CHAPTER

Botanical Medicines in the Management of Lyme Disease and Tick-Borne Infections

A Critical Review of the Preclinical and Clinical Evidence

Yoon Hang Kim MD

Board Certified, Preventive Medicine

Integrative & Functional Medicine Physician

Disclaimer

This article is a review of the current medical literature on Lyme disease and is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult your personal physician or qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of something you have read in this article.

Abstract

Interest in botanical therapies for Lyme disease and related tick-borne infections has grown substantially over the past decade, driven in part by patient frustration with persistent symptoms after standard antibiotic courses and by a handful of compelling in-vitro studies. This chapter provides a critical, evidence-based review of the most studied botanical candidates, the three major clinical protocols through which they are commonly deployed — the Buhner Protocol, the Cowden Support Program, and the Rawls Protocol — and the safety and interaction profiles clinicians must weigh before recommending these agents. The chapter concludes with a conservative framework for incorporating botanicals as monitored adjuncts alongside guideline-concordant antimicrobial therapy, rather than as standalone treatments.

Introduction

Lyme disease, caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi, remains the most commonly reported vector-borne illness in the United States and Europe. While standard antibiotic regimens are effective for the majority of patients treated promptly, a meaningful subset — estimated at 10 to 20 percent in prospective cohort studies — go on to experience persistent symptoms including fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and cognitive difficulties, a constellation sometimes termed post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS).

This reality, combined with the complexity of tick-borne co-infections such as babesiosis, ehrlichiosis, anaplasmosis, and Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF), has fueled patient and clinician interest in complementary approaches. Three structured botanical protocols have emerged as the most widely used frameworks in integrative Lyme practice: the Buhner Protocol, the Cowden Support Program, and the Rawls Protocol. Each draws on overlapping but distinct herbal pharmacopeias and embodies a different treatment philosophy. This chapter examines each protocol, the individual agents they employ, and the evidence — and evidence gaps — that clinicians should understand before recommending any of them.

Scope and Terminology

Throughout this chapter, the term botanical medicine refers to plant-derived preparations used with therapeutic intent — whole-plant extracts, standardized fractions, and isolated phytochemicals. Essential oils are addressed as a separate category because their in-vitro concentrations and clinical delivery present distinct pharmacological and safety considerations.

The organisms under discussion include Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (Lyme disease), Babesia species (babesiosis), Bartonella henselae (bartonellosis), Ehrlichia and Anaplasma species (ehrlichiosis and anaplasmosis), and Rickettsia rickettsii (Rocky Mountain spotted fever).

The Preclinical Evidence: Strengths and Limitations

The foundation of botanical interest in tick-borne disease rests on a small but methodologically careful body of in-vitro work, primarily from the laboratory of Dr. Ying Zhang at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Feng and colleagues (2020) evaluated 46 herbal medicines against B. burgdorferi in both growing and stationary phases. Seven botanical extracts demonstrated activity superior to the antibiotic controls against stationary-phase cultures. Zhang et al. (2021) extended this work to Babesia duncani, and Ma et al. (2021) to Bartonella henselae.

Critically, this model — while scientifically sound for generating hypotheses — does not independently demonstrate that these organisms persist in living patients in a way that causes disease, nor does it predict whether herbal concentrations achievable in human tissue will replicate the in-vitro effect. The gap between a culture plate and a patient remains the central unsolved problem in this field.

Botanical Agents: A Ranked Evidence Review

The following table ranks the most studied botanical agents by the breadth and consistency of their preclinical signal across the three principal tick-borne organisms, alongside estimated clinical prevalence and key safety considerations. This ranking reflects laboratory evidence strength, not clinical efficacy, which remains undemonstrated for all agents listed.

Table 1. Ranked evidence summary for botanical agents in tick-borne disease. "Strong" = consistent activity across multiple assays. "Moderate" = preliminary or single-assay signal. "Conflicting" = discordant results across laboratories. "Hypothesis" = mechanistically plausible without direct antimicrobial evidence. "None" = no published data.

Major Clinical Botanical Protocols

While the laboratory evidence applies to individual botanical agents, clinicians and patients encounter these agents primarily through structured clinical protocols. Three frameworks dominate integrative Lyme practice. Each is compatible with the individualized treatment philosophy articulated in the 2014 ILADS guideline, though ILADS itself does not validate or recommend any specific herbal protocol. Its persistent-disease recommendations primarily concern antibiotic retreatment, and ILADS grades much of that evidence as very low quality. The three protocols are therefore best described as compatible with the individualized treatment philosophy used by many ILADS-oriented clinicians, rather than supported by ILADS.

