SPAGYRIC HERBALISM

Homegrown catnip lotion proves to be an effective mosquito repellent in rural Uganda

Society for Experimental Biology

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Field trial technicians preparing for human landing catch trials

view more 

Credit: Cardiff University and CEMPOP

Plant researchers from Wales and Uganda have collaborated on a community enterprise project in rural Uganda, becoming the first to create affordable and highly effective mosquito repellent distilled from locally grown catnip plants. Laboratory and field experiments reveal that the catnip-based repellent skin lotion is just as effective as DEET and offers a much cheaper alternative for preventative action against mosquito-borne diseases in malaria-endemic regions, while also providing new economic opportunities for local Ugandans.

Nepetalactone is a chemical found in the essential oil of catnip, Nepeta cataria, and is the chemical responsible for causing feelings of euphoria in cats. Nepetalactone is also a potent natural insect repellent and is very effective at repelling mosquitoes, which are responsible for the transmission of malaria and other vector-borne diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The insect-repelling properties of nepetalactone have been known for a long time, but it has never been commercialised or adopted by pharmaceutical companies since it cannot be patented. This project, presented at the Society for Experimental Biology conference in Florence, Italy, demonstrates the validation of nepetalactone as an effective and locally available mosquito repellent.

“There is a real need to reduce the reliance on malaria medicines because malaria can develop resistance to drugs,” says Dr Simon Scofield, a senior lecturer at Cardiff University. “Mosquito repellents represent one of the primary measures used to reduce the risk of malaria by reducing mosquito landing and biting events.”

Currently, DEET is the most widely used active ingredient in commercial insect repellents and works by disrupting insect sensors to prevent them from landing on human skin, but DEET products can be very expensive to import into Uganda.

“DEET is out of the price bracket for most rural Ugandan subsistence farmers, so buying commercially available mosquito repellents is just not practicable,” says Dr Scofield. “We wanted to make a repellent, which is highly efficacious, but also allows local people to be involved in the production cycle so that it costs a minimal amount of money.”

As well as being more affordable, the other benefits of using nepetalactone over DEET are that catnip is widely cultivatable in rural Uganda, the oil is easy to extract, it’s safe to use and users report that it smells a lot more pleasant than DEET.

To test the efficacy of the catnip oil as a repellent, Dr Scofield and his colleagues created a insect-repelling hand lotion containing the catnip oil, called DSK lotion, and conducted both laboratory and field trials that compared how mosquitoes were attracted to human skin with different repellent treatments.

The laboratory experiments used a Y-tube olfactometer to test if mosquitoes were more attracted to repellent-treated skin or skin without repellent under controlled conditions. The field trials used a “human landing catch assay” to measure how many wild mosquitoes landed on human skin treated with a different repellent treatments and controls.

“We found that a 6% catnip oil was just as effective as DEET, and the 2% catnip oil was only marginally less effective than that,” says Dr Scofield.

As a community enterprise project, this project has employed workers and volunteers from the local area in all aspects of the lotion’s production. DSK Lotion, named for local community leader Dison Stephen Kalebo, has been distributed for free in local trials thanks to external grant funding, but the next stage of the project will involve up-scaling production and selling the lotion for a small price to provide a sustainable income to the local workers involved in the project.

“Once we know that we can sell and distribute the repellent at a low-cost, that should generate a self-sustaining system where the money is flowing back to everybody at each stage in the development,” says Dr Scofield.

Dr Scofield adds that there may even be scope for expansion of the project’s scope across Africa and into the global north, since the repellent also works well on other biting insects such as midges and ticks.

Dr Scofield and his team at Cardiff University are working closely with researchers from Makerere University, Ugandan government officials and malaria clinic workers in the Budaka district of Eastern Uganda to facilitate the trialling and distribution of the repellent. The project is being led by a local organisation called CEMPOP Uganda Limited, which stands for Community Enterprise Model for Plant Oil Production.

 

Catnip oil insect repellent

A field trial participant engaged in collecting a landing mosquito.

Team members talking to school pupils.

Credit

Cardiff University and CEMPOP

 

Uptake of a treatment for opioid use disorder is highly uneven across the United States

Rutgers and Columbia researchers investigate overall increased use of a long-acting injectable buprenorphine, but large disparities persist

Rutgers University

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

There was a substantial increase in recent years in the use of a form of the primary medication to treat opioid use disorder, according to a Rutgers Health study.

 

Researchers also noted sharp differences in growth trends across the United States.

 

The first long-acting injectable form of buprenorphine, the most common medication for treating opioid use disorder, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in 2018. As a partial rather than full blocker of the opioid receptor, it blocks the effects of opioid drugs such as heroin or fentanyl and reduces risk of overdose. Long-acting injectables deliver buprenorphine via a shot, slowly releasing it into the bloodstream over a full month to provide a steady level of medication over time, as opposed to sublingual or oral forms.

