Bedbug "Magic Pill"? « Got Bed Bugs? Bedbugger Forums

Got Bed Bugs? Bedbugger Forums » Tools/ideas for fighting bed bugs

Bedbug "Magic Pill"?

(17 posts)

Tags:

paranoid_person

newbite
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2
offline

Posted 3 years ago
Sat May 22 2010 17:45:40
#

Login to Send PM

Hi,

I have been thinking a lot about the issue of bedbugs (due to my unfortunate indoctrination into the "I have bedbugs" club), and it seems to me that one major difference between bedbugs and other major house pests is that they ONLY eat our blood...now, what if we could rub on some sort of cream or even take a pill that would be harmless to us but would kill the bugs who feed on us? Imagine a world where if you get bedbugs, all you have to do is put on some lotion!? It seems logical to me that we should put Strychnine in the well (so to speak). Just an idea...obviously I am not an expert or a doctor, and I know that finding some chemical that would inertly sit in our blood stream or on our skin waiting to kill an insect is a tall order, but whoever does invent that is going to be the next Bill Gates. Seriously, experts, get crackin', bc this whole throw out my life and start everything over thing really really sucks... **NOTE: I AM NOT ADVOCATING SWALLOWING POISON OR RUBBING DE ON ONESELF OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT...I AM TALKING ABOUT PROFESSIONALS DEVELOPING A SAFE-ISH (TO US) WAY TO KILL BUGS WHO COME IN CONTACT WITH OUR SKIN**
kirads09

member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 233
offline

Posted 3 years ago
Sat May 22 2010 18:02:59
#

Login to Send PM

I have wondered the same thing!! What if we could have something in our blood that was harmless to us, but killed them when they fed!! Maybe you are on to something!??
PhillyGurl1218

newbite
Joined: May '10
Posts: 9
offline

Posted 2 years ago
Sun May 23 2010 8:15:45
#

Login to Send PM

That really isn't a bad idea. You are definitely on to something. Some pharma company should really consider researching it since it seems bbs are making a giant comeback.

I have considered sleeping in bug spray like OFF. Would that work to at least repel them? I am tired of waking up with itchy bites while I am waiting for the PCO treatment to work.
Worstb-dayofall

newbite
Joined: May '10
Posts: 25
offline

Posted 2 years ago
Sun May 23 2010 9:41:59
#

Login to Send PM

PhillyGurl1218 - 1 hour ago » I am tired of waking up with itchy bites while I am waiting for the PCO treatment to work.

On my last forum someone posted a way to not get bit by bb's while waiting for a pco. They had said to put double sided tape around the bed, I'm pretty sure that means around the mattress you are sleeping on so that when they are about to climb on you for food, they will get caught.

But someone else had said not to do that b/c it would be a repellent for the bb's and would cause them to spread.

Starting a new forum about this to get more info would be good.

Hope this helps

Paranoid, if we did have something like this do you know how happy we would all be. I would even trap one after its feeding to watch it die. Great revenge
buggyinsocal

oldtimer
Joined: Jun '08
Posts: 2,440
offline

Posted 2 years ago
Sun May 23 2010 10:34:01
#

Login to Send PM

While I would be thrilled if there was a vitamin that we could take to kill bed bugs, I think, for better or worse, the liability issues that come with a pesticidal agent of some sort that we consume would make this an unlikely fix. No pharma company in the world wants to take on that kind of risk.

Furthermore, many people in the US live in buildings with animals other than humans also residing there. If the bugs died from drinking our blood, what's not to say that over time they'd figure that out and move on to consuming blood from mammals like dogs, cats, and rodents or from birds.

Thus, even if a big pharma company were willing to take the risk, I'm not sure long term it's the magic pill bullet strategy it first seems like. I do wish it were really just that easy, so I get where you're coming from, but at the same time, I try to approach strategies for dealing with bed bugs in terms of what's practical and likely to come to fruition in the long run.

As for repellents, I believe there are two potential problems with them: first, repellents like DEET or citronella don't have much effect on bed bugs to start out with. If they're hungry, they'll come after you, and if you read the labels on most insect repellents, they do not encourage people to wear them for long periods of time. Since bed bugs feed at night most of the time but will adapt, esp. if they get hungry enough, there's some question about how effective insect repellents are at repelling the bugs in the first place.

Secondly, as with some chemical pesticides, there is a real question about whether if the repellents do work, they're a good idea.