The Buhner Protocol

Origin and philosophy. Developed by herbalist Stephen Harrod Buhner and detailed in Healing Lyme (2005; second edition 2015), the Buhner Protocol is arguably the most widely adopted phytotherapeutic framework for tick-borne disease. Buhner's approach is explicitly phytotherapy-first: herbs are positioned as potentially primary treatments rather than merely supportive adjuncts. The protocol is pathogen-targeted, with a core regimen for Borrelia and specific additions for co-infections.

Core herbs. The original core triad consisted of Japanese knotweed (resveratrol source, anti-spirochetal and anti-inflammatory), cat's claw (immunomodulatory and anti-Borrelia), and andrographis (broad-spectrum antimicrobial with activity against cyst forms). In later updates, Buhner revised the hierarchy, stating that Japanese knotweed is the single most important herb, followed by cat's claw, then eleuthero (Eleutherococcus senticosus) as an adaptogenic foundation, with andrographis retained for those who tolerate it. Sarsaparilla is included for its endotoxin-binding rationale.

Co-infection additions. For Babesia, Buhner recommends Cryptolepis sanguinolenta and Sida acuta. For Bartonella, Houttuynia cordata features prominently. This pathogen-specificity distinguishes the Buhner approach from protocols that rely on broad-spectrum coverage.

Evidence assessment. The protocol's strength lies in its component-level in-vitro support — several of its core herbs have been independently validated in the Feng/Zhang laboratory program. Its weakness is the complete absence of protocol-level clinical trials. Wide practitioner adoption provides observational support but cannot establish causality. Buhner's work is referenced in academic reviews of Lyme botanicals, lending it a degree of scholarly recognition unusual for non-peer-reviewed herbal protocols.

The Cowden Support Program

Origin and philosophy. Developed by W. Lee Cowden, MD, in collaboration with Nutramedix (the manufacturer of its constituent products), the Cowden Support Program is a structured, manufacturer-directed botanical rotation. Its central philosophy is that rotating antimicrobial herbs on a fixed schedule prevents microbial adaptation — a plausible hypothesis that has not been established specifically for Borrelia or for this protocol.

Core herbs. The two primary antimicrobials are Samento (a TOA-free pentacyclic chemotype of cat's claw) and Banderol (Otoba parvifolia). These are rotated with additional antimicrobial tinctures including Cumanda, Quina, and Enula on a structured weekly schedule. Burbur-Pinella is used as a "drainage" formula intended to manage treatment-associated symptom flares. Proteolytic enzymes (serrapeptase, bromelain) are included on the biofilm-disruption hypothesis.

Clinical observations. The most traceable clinical data come from a small uncontrolled experience reported by Richard Horowitz involving approximately 50 patients receiving full or modified Cowden strategies, with or without concurrent antibiotics, in which approximately two-thirds to three-quarters of participants reported improvement. Horowitz explicitly concluded that controlled trials were needed. A frequently cited Dallas 2003 cohort has not been located as a peer-reviewed primary publication and should not be presented as a formal study without identifying the original data. The Datar/Sapi laboratory work on Samento and Banderol, published in Townsend Letter, provides the most direct in-vitro evidence but is not equivalent to a peer-reviewed human clinical study.

Important corrections. Several claims commonly associated with the Cowden protocol require qualification. Burbur-Pinella is not a binder in the physicochemical sense — it is a practitioner-directed herbal formula with traditional rationale. The Weiss (2019) interaction data show that Banderol produced notable OATP1B1/OATP1B3 inhibition, while Samento demonstrated PXR-mediated P-glycoprotein induction — mechanistically the opposite direction from the commonly reported claim of P-gp inhibition. The evidence for Stevia as an anti-Borrelia agent is conflicting, with the Theophilus/Sapi results not reproduced by the Johns Hopkins group.

The Rawls Protocol

Origin and philosophy. Developed by Bill Rawls, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist who developed chronic Lyme disease in his mid-forties, the Rawls approach is detailed in Unlocking Lyme (2017) and commercialized through the Vital Plan Restore Kit. Rawls' central thesis differs meaningfully from both Buhner and Cowden: rather than framing the problem primarily as pathogen eradication, Rawls emphasizes cellular health and immune restoration. In his model, dormant intracellular microbes reactivate under conditions of immune suppression driven by stress, poor diet, toxin exposure, and other host factors. Herbal therapy, therefore, supports the host's capacity to suppress microbial activity rather than directly killing organisms.