 

The study, published in Health Affairs, examined pharmacy prescription claims from 2021 to 2024, including more than 4 billion prescriptions dispensed annually. Researchers explored state-level trends in the volume of long-acting injectable buprenorphine prescriptions as well as trends in insurance payer type, such as Medicaid, Medicare, commercial or self-pay and prescriber specialty, such as physicians or advanced practice clinicians.

 

“The data showed a rapid uptake of long-acting injectable buprenorphine, with the total number of buprenorphine prescriptions in injectable form increasing tenfold from 2021 to 2024,” said Stephen Crystal, the director of the Rutgers Center for Health Services Research and a coauthor of the study. “This matters because an injectable formulation could be lifesaving for those patients who struggle to stabilize on a daily oral medication. Sustained levels of medication, potentially reducing cravings for illicit drugs and assured protection for a full month may reduce the risk of overdose, particularly for individuals at high risk, such as those treated for prior overdose or in unstable living situations.”

 

Researchers observed marked increases in prescriptions for patients with Medicaid insurance benefits, the joint federal and state program that provides free or low-cost health coverage to low-income or disabled Americans. Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Alaska and Ohio had the highest rates of long-acting injectable prescriptions, possibly because of policies of their Medicaid plans that made this type of buprenorphine more accessible, according to researchers.

 

While overall prescription increases were observed, researchers noted significant differences in growth trends across states. In some states, less than 1% of buprenorphine prescribed was in long-acting injectable form, and in other states, close to 13% of buprenorphine was prescribed in injectable form by 2024.

 

“Given the variation across states, it’s evident that state-level policy decisions and insurance plan designs have a meaningful impact on expanding access to lifesaving opioid-use disorder treatment,” said Arthur Robin Williams, an associate professor at Columbia University and the lead author of the study.

 

Researchers also found disproportionate increases in long-acting injectable buprenorphine prescriptions among advanced practice clinicians, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

 

“These findings highlight the crucial role of Medicaid, as well as advanced practice clinicians, rather than physicians in combating the opioid crisis,” said Crystal, who is also a Distinguished Research Professor at Rutgers School of Social Work.

 

Coauthors include Mark Olfson of Columbia University and Hillary Samples and Jialiang Hua of Rutgers Institute for Health.

---

Journal

Health Affairs

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Publication Date

7-Jul-2026

 

Perceived risk of fentanyl use among US adolescents

JAMA Network Open

About The Study: 

In this survey study, an appreciable portion of adolescents—particularly the younger ones—were not aware of the dangers of fentanyl use. Clinicians, parents, schools, and public education programs all have important roles in communicating the potentially life-threatening risks of fentanyl misuse to adolescents.

Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Richard Miech, PhD, email ramiech@umich.edu.

To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/

(doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.22039)

Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.

#  #  #

Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article 

 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.22039?guestAccessKey=1b34668e-afe8-4888-aa3d-dd05b3b83eff&utm_source=for_the_media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=070726

About JAMA Network Open: JAMA Network Open is an online-only open access general medical journal from the JAMA Network. On weekdays, the journal publishes peer-reviewed clinical research and commentary in more than 40 medical and health subject areas. Every article is free online from the day of publication.

---

Journal

JAMA Network Open

The US Supreme Court Opens the Door to White Christian Only Government

Dean Baker

 July 3, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Conference room of the Supreme Court, where cases are decided. Photo: Supreme Court.

The Roberts Supreme Court is determined to earn the contempt with which it is viewed by most of the public. Its ruling this week essentially gave Donald Trump free rein to fire anyone in the government who doesn’t do what he wants. As corrupt as his administration has been to date, the Court’s ruling removed pretty much all remaining restraints.

Coupled with its recent ruling on revoking temporary protective status for immigrants from Trump’s list of “shithole” countries, the Court is effectively allowing Trump to make this a government of white Christian nationalists and for white Christian nationalists. The immigration ruling said that a long list of openly racist comments about people from the countries in question cannot be taken as evidence that Trump is motivated by racial animus in his immigration decision. In the same vein, Trump could fire every non-white or non-Christian person in the government as long as he insists his decisions were not based on race or religion.

But leaving Trump’s racism aside, let’s go back to the corruption that the Supreme Court felt it was important to unleash. As it stands now, agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are supposed to be staffed by professionals who make decisions on approving prescription drugs for public use, or airplanes for flying, based on a careful examination of the evidence on their safety.

The Supreme Court just ruled that Donald Trump can fire the people overseeing these agencies for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all. In their “unitary executive” theory, the writers of the Constitution felt it was essential that the president have the authority to fire anyone who makes decisions based on evidence or who refuses to lie for them.

This means that if the head of the FDA refuses to approve a drug based on the analysis of the experts who have examined the evidence, Trump can fire them. Similarly, if the FAA doesn’t greenlight a plane because it has failed safety tests, Trump can fire the FAA administrator.

Now, let’s bring Donald Trump’s family into the picture. (I’m always hesitant to mention a new grift on the possibility that the Trumpers would do it, if they had only thought of it.) Suppose Don Jr. has a 10 percent stake in a drug company that is pushing an ineffective, or even harmful, drug as a cure for cancer. The Supreme Court has ruled that Trump can tell the FDA commissioner that they must ignore the judgment of the experts who have examined the evidence and approve Don Jr.’s drug.