One of the big problems with the way that most people self-treat for bed bugs is that some chemicals have a repellent effect on bed bugs, which is unintuitively exactly what you don't want when treating bed bugs. On a gut level, it would seem that anything that would drive the bugs away would be good, right? Bugs gone=less suffering.

In the short term, that may be true, but long term, you're often making the problem worse. If the bugs are pushed away from their food source by any repellent effect--insect repellent, improperly applied pesticides, or even a bed bug trapped somewhere emitting an alarm pheromone--that can cause the bugs to scatter into a wider area of infestation than it started in, sometimes pushing some of them in places that are even harder to reach.

Wider dispersal and deeper entrenched populations of bugs can make the bed bug problem a lot harder to get rid of.

There are ways to protect or isolate the bed. Read the FAQ on that if you're one of the people who is so grossed out by the bugs that you're having trouble sleeping while you're acting as bait.

Do keep in mind that isolating the bed isn't something that everyone does, and it may make treating the bugs take longer in some ways (I don't think we're sure about that, and I think the answer to that question will depend in part on your infestation and how you're treating overall.)
kirads09

member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 233
offline

Posted 2 years ago
Sun May 23 2010 13:04:50
#

Login to Send PM

Do bedbugs have any natural predators?
PhillyGurl1218

newbite
Joined: May '10
Posts: 9
offline

Posted 2 years ago
Sun May 23 2010 13:43:12
#

Login to Send PM

Worstb-day, I have heard of the double sided tape thing. I am afraid it might have the infestation worse. I am afraid we have already contributed to the problem by sleeping in our living room while waiting for the PCO. Our couch was infested but I am not sure if we caused that by sleeping there or they ended up there before we noticed them.

I think my husband has been getting used to the bites. Maybe I can double-side tape my side of the bed and let him be the bait

buggyinsocal - 2 hours ago »
There are ways to protect or isolate the bed. Read the FAQ on that if you're one of the people who is so grossed out by the bugs that you're having trouble sleeping while you're acting as bait.

Buggy, you had some very good points about repellents. I suppose I won't start buying up the entire bug repellent supply at Walmart. We are currently protecting the bed. We just had everything treated a few days ago. I am really grossed out by the fact that I am still getting bit....especially when they bite my face!!! I suppose I could learn to deal with the bites everywhere else, I feel like these critters totally crossed the line by biting my face. Now I have a giant welt on my cheek. I guess I'll just have to wait a bit for the PCO to comeback and retreat. I suppose it's too early now. He said he'll inspect in two more weeks. It's getting easier to sleep in the bed, even though I still wake up throughout the night worried about being covered in bugs. I never look though. I'm afraid if I see one, I'll never go back to sleep. It sucks knowing I won't get a really good night's sleep until I know these annoying pests are gone from my house.

I only hope that maybe, one day, we'll find a better and faster way of treating these infestations, especially since it's become quite an epidemic. Why is there such a resurgance of these bugs? This is one species I wouldn't mind seeing wiped off the face of the earth.
spideyjg

oldtimer
Joined: Jul '08
Posts: 3,201
offline

Posted 2 years ago
Sun May 23 2010 14:34:45
#

Login to Send PM

kirads09 - 1 hour ago »
Do bedbugs have any natural predators?

None that will wipe them out. Spiders will eat them but are not an eradication strategy.

Leave spiders to roam and they will take one out if hunting or it walks in their web. Dead BBs are good BBs.

Also scan spiderwebs for evidence.

Jim
thebedbugresource

old timer
Joined: Apr '07
Posts: 595
offline

Posted 2 years ago
Sun May 23 2010 15:41:11
#

Login to Send PM

If there were some sort of pill to take internally to fend off biting insects believe me they would have developed it long before bed bugs made a resurgence.

Mosquitoes and Blackflies would have been the first target for such a product as there would be millions of dollars to be made in the North American market alone (campers, hikers, hunters, etc.). Not to mention the millions of people that die each year to malaria in Africa.

If it were possible (up to this point) it would have already been invented. Not to say that it is impossible ...

Sean
kirads09

member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 233
offline

Posted 2 years ago
Mon May 24 2010 11:07:25
#

Login to Send PM

spideyjg - 20 hours ago »

kirads09 - 1 hour ago »
Do bedbugs have any natural predators?

