseases.

“The fabric is proven to work – that’s the great thing we discovered,” said study co-author Andre West, associate professor of fashion and textile design at NC State and director of Zeis Textiles Extension for Economic Development. “To me, that’s revolutionary. We found we can prevent the mosquito from pushing through the fabric, while others were thick enough to prevent it from reaching the skin.”

To develop the computational model to design textile materials that could prevent A. aegypti bites, researchers investigated the dimensions of the head, antenna and mouth of A. aegypti, and the mechanics of how it bites. Then, they used the model to predict textile materials that would prevent bites, depending on their thickness and pore size. Researchers said they believe the materials could be effective against other mosquito species in addition to A. aegypti because of similarities in biology and biting behavior.

“There are different uses for clothing,” said the study’s first author Kun Luan, postdoctoral research scholar of forest biomaterials at NC State. “The idea is to have a model that will cover all possible garments that a person would ever want.”

To test the accuracy of their model, the researchers tested the materials predicted to be bite-proof. In experiments with live, disease-free mosquitoes, the researchers surrounded a blood reservoir with plastic materials made according to parameters predicted by the model. They then counted how many mosquitoes became engorged with blood.

One material they initially tested was very thin – less than one millimeter thick – but had a very small pore size to prevent the mosquito from sticking its mouth parts, or proboscis, through the material. Another material had a medium pore size to prevent the mosquito from inserting its head through the textile far enough to reach the skin; and a third material had larger pores, but was sufficiently thick that the mosquito’s mouth still couldn’t reach the skin.

In a subsequent test, the researchers chose a series of knitted and woven fabrics that met the bite-proof parameters determined by the model, and validated they worked in experiments using both the blood reservoir and human volunteers. The researchers tested the number of bites received by volunteers when study participants inserted an arm covered by a protective sleeve into a mosquito cage. The researchers also compared the fabrics’ ability to prevent bites and repel mosquitoes to fabrics treated with an insecticide.

From what they learned in early experiments, researchers developed the bite-resistant, form-fitting undergarment made with a thin material, as well as a long-sleeved shirt, which was initially envisioned as a combat shirt for the military.

When a volunteer wore the garments sitting for 10 minutes and standing for 10 minutes in a walk-in cage with 200 hungry mosquitos, the volunteer found the combat shirt was 100 percent effective at preventing bites. In the first trial testing the base layer, the volunteer received bites on the back and shoulders – seven bites for 200 mosquitoes. The researchers attributed the bites to the fabric stretching and deforming, so they doubled the material layer around the shoulders, and were ultimately able to prevent 100 percent of bites. They also tested the clothing for comfort, and to see how well it trapped heat and released moisture.

“The final garments that were produced were 100 percent bite-resistant,” said Michael Roe, William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor of Entomology at NC State. “Everyday clothing you wear in the summer is not bite-resistant to mosquitoes. Our work has shown that it doesn’t have to be that way. Clothes that you wear every day can be made bite-resistant. Ultimately, the idea is to have a model that will cover all possible garments that person would ever want – both for the military as well as for private use.”

The study, “Mosquito-textile physics: A mathematical roadmap to insecticide-free, bite-proof clothing for everyday life,” was published online July 13, 2021, in the journal Insects. It was authored by Luan, Roe, West, Charles Apperson, Marian McCord, Emiel DenHartog, Quan Shi, Nicholas Travanty, Robert Mitchell, Grayson Cave, John Strider and Youngxin Wang from NC State University and Isa Bettermann, Florian Neumann and Tobias Beck from Aachen University, Germany. The study was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense Deployed War Fighter Program, Natick Contracting Division of the U.S. Department of Defense, the Chancellor’s Innovation Fund at NC State, the Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention, PILOTS and the NC Agriculture Research Experiment Station.


Note to editors: The abstract follows.

“Mosquito-textile physics: A mathematical roadmap to insecticide-free, bite-proof clothing for everyday life”

Authors: Kun Luan, Andre J. West, Marian G. McCord, Emiel DenHartog, Quan Shi, Isa Bettermann, Jiayin Li, Nicholas V. Travanty, Robert D. Mitchell III, Grayson L. Cave, John B. Strider, Yongxin Wang, Florian Neumann, Tobias Beck, Charles S. Apperson and R. Michael Roe.

Published online in Insects on July 13, 2021.