The same applies to planes. Eric can take a stake in an airplane manufacturer and demand that the FAA approve its latest plane, or his daddy will fire the commissioner. And if the commissioner happens to be a principled person who refuses to jeopardize public safety to keep their job, the Supreme Court says Trump can fire them and appoint an acting commissioner who will approve Eric’s plane.

If these stories sound far-fetched to you, then you haven’t been paying attention. Trump and his family are openly using the government to steal money in every way imaginable. The Supreme Court just gave them even more ways.

Of course, as the dissenters pointed out, it would not even make sense for Congress to have created these agencies in the first place if the president could put his political hacks in all the positions with any authority. What’s the point of having an FDA if it only approves the drugs of companies that make payoffs to the president’s family?

Trump has said he wanted to downsize government, and the Supreme Court has just come out strongly in favor of that view. Since it has ruled that federal agencies should all be cesspools of corruption, they might as well be shut down. Drug approvals based on payoffs to the Trump family are meaningless. Let’s just save the money and let drug companies push whatever crap they want in whatever way they want. At least no one will be fooled by a federal agency certifying the drugs as safe and effective.

This first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog.

Dean Baker is the senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. 

Affirmative Action is Alive and Well . . . If You are Rich and White

Algernon Austin

 July 3, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Still from The Skulls.

Three years ago, a major Supreme Court ruling struck down affirmative action in higher education admissions. Well, that is what they would like people to believe. In fact, there are still many preference policies in elite college admissions — especially if the student is rich and White. As the Trump administration continues to campaign against universities it claims are using race-related admissions policies that disadvantage White students, it has been silent about the many ways that White students are granted preferential treatment.

It is not hard to find high-profile examples. By his own admission, President George W. Bush was a C-student at Yale; he liked to remind people that even a C-student can become president. Bush also was a C-student in high school, and his SAT score was below the median for his class at Yale. Why might an academically mediocre student gain admission to an Ivy League university?

Bush had many characteristics that gave him advantages. The most important one is that he was a legacy — his father and grandfather both graduated from Yale. This meant that his chance of admission would be higher than other similar students without legacy status. And because of the history of racial discrimination, White students are more likely to have this type of legacy status.

Another admissions advantage is having a parent willing to make a hefty donation. The father of Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, donated $2.5 million to Harvard in 1998. Kushner was then accepted there, even though reports suggest that he did not have an impressive high school academic record. The economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues found that being from a family in the richest 1 percent increases the odds of a student’s admission to an elite college by 34 percent.

This preference for the very wealthy has clear racial implications. Despite the visibility of a few rich Black celebrities, Black families are significantly underrepresented among the ultra-rich. While about 13 percent of high school students are Black, only 3 percent of the richest 1 percent of families are Black. Meanwhile, about half of high school students are White, but over 80 percent of the richest 1 percent of families are White. The admissions preference for the richest 1 percent functions as a White preference.

There are other policies that serve the same ends. Students at elite colleges aredisproportionately from the Northeast. To diversify their enrollment, elite schools give a preference to applicants from underrepresented states. As one admissions consultant stated, “You have a much better chance of getting in if you’re in a state that might be in a more rural area” rather than a major city. An analysis of data from Brown University found that applicants from the very White states of North Dakota and Montana had an admissions rate more than twice that of applicants from New Jersey, a much more racially diverse state. This kind of preference could have benefited someone like Vice President JD Vance, who may have gained an advantage in admissions to Yale Law School because he is from a small town in Ohio.

Or consider athletic recruiting, which has been called “the biggest form of affirmative action in American higher education.” Elite schools like Harvard recruit for sports such as skiing, sailing, water polo, rowing, squash, fencing, and golf, and the recruited athletes are overwhelmingly wealthy, White students. Elite colleges also rely more heavily on ‘early decision’ admissions programs that require a student applicant to agree to attend the school if accepted. The acceptance rate for such applicants is higher than for regular admissions, and the pool of applications tends to skew White and wealthier. As the journalist Jeffrey Selingo reasons, “Students from upper-middle-class and wealthy families are willing to trade the ability to compare financial aid offers for an increased chance of getting in.”

Using the Supreme Court decision as its guide, Trump’s Justice Department is working to make sure that Black and Hispanic students are extremely underrepresented in elite medical schools. The department claims to be working to prevent the use of “racial proxies”—policies that are race-neutral but that provide a disproportionate benefit to a particular racial group.

Although legacy, donor, geographic, athletic, and early decision admission preferences all tilt in favor of White applicants, the Justice Department does not have an interest in preventing the use of these proxies for White students. It only has an interest in proxies for Black and Hispanic students and in blocking these students’ admission into elite education. In other words, the Trump Justice Department is practicing racial discrimination, not fighting it.

This originally appeared on CEPR.

Algernon Austin, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has conducted research and writing on issues of race and racial inequality for over 20 years. His primary focus has been on the intersection of race and the economy.