None that will wipe them out. Spiders will eat them but are not an eradication strategy.
Leave spiders to roam and they will take one out if hunting or it walks in their web. Dead BBs are good BBs.
Also scan spiderwebs for evidence.
Jim

Thanks for the info!
ParanoidBoutBedbugs

newbite
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 17
offline

Posted 1 year ago
Tue Sep 27 2011 9:34:06
#

Login to Send PM

paranoid_person -- I have been wanting to ask the same thing. It MUST be possible. Since I have dogs, I couldn't help but think about this when I was putting my dogs' Frontline on them for fleas. Many companies have come out with different anti-flea medications for dogs ... there's Frontline and Advantage that you put on the back of their neck and it soaks into their skin. There's Capstar and Comfortis that they take as a pill and it works slightly differently. The fleas get on them and die ... the dogs essentially act as a flea-killing machine and the fleas never learn to not seek them out or anything.

So why couldn't something similar be developed for people to kill bedbugs?
buggyinsocal

oldtimer
Joined: Jun '08
Posts: 2,440
offline

Posted 1 year ago
Tue Sep 27 2011 13:14:12
#

Login to Send PM

ParanoidBoutBedBugs,

I know you mean well, and believe me, when I was in the middle of a bed bug infestation, I wondered the same thing, but there is some faulty logic in your conclusions.

Dogs and cats live much shorter life spans, and generally speaking, the regulations for approving pest control measures for pets and livestock are not as rigid as they are for humans since we live longer lives.

If humans only lives 20 years at most, I'm sure we wouldn't need to be as worried about carcinogenic and/or mutagenic effects of chemicals, but we're living 4 to 5 times as long as they do.

In addition, saying that we can invent Frontline for fleas and ticks, so why can't we invent something similar to bed bugs is like asking why if we can put men on the moon, we can't cure cancer or the common cold. It's a rhetorical move that sounds utterly logical, but that when you look at it more closely, the comparison between flea or tick treatments for pets and the desire for a bed bug treatment for humans does not hold up.

For example, fleas and ticks spend a substantial amount of time living or feeding on the host.

Bed bugs do not.

Pets live a much shorter lifespan than humans, so they are less vulnerable to long-term toxicity that comes from pesticides applied directly to than than we would be.

And pets' flea and tick treatments go through a very different approval process than do chemicals used to treat humans.

In addition, bed bugs are currently treated like a problem for pest controllers. To get something like a topical anti-insect agent for humans, you'd need to get pest control, chemical, and medical sectors to work together--assuming it were possible to invent something safe.

I get the desperation that makes us want something like that, but it's just not likely to happen.

And posting about it makes it more likely that someone really desperate will try to apply something like Frontline or Advantage to themselves which would be profoundly dangerous.

Bed bugs make people desperate. They often cause significant sleep deprivation. So I'm often worried that posts that people make innocently enough will get misread by someone who is strung out from lack of sleep and dealing with a bad landlord or a tough situation and will be desperate enough to try anything.

I'm not suggesting that you're advocating the use of pet meds on humans, but I do like to respond to such posts to be super clear that no one on the boards is advocating that either.
ParanoidBoutBedbugs

newbite
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 17
offline

Posted 1 year ago
Tue Sep 27 2011 13:40:39
#

Login to Send PM

buggyinsocal,

I know you know this, but I was not in any way advocating someone put something like Frontline or Advantage on themselves. I would hope no one would do that as it would be unsafe and those products are designed for a different species and to target different insects. I was suggesting that it would be possible to develop something like that to put on people for bedbugs. I was not saying it would be easy or that the approval process wouldn't be arduous, but I think it makes a lot of sense as something to consider.

Honestly, I don't think my post had faulty logic in it at all. However, I'm wondering, where did you get the idea that shorter lifespans make dogs and cats less vulnerable to cancer than humans are? They age just as we do, albeit in a shorter amount of time. When they get old, they are more vulnerable to cancer just as elderly humans are. According to WebMD, 50 percent of dogs over age 10 develop cancer at some point. ( http://pets.webmd.com/dogs/guide/dogs-and-cancer-get-the-facts ) Do you have a source that confirms that "regulations for approving pest control measures for pets and livestock are not as rigid as they are for humans since we live longer lives." I know regulations are not as rigid, but I don't think it's for the reason you cite -- I think it's because we, in our society, tend to take human safety a lot more seriously.