DOI: 10.3390/insects12070636

Abstract: Garments treated with chemical insecticides are commonly used to prevent mosquito bites. Resistance to insecticides, however, is threatening the efficacy of this technology, and people are increasingly concerned about the potential health impacts of wearing insecticide-treated clothing. Here, we report a mathematical model for fabric barriers that resist bites from

Aedes aegypti mosquitoes based on textile physical structure and no insecticides. The model was derived from mosquito morphometrics and analysis of mosquito biting behavior. Precision polypropylene plates were first used to simulate woven and knitted fabrics for model validation.

Then based on model predictions, prototype knitted textiles and garments were developed that prevented mosquito biting and were tested for comfort. Our predictive model can be used to develop additional textiles in the future for garments that are highly bite-resistant to mosquitoes.


For more:

What is Powassan Virus?


what is powassan virus
The Powassan virus is a tick-borne illness transmitted by the same tick that harbors the Lyme disease bacterium. Although it is still considered rare, the number of cases is growing and if contracted the virus can have devastating and long-lasting effects.

In their article “Underrecognized Tickborne Illnesses: Borrelia Miyamotoi and Powassan Virus,”  Della-Giustina et al. explain what is the Powassan virus and why it’s raising concerns.  

“We chose to review the Powassan virus because it only requires 15 min. of tick attachment for transmission, and the sequelae of the neurologic disease are devastating, in addition to a 10% mortality rate.”¹

What is Powassan virus?

The Powassan virus (POW) is a tick-borne flavivirus that is related to other viruses including: dengue, yellow fever, West Nile encephalitis, and tick-borne encephalitis (primarily found in Europe). “Flaviviruses are a group of single stranded RNA viruses that cause severe endemic infection and epidemics on a global scale.”²

In recent years, other viruses transmitted by ticks have been identified including the Heartland virus (phlebovirus) and the Bourbon virus (thogotovirus).

POW is very similar genetically to the deer tick virus and the clinical presentations are identical.
How was it discovered?

Powassan was first discovered in the brain of a young child.

“Powassan virus is named for the Ontario, Canada, town where it was first isolated from the brain of a 5-year-old boy who died of severe encephalitis in 1958,” the authors write.

Where is it?

The second case was reported in New Jersey (1970) and then another in eastern Russia (1978). Although, there have been no reported cases in other countries, the virus has been identified in a growing number of states.

In 2019, 13 U.S. states reported cases: Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

Ticks infected with Powassan virus can transmit the disease in only 15 minutes, causing long-lasting neurologic problems in some individuals, in addition to a 10% mortality rate.

How is the virus transmitted?

The Powassan virus is carried and transmitted by Ixodes scapularis ticks, also known as deer ticks or blacklegged ticks. These ticks can also transmit Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria which causes Lyme disease.

“Although many flaviviruses have mosquitos as competent vectors, there is no evidence of human POW virus disease transmitted by mosquitos,” the authors point out.

How fast can Powassan virus be transmitted?

Very fast. “Transmission in mice has been shown to occur within 15 min. of I. scapularis attachment,” the authors write.

This rapid transmission occurs because the virus is already present in the salivary glands, compared to other non-viral tick-borne diseases where the pathogen is typically harbored in the tick’s mid-gut.

What is the typical clinical presentation?

“Few people who become infected with the POW virus have clinically significant disease,” the authors write.

However, in some cases, “a Powassan infection can lead to disorientation, headache, neck stiffness, fever up to 40°C, clonus, ocular, and other motor palsies, obtundation and convulsions, and can mimic herpes simplex encephalitis.”

Can Powassan virus be serious?


“Approximately 50% of cases result in lasting hemiplegia, memory problems, and muscle wasting,” the authors explain.

“Ten percent of cases are fatal.”

Are there tests for it?

A PCR test is only positive in early stages of a Powassan infection. “IgG by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is the mainstay of diagnosis, but confirmation requires specialized testing,” write the authors.

Why are co-infections important?

Treatable tick-borne co-infections may be present. The authors describe a patient with a combination of Powassan encephalitis, Lyme carditis, and Babesia.

Yoon and colleagues described the case of a 17-year-old young man who died waiting for a Powassan virus test.³  He was not treated for a co-infection with Lyme disease. His autopsy showed Borrelia spirochetes, which cause Lyme disease, in his heart and liver. He also had PCR evidence of spirochetes in his brain and lungs.

What is the treatment for a Powassan infection?

There is no treatment for a Powassan virus infection other than supportive care.