I do think there are far more hoops that have to be jumped through to develop any medication for use in humans, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. Here's an article someone posted in another post on a similar topic: http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20110711/ZNYT04/107113012

I don't think there's any harm in talking theoretically about these things. If anyone thinks that someone might harm themselves as a result of these theoretical ideas, I hope they will delete this thread.
AshamedandScratching

senior member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 660
offline

Posted 1 year ago
Tue Sep 27 2011 15:37:51
#

Login to Send PM

Check out the CDC threads and you'll see why BuggyinSoCal said that. One woman in NC died after applying insecticides to her body, along with multiple foggers in her sealed home.
buggyinsocal

oldtimer
Joined: Jun '08
Posts: 2,440
offline

Posted 1 year ago
Wed Sep 28 2011 10:22:15
#

Login to Send PM

ParanoidBoutBedBugs,

I wrote an argument that implied more than stated. I'm more likely to do that when I don't have enough time to post to the boards, like now, so I'll drop a few responses here which is, sadly, all I have time for.

I know that pets get cancer. I think, actually, my implied argument (the one in my head) agrees with yours: the approval process for drugs for animals is less rigorous than the one for drugs for people precisely because most people value the lives of humans more--or, at least, are more afraid of legal liability if people over their long lifespans become sick and sue the chemical companies. There's a long history of drugs that have been given to humans that turned out to be deeply dangerous (DES, thalidomide, etc.).

I"m not suggesting that all drugs are dangerous.

I am suggesting that the companies that produce them are far more worried about massive lawsuits from people over side effects than are the companies that produce drugs that pets are likely to be for the very reason you cite.

Also, humans live longer lives. If we're exposed to something as children and it has a long-term carcinogenic effect, manufacturers have to worry about a 70 or 80 year down the line time frame.

If a dog or cat is exposed to something carcinogenic, manufacturers don't have to worry about a time frame that long.

I didn't spell that out because those conclusions seemed awfully logical to me.

As for the faulty logic, I'm afraid that just saying that the logic in an argument isn't faulty isn't enough.

The fact of the matter is that the science behind manufacturing a chemical pesticide that would be delivered through human blood to a pest that consumes only blood to an insect that does not harbor on its host is simply a very, very deeply different process than designing an insecticide that works the way that the ones in Advantage and/or Frontline work.

I'm not a pest control professional, but if learning about bed bugs has taught me anything, it's that the behavior of the bugs is hugely important to figuring out what kinds of chemicals will work. Fleas and ticks work very differently than bed bugs.

Comparing those topical insecticides for pets to something that would need to be ingested internally by humans for control of an insect that doesn't spread disease (ticks do)--given the legal system in the United States and our corporate culture's fear of legal liability? I think it's abundantly clear that that's a classic false analogy. For an analogy to be effective, the major variables between the two things need to be relatively similar, and the variables here are not nearly similar enough.
ParanoidBoutBedbugs

newbite
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 17
offline

Posted 1 year ago
Wed Sep 28 2011 11:26:13
#

Login to Send PM

I absolutely agree that the researcher would need to look at the behavior of the bug and develop something specifically targeted to that bug, in this case bedbugs. But I don't think that the fact that bedbugs have different behaviors than fleas/ticks means that something couldn't be developed for bedbugs. Look at the article I linked, that I got from someone else linking to it in a different thread, re: mosquitoes biting people who had taken invermectin for something else, and dying. Mosquitoes, like bedbugs, do not spend a lot of time on the host. And invermectin, as it was being used in this case, was relatively safe for the humans. (Of course, you'll always have some cases where a "relatively safe" drug turns out not to be for someone, such as the rare cases of the people who die from drinking too much alcohol and taking Tylenol.)

Yes, developing a drug is risky. But we have companies developing drugs/injections/cremes whatever for all kinds of things, some of which are pure vanity. Surely, if companies are willing to develop drugs and potions that make us look better, they'd be willing to take a chance on developing something that would solve such a huge public health/quality of life menace as bedbugs. (Yes, I know they haven't been proved to transmit any diseases, but it's at the very least a mental health issue.)
Sleepingwithvampbugs

junior member
Joined: Sep '11
Posts: 37
offline

Posted 1 year ago
Thu Sep 29 2011 10:16:58
#

Login to Send PM

kirads09 - 1 year ago »
I have wondered the same thing!! What if we could have something in our blood that was harmless to us, but killed them when they fed!! Maybe you are on to something!??

Me and hubby was just thinking and talking about this last night too