  1. Della-Giustina D, Duke C, Goldflam K. Underrecognized Tickborne Illnesses: Borrelia Miyamotoi and Powassan Virus. Wilderness Environ Med. Jun 2021;32(2):240-246. doi:10.1016/j.wem.2021.01.005
  2. Chong HY, Leow CY, Abdul Majeed AB, Leow CH. Flavivirus infection-A review of immunopathogenesis, immunological response, and immunodiagnosis. Virus Res. 2019 Dec;274:197770. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2019.197770. Epub 2019 Oct 15. PMID: 31626874.
  3. Yoon EC, Vail E, Kleinman G, et al. Lyme disease: a case report of a 17-year-old male with fatal Lyme carditis. Cardiovasc Pathol. Sep-Oct 2015;24(5):317-21. doi:10.1016/j.carpath.2015.03.003



Regarding transmission time – ALL pathogens can reside in the salivary glands of ticks due to partial feeding, which will result in quicker transmission times, but this fact is continually downplayed:

It’s also important to note that minimum transmission times have NEVER been established:  Within this important letter, Lyme advocate Carl Tuttle shows rapid transmission has occurred in under 4 hours:

  1. Clinical evidence for rapid transmission of Lyme disease following a tick bite:
  2. B. Patmas, MA, Remora, C. Disseminated Lyme Disease After Short-Duration Tick Bite. JSTD 1994; 1:77-78:
  3. Lyme borreliosis: a review of data on transmission time after tick attachment:  The claims that removal of ticks within 24 hours or 48 hours of attachment will effectively prevent LB are not supported by the published data, and the minimum tick attachment time for transmission of LB in humans has never been established.
  4. Regarding Tick Attachment Times –
There are about 5 to 10 percent of infected ticks that have a generalized infection, including salivary glands and saliva at the time of attachment. In such cases, transmission of spirochetes would and does occur immediately at time of attachment.” —Willy Burgdorfer

According to this study by Coppe Labs, right here in Wisconsin, 85% of Powassan infected ticks come from Northern Wisconsin. Another study by Coppe showed that when 95 patients were tested for suspected tick-borne disease, 66% showed evidence of current or prior Lyme infection.  Of those patients, 17% had serologic evidence of acute POWV infection, demonstrating that POWV may affect more patients than we know.

For more on Powassan:

Understanding Mycoplasma: Symptoms, Testing, & Treatment

Understanding Mycoplasma: Symptoms, Testing, and Treatment | RawlsMD

Mycoplasma: The #1 Lyme Coinfection + How to Outsmart It

by Dr. Bill Rawls
Updated 12/9/20

Mycoplasma is the stealthiest of all stealth microbes. It may be a major player in many chronic diseases associated with aging, but remarkably, most people — including most doctors — have limited awareness of it.

If you have Lyme disease, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, autoimmune disease, or possibly any other chronic illness, however, mycoplasma is a microbe you should know about.

Mycoplasma: The Master Manipulator

Mycoplasma is a parasite, meaning it can’t live without a host. And it’s the smallest of all bacteria: 4,000 of them can fit inside a single red blood cell in your body. By comparison, only 10-15 average-sized bacteria would fit in the same cell.

Unlike other bacteria, mycoplasmas don’t have a protective cell wall, creating an interesting survival strategy: They can shape-shift and fit into areas where other bacteria can’t go. For example, it also allows them to slip inside cells of the host. The lack of a cell wall makes mycoplasma resistant to some commonly prescribed classes of antibiotics like penicillins, which normally work by interrupting a bacteria’s cell wall so that when the bacteria divides, it falls apart.

More than 200 known types of mycoplasma (and probably many yet to be discovered) can infect animals and plants. There are at least 23 different varieties of mycoplasma that can infect humans. A few of them are considered harmless normal flora, but most have the potential to cause disease.

image split in three: tick, flea, and mosquito

Mycoplasma is spread by biting insects (ticks, mosquitoes, fleas, biting flies), sexual contact, contaminated food, and airborne droplets. Most everyone has been exposed to some form of mycoplasma. Several mycoplasma species have been closely associated with many chronic degenerative diseases like multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, according to publications like the International Reviews of Immunology and the British Journal of Medical Practitioners, respectively.

Even beyond its tiny size, shape-shifting qualities, and proliferous nature, mycoplasma is a master at manipulating and outmaneuvering the host’s immune system. Half of its genetic makeup is devoted to that exclusive purpose.

While it has little ability to cause direct harm, it can use the host’s immune function to its advantage: Mycoplasma generates chronic low-grade inflammation and steals vital nutrients from the body.

In fact, everything that this stealthy microbe needs for survival — vitamins, minerals, fats, carbohydrates, and amino acids — must be scavenged from the host; it makes nothing itself. Mitochondria, which are the energy powerhouses of cells, are prime targets to sustain the microorganism, which helps explain why fatigue is always a factor in mycoplasma infections.

Mycoplasma favors infecting the cells of tissues that line different areas of the body. Common sites of infection include:

  • Nasal passages
  • Sinuses
  • Lungs
  • Lining of the intestinal tract
  • Genital tract
  • Vesicles inside the brain
  • Synovial lining of joints

They also commonly infect white blood cells, red blood cells, and brain tissue. Different mycoplasma has a preference for certain tissues, but all mycoplasma species possess the ability to infect any type of tissue and all organ systems.

The most common mycoplasma, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, has a preference for lung tissue. Initial infection with M. pneumoniae typically causes pharyngitis (sore throat), cough, fever, headache, malaise, runny nose — all the common symptoms of a basic upper respiratory infection.

man wrapped in blanket, coughing

If the person’s immune system is not full strength, the infection can progress to bronchitis and even pneumonia (about 20% of pneumonias). The type of pneumonia caused by mycoplasma, often called “walking pneumonia,” is rarely severe enough to result in hospitalization, though it can drag on for weeks or even months.

But even when those respiratory symptoms are cleared, it may not be the end of the story. That’s because after mycoplasma enters the body, it also infects white blood cells. And once inside a white blood cell, it can be carried to all parts of the body, infecting tissues and organs.

The potential for widespread infection is very much influenced by the status of the host’s immune function. If immune function is optimal, the microbe is contained after the initial infection, and no long-term harm occurs. Approximately 30-70% of people carry at least one species of mycoplasma without having symptoms. It essentially becomes like normal flora of the microbiome, which are the non-threatening microbes found on the skin, in the gut, and body cavities.

But most mycoplasma species aren’t normal flora, and they are just waiting for an opportunity to gain a foothold. If immune function slips for whatever reason, chronic, systemic infection becomes possible. Mycoplasma begins stealing vital nutrients and causing a wide range of symptoms that are unrelated to the initial infection. The general breakdown of tissues by stealth microbes like mycoplasma accelerates the aging process and is likely a primary factor in many, if not most, chronic degenerative diseases.

Stealth Characteristics of Mycoplasma

Stealth microbes are a stronger force together than when alone. In other words, mycoplasma may not be a problem unless another stealth microbe (or microbes) is present. Lyme disease may be a good example of this phenomenon.

image split in half: borrelia and mycoplasma

Mycoplasma is a common Lyme coinfection: It’s present in 75% or more of Lyme disease cases. Mycoplasma is known to be carried and spread by ticks, but it is also possible that mycoplasma is already present in the body when a bite from a tickcarrying borrelia — the primary bacteria associated with Lyme — occurs.

Immune dysfunction caused by the new tick-borne infection or possible other coinfection allows mycoplasma to proliferate and cause multi-systemic symptoms throughout the body. Many symptoms that occur in Lyme disease can be caused by mycoplasma, too.

Body Systems Affected by Chronic Mycoplasma

woman in bed, face in hand, tired

Mycoplasma infection may be localized to certain areas of the body (such as the lungs), or it can be more widespread and systemic. Parts of the body where symptoms can manifest include:

  • Joints: Mycoplasma commonly infects the synovial lining of joints, the lining protecting the joints. Ninety percent of people with rheumatoid arthritis test positive for mycoplasma in the synovial fluid.
  • Muscles: Muscle pain from breakdown of muscle fibers is common with systemic mycoplasma infection.
  • Heart: Mycoplasma can lead to inflammation of the heart, such as endocarditis, myocarditis, pericarditis.
  • Nerves: Mycoplasma scavenges fats from the myelin sheath covering nerve tissue. Not surprisingly, mycoplasma (and other microbes, including chlamydiaand borrelia) has been linked to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases, including ALS (Mycoplasma fermentans is most common) and Parkinson’s disease.

    Nerve involvement can be associated with neuropathic pain like burning and tingling in the hands and feet. Brain inflammation, contributing to insomnia, brain fog, depression, and anxiety, is common with systemic mycoplasma infection.

  • Immune system: Mycoplasma is a top candidate for explaining autoimmunity; it stimulates host self-damage, and it can live inside cells while simultaneously turning off the ability of the immune system to recognize the cell as abnormal.
  • Lungs: Mycoplasma in the lungs contributes to respiratory symptoms like sore throat, cough, fever, headache, malaise, runny nose, bronchitis, and pneumonia.
  • Digestive tract: Intestinal mycoplasma infection destroys villi — fingerlike projections in the small intestine that aid food absorption — and compromises the intestinal barrier. This allows accelerated damage by lectins in grains (especially wheat), beans, soy, nightshade vegetables, and dairy.

    Mycoplasma may contribute to leaky gut, or increased intestinal permeability. Severe mycoplasma intestinal infection can lead to nutritional deficiencies and weight loss. Infection of the gastric mucosa (stomach lining) can cause chronic gastritis with nausea and stomach discomfort.

  • Ears: Mycoplasma infection has been associated with hearing loss and ringing in the ears.
  • Eyes: The eyes may be impacted by mycoplasma with such issues as conjunctivitis, eye swelling, and vision loss.
  • Reproductive system: Research suggests mycoplasma has been found in ovarian cancer tissue. It may also contribute to interstitial cystitis, a bladder condition marked by severe pain and urinary frequency.
  • Blood: Mycoplasma has been found in the bone marrow of children with leukemia.

Diagnosing Mycoplasma and the Limitations of Testing

When it comes to testing, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) is the most accurate method for testing mycoplasma. It’s cost-effective and evaluates for the presence of mycoplasma’s genetic material, a test that’s easy, sensitive, and quick test to obtain at most laboratories.

However, PCR testing has limits because it only tests for a handful of mycoplasma species and primarily focuses on diagnosing acute respiratory or genital mycoplasma infections — not chronic, low-grade infections.

Female forensic technician collecting biological specimen in DNA

Another problem with diagnosing mycoplasma is that conventional science does not recognize chronic mycoplasma infections as being significant. Even though mycoplasma is commonly found in association with chronic degenerative diseases, it’s also found in one-third to two-thirds of any population without causing symptoms. In other words, it is assumed that mycoplasma just happens to be there but isn’t really a contributing factor in disease.

This type of thinking is simply a reflection of not understanding how stealth microbes operate. Mycoplasma does not cause disease unless it has an opportunity to do so. Individuals with a healthy immune system can harbor mycoplasma and suffer few ill effects. If immune function is disrupted by environmental factors or a coinfection with other stealth microbes, however, mycoplasma can definitely contribute to chronic disease.

When testing for mycoplasma, it is best to order a complete PCR mycoplasma panel, which will include:

  • M. fermentans
  • M. genitalium
  • M. hominis
  • M. penetrans
  • M. pneumoniae
  • M. synoviae
  • Ureaplasma urealyticum

But these are only the commonly-known species of mycoplasma; other lesser-known species could also be present.

Another problem with testing is that other stealth microbes can be associated with chronic infections with similar symptoms of mycoplasma infection, adding confusion to the clinical picture of what’s making a person ill. The list of knowns includes:

  • Yersinia enterocolitica
  • Chlamydophila pneumoniae
  • Chlamydia trachomatis
  • Campylobacter jejuni
  • Babesia
  • Bartonella
  • Ehrlichia
  • Anaplasma

Laboratories that test for mycoplasma include Medical Diagnostic Laboratories (MDL)and Armin Labs. Your healthcare provider may have additional recommendations for you.

But complete testing for the full range of all stealth microbes can cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Possibly the best course of action is assuming mycoplasma and other stealth microbes are there.

Stealth microbes only cause problems when immune function is suppressed. Addressing the causes of the underlying chronic immune dysfunction that allowed mycoplasma to flourish in the first place is the most effective solution for overcoming chronic infections.

Conventional Medical Solutions

The nature of mycoplasma makes it very resistant to conventional therapies. Many antibiotics target cell walls; since mycoplasma doesn’t have one, several classes of antibiotics are ineffective against the microbe. Some other antibiotics (doxycycline, erythromycin, clarithromycin, or azithromycin), block internal functions of bacteria and have some activity against mycoplasma, but activity is limited by the fact that mycoplasma bacteria only live inside cells where antibiotics have minimal penetration.

When it comes to chronic mycoplasma infections, the best approach is supporting the body’s natural healing potential.

Natural Solutions for Mycoplasma

Natural herbal therapy is the best therapeutic alternative for chronic mycoplasma. Herbs (especially medicinal mushrooms) work by:

  • Suppressing cytokine cascades
  • Reducing inflammation
  • Restoring normal immune function
  • Suppressing a wide range of covert pathogens

Consider the following herbs to get you started:

Cordyceps mushroom

Cordyceps (Cordyceps sinensis)

Native to Tibet, cordyceps is a medicinal mushroom that reduces cytokines and normalizes immune system functions. It is highly protective of cells, which reduces invasion by microbes.

Suggested dosage: 1-3 grams (1,000-3,000 mg) of whole mushroom cordyceps powder or 400-800 mg extract (standardized to >7% cordyceptic acid is preferred) two to three times daily.

Side effects: Mild nausea can occur, but in general, side effects are rare, even with higher doses. Allergic reactions are rare.

Chinese Skullcap purple flowers

Chinese Skullcap (Scutellaria baicalensis)

When combined with other herbs, Chinese skullcap has potent synergist properties. Additionally, it has strong antimicrobial and immunomodulating properties that are beneficial for suppressing mycoplasma and protecting tissues and organs infected with the microbe.

Suggested dosage: 400-1,000 mg two to three times daily. Root extract standardized to >30% baicalin is preferred. Note: American skullcap does not offer the same antimicrobial properties and should not be substituted.

Side effects: Gastrointestinal upset can occur, but side effects tend to be rare, even at high doses.

white Bidens flowers

Bidens (Bidens pilosa)

The herb offers potent antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties against mycoplasma, affecting mucous membranes of the body.

Suggested dosage: Bidens is most potent when prepared as an alcohol tincture. The dose may vary depending on the company, but tinctures are an excellent way to begin at a low dose and increase drops as tolerated.

Side effects: Some plants can be contaminated with heavy metals, so make sure you purchase the product from a reputable company that takes steps to minimize exposure. You should not take this plant if you are diabetic, as it can cause fluctuations in blood glucose or insulin levels.

Houttuynia white flower

Houttuynia (Houttuynia cordata)

Native to India and Nepal, houttuynia is a potent antiviral with activity also against mycoplasma.

Suggested dosage: The dose may vary depending on a company’s preparations.

Side effects: The herb can have a fishy smell but is otherwise well tolerated.

budding Anamu stem

Anamu (Petiveria alliacea)

Found in tropical, Amazonian regions of Central and South America, anamu offers excellent antimicrobial coverage for mycoplasma.

Suggested dosage: The daily dose of powdered herb is 1,000-2,000 mg twice daily.

Side effects: Note that anamu will give urine and feces a strong garlic-like odor. Generally, the herb is safe and well-tolerated, but it should be avoided in pregnancy.

Mullaca leaf berry

Mullaca (Physalis angulata)

Mullaca is another Amazonian herb with antimicrobial qualities to fight mycoplasma, and it works well as a complement to anamu. It can be found online as a loose powder (add it to smoothies or make your own capsules) or a tincture.

Suggested dosage: The daily dose for powdered herb is 1,000-2,000 mg twice daily.

Side effects: The herb is generally regarded as safe, however, it should be avoided during pregnancy or breastfeeding.

The Bottom Line

In addition to herbal therapy, the optimal path to recovery from chronic mycoplasma involves eliminating artificially-processed foods in favor of whole, nutrient-dense meals, reducing exposure to toxins, and managing chronic stress — all of which disrupt immune function and pave the way for stealth microbes to flourish. By minimizing these factors and implementing a comprehensive herbal therapy protocol, you can begin to curb chronic mycoplasma infections and support your body in the healing process.

Dr. Rawls is a physician who overcame Lyme disease through natural herbal therapy. You can learn more about Lyme disease in Dr. Rawls’ new best selling book, Unlocking Lyme.
You can also learn about Dr. Rawls’ personal journey in overcoming Lyme disease and fibromyalgia in his popular blog post, My Chronic Lyme Journey.

1. K Waites and D Talkington, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and its Role as a Human Pathogen, Oct 2004, Clinical Microbiology Reviews
2. Hakkarainen, Turrunen, Miettinen, Kaitik, and Jannson, Mycoplasmas and Arthritis, Ann Rheu Dis, 1992, Oct 5 (11): p. 1170-1172
3. Baseman, Joel,, Mycoplasmas: Sophisticated, Reemerging, and Burdened by Their Notoriety, CDC, Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol 3, No.1, Feb 1997
4. Leslie Taylor, ND, Mycoplasmas – Stealth Pathogens (Review article), Jan 2001
5. Razin, Yogev, Naot, Molecular Biology and Pathogenicity of Mycoplasmas, Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 1998, Dec; 62(4): p. 1094-1156
6. J Rivera-Tapia, N Rodriguez-Preval, Possible role of mycoplasmas in pathogenesis of gastrointestinal diseases, Rev Biomed 2006 17: 132-139
7. Berghoff, W, Chronic Lyme Disease and Co-infections: Differential Diagnosis, Open Neurol J., 2012, 6, p. 158-178
8. Gilroy, Keat, Taylor-Robinson, The Prevalence of Mycoplasma fermentans in patients with arthritides, Rheumatology, Vol 40 (12), p. 1355-1358
9. Zhang et al, Mycoplasma fermentans infection promotes immortalization of human peripheral blood mononuclear cells in culture, Blood 104 (13), p. 4252-4259
10. Walter Berghoff, Chronic Lyme Disease and Co-infections: Differential Diagnosis, Open Neurol J, 2012, 6: p. 158-178
11. Buhner S H, Healing Lyme Disease Coinfections, Healing Arts Press, Copyright 2013
12. Libbey JE, Cusick MF, Fujinami RS. Role of pathogens in multiple sclerosis. Int Rev Immunol. 2014;33(4):266-283. doi: 10.3109/08830185.2013.823422
13. BJMP 2009:2(4) 20-28
14. Huang S, Li JY, Wu J, Meng L, Shou CC. Mycoplasma infections and different human carcinomas. World J Gastroenterol. 2001;7(2):266-269. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v7.i2.266
For more:  

CDC, EPA Release Framework for Preventing and Controlling Tick & Mosquito-Borne Diseases

CDC, EPA release framework for preventing and controlling tick and mosquito-borne diseases


WASHINGTON D.C. (WWTI) — The United States Center for Disease Control has released framework regarding vector-borne diseases in humans.

The CDC framework, “A National Public Health Framework for the Prevention and Control of Vector-Borne Diseases in Humans,” addresses the growing threat of ticks and mosquitoes. The framework discusses diseases such as dengue virus, eastern equine encephalitis virus, malaria, zika virus and lyme disease.

The CDC worked alongside five federal departments and the Environmental Protection Agency to develop the 16-page framework. With goals of better understanding these diseases, developing tools and guidance for protection, developing effective drugs and treatments and providing more information to the public.  (See link for article)


For more:  


More Than 750 Million GMO Mosquitoes To Be Released Over Florida Keys – What Could Go Wrong?

More than 750 million GMO mosquitoes to be released over Florida Keys – what could go wrong?

Image: More than 750 million GMO mosquitoes to be released over Florida Keys – what could go wrong?

(Natural News) For the first time, genetically modified (GMO) mosquitoes are set to be released over American soil.

The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) has given Oxitec, a corporation we have reported on in the past, permission to unleash some 750 million GMO mosquitos in Monroe County, Florida, over the next two years.

This “trial,” as they are calling it, will commence at some point in 2021, despite objections from more than 2,000 Florida residents who wrote in to oppose the proposition prior to its approval.

Many locals had petitioned for a referendum to decide whether or not to proceed with what Jaydee Hanson, policy director for the International Center for Technology Assessment and Center for Food Safety, described as a “Jurassic Park experiment.”

Back in 2016, voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed GMO mosquito trial over Key Haven. This time, voters are not being given a voice at all, and neither Oxitec nor the FKMCD has indicated where this latest batch of GMO mosquitoes will even be released.

“With all the urgent crises facing our nation and the State of Florida – the COVID-19 pandemic, racial injustice, climate change – the administration has used tax dollars and government resources” to release GMO mosquitoes over Florida, Hanson warned in a statement.

EPA did not even look at potential risks, nor did it calculate environmental impact

Financially backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Oxitec has been experimenting with GMO mosquitoes for years, which it claims may help to eradicate mosquito populations in places like Africa where they are said to be spreading malaria.

Oxitec has attempted to conduct trials outside of America, where restrictions are generally looser. But now it has permission to release GMO mosquitoes right here in America, a first with completely unknown implications.

“What could possibly go wrong? We don’t know because EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) unlawfully refused to seriously analyze environmental risks, now without further review of the risks, the experiment can proceed,” Hanson adds.

Barry Wray, Executive Direct of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition, is similarly perturbed and demanding a remedy. He warned at a recent meeting that the FKMCD has “an obligation to our community, not a vendor that’s products are risky and untrustworthy.”

Many members of the local community have urged the FKMCD to reject Oxitec’s field trial application, noting a dearth of relevant data that in any way suggests the trial will be safe or effective. But thus far they have made minimal headway.

“The release of genetically engineered mosquitoes will needlessly put Floridians, the environment and endangered species at risk in the midst of a pandemic,” says Dana Perls, food and technology Program Manager at Friends of the Earth.

“This approval is about maximizing Oxitec’s profits, not about the pressing need to address mosquito-borne diseases.”

Ed Russo, President of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition, agrees, noting that the FKMCD does not have the resources to properly manage this process.

“Why have they not acquired the appropriate amount of insurance as well as performance and maintenance bonds?” he asked at the meeting.

“Their evasive answers and lack of management skills are an indictment of their unprofessionalism and arrogance which speaks loudly of an unprepared regulatory process.”

One of the biggest threats is that the GMO mosquitoes will breed and create hybrid wild mosquitoes that end up worsening the spread of mosquito-borne diseases. These GMO mosquitoes may also end up becoming more resistant to insecticides than wild mosquitoes.

There is further evidence to suggest that biting females will be released, despite objections from Oxitec that this will not happen. These biting females would put humans at risk of attack and infection, without their informed consent.

For more related news about untested GMOs being released into the wild, be sure to check out

Sources for this article include:



The timing of this could not be more questionable.  If this happens, lines will be blurred on yet another confounding factor in relation to COVID-19. ‘Authorities’ will only be too happy to blame any and all negative outcomes on COVID and NOT on released GMO mosquitoes – which again is another experiment with an unknown outcome.

Another point to stress is that the CRISPR gene-editing technology (tinkering with genes) has been shown to create unintended mutations.  This article shows 100 deletions and insertions and more than 1,500 unintended single-nucleotide mutations occurred .  


Geneticist and virologist Jonathan Latham, Executive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project and editor of Independent Science News, has spoken out about the fallacy of industry talking points in the past.

“So far, it is technically not possible to make a single (and only a single) genetic change to a genome using CRISPR and be sure one has done so,” Latham reportedly explained.  This feat may not even be possible biologically; one small change to genome can inevitably lead to a host of other, unanticipated changes.

In fact, experts say that CRISPR could cause hundreds of unintended DNA alterations.

Go here to watch a short 2 min video:  What is CRISPR  While it all seems neat and tidy on paper and in a cool colored video, what happens in the wild could be an entirely different matter.  

Even the European union has ruled that CRISPR plants are GMO’s and should be subjected to the same rules:

“It means for all the new inventions … you would need to go through the lengthy approval process of the European Union,” Kai Purnhagen, an expert at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, told Nature.

This article states CRISPR has the potential to cause cancer in a whole generation of humans: (Excerpt below)

Emma Haapaniemi, a co-author of the Karolinska Institute study, explained why this is such a concerning find.

“By picking cells that have successfully repaired the damaged gene we intended to fix, we might inadvertently also pick cells without functional p53.” Dysfunctional p53 is a major cancer risk; nearly half of ovarian and colorectal cancers can be connected to a disruption in p53. Many other types of cancer, like lung, pancreatic, stomach, liver and breast cancers, can also be attributed to p53 problems.

“If transplanted into a patient, as in gene therapy for inherited diseases, such cells could give rise to cancer, raising concerns for the safety of CRISPR-based gene therapies,” Haapaniemi added.

Besides the unintended consequences of mutations and cancer in humans, is the issue of ethics. Here’s some telling quotes:

“It is essential that national regulatory authorities and international organizations get on top of this — really get on top of it,” says Kenneth Oye, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and lead author of the Science commentary. “We need more action.” The US National Research Council has formed a panel to discuss gene drives, and other high-level discussions are starting to take place, but Oye is concerned that regulatory changes may happen only after a high-profile gene-drive release, in other words, after it’s too late. (For a five minute audio of reporter Kerri Smith investigating the meteoric rise of CRISPR click on the link above.

On top of those difficulties, scientists do not know how all of this will affect ecosystems and are unclear if the gene drives could spread to closely related species.

Noam Prywes, PhD candidate in chemistry at Harvard, claims that CRISPR/Cas-9-based gene drives will

“add a twist – introducing one gene drive after another to correct unforeseen consequences as they are discovered,” and that “decisions by researchers would become permanently written into the genomes of entire wild populations.” He also adds that there are alternative ways to wipe out local populations of mosquitoes carrying disease that are much safer.

In this same vein, David Burwitz of Tel Aviv University, feels that gene drive research should be classified to prevent weapon development, and he’s not alone. In theory, a terrorist could create a handful of insects with a gene for making a toxin, and power it with a gene drive. Pretty soon, all of these insects would make the toxin, and every insect bite would be lethal. However, according to Austin Burt, who proposed the theoretical method for making gene drives, the gene drives only work in sexually reproducing species, unlike the vast majority of genetically engineered microbes which produce asexually and they’ve only been shown to work for one generation – so far.