Core herbs. The Restore Kit foundation formula contains andrographis (500 mg), Japanese knotweed (450 mg), cat's claw (300 mg), eleuthero (adaptogenic support), milk thistle (hepatoprotective), and turmeric (anti-inflammatory). Additional formulas in the kit address immune modulation (reishi, cordyceps), gastrointestinal support, and micronutrient supplementation. The doses are notably lower than those typically used in the Buhner Protocol, reflecting the Rawls philosophy that gentler, sustained immune support is preferable to aggressive antimicrobial dosing.

Evidence assessment. The Rawls approach has no published clinical data beyond Dr. Rawls' personal recovery narrative and practitioner testimonials. Its component herbs overlap substantially with those validated in the Zhang laboratory program, but the lower doses raise legitimate questions about whether therapeutically relevant tissue concentrations are achieved. The immune-restoration thesis is philosophically aligned with emerging evidence that persistent symptoms after Lyme disease involve immune dysregulation, metabolic abnormalities, and host-factor complexity beyond persistent viable infection alone.

Protocol Comparison

The following table summarizes the structural and philosophical differences among the three major protocols, highlighting where they overlap and where they diverge.

Table 2. Comparative summary of the three major botanical protocols used in integrative Lyme disease practice. All three are compatible with ILADS-oriented individualized treatment philosophy but none is specifically endorsed by ILADS. None has undergone protocol-level randomized controlled evaluation.

What the Evidence Does Not Support

Herbal monotherapy as first-line treatment. No botanical agent should replace doxycycline for suspected RMSF, ehrlichiosis, or anaplasmosis. Symptomatic babesiosis generally requires atovaquone plus azithromycin, and active Lyme disease warrants manifestation-specific antibiotic therapy as outlined in the IDSA/AAN/ACR guidelines.

Interchangeability of preparations. Crude herb, standardized extract, isolated active compound, and essential oil are pharmacologically distinct. Results from one preparation cannot be applied to another without independent study.

Predictable Herxheimer trajectories. Treatment-emergent symptom flaring is reported clinically, but prospective data establishing incidence, onset, duration, or predictive value for any specific botanical protocol are absent. A symptom flare should not automatically be interpreted as microbial die-off; the differential includes direct botanical intolerance, mast-cell/histamine activation, medication interaction, GI intolerance, hepatic adverse effect, allergy, disease fluctuation, and unrelated illness.

Systemic biofilm disruption via oral proteolytic enzymes. While Sapi et al. (2012) demonstrated Borrelia biofilm formation in vitro, no human study has shown that orally administered bromelain or serrapeptase disrupts Borrelia biofilm in vivo.

A Conservative Framework for Botanical Adjunct Use

First, do not delay standard care. Guideline-concordant antimicrobials remain the cornerstone of treatment. Botanicals are supplementary, not substitutional.

Second, document thoroughly. The decision to incorporate botanical adjuncts, the rationale, the informed consent discussion, and monitoring plans should be clearly documented.

Third, monitor actively. Baseline and periodic liver function tests, complete blood counts, and coagulation studies are reasonable for patients using hepatotoxicity-prone botanicals or those with antiplatelet or anticoagulant potential.

Fourth, screen for interactions. The Weiss (2019) interaction data — including OATP inhibition by Banderol and PXR-mediated induction by Samento — should be specifically considered alongside standard CYP-mediated interaction screening.

Fifth, address pregnancy separately. Human reproductive-safety information for several multi-herbal formulations is inadequate. Pregnancy and lactation require ingredient-by-ingredient risk assessment and are not populations in which any of the three protocols have been adequately studied.

Beyond Persistent Infection: A Multifactorial Framework

The functional-medicine argument for botanical adjuncts can be broadened beyond persistent infection alone. Emerging evidence suggests that people with persistent symptoms after Lyme disease may demonstrate biologic abnormalities involving immune regulation and metabolism. In treated Lyme neuroborreliosis, persistent symptoms have been associated with sustained systemic IFN-α even after cerebrospinal fluid inflammatory responses resolved. Metabolomic work has identified differences involving glycerophospholipids, bile acids, and acylcarnitines between PTLDS and recovered groups.

This supports a model — consistent with Horowitz's published MSIDS framework and the 2025 National Academies report — in which infection and exposure lead to host immune response, inflammatory signaling, and downstream autonomic, metabolic, and mitochondrial effects, with persistent viable infection being one possible mechanism among several. The Rawls emphasis on immune restoration, the Buhner attention to host resilience, and the Cowden inclusion of drainage and tolerability support all reflect different facets of this more sophisticated understanding.

Future Directions

Pharmacokinetic bridging studies are needed to determine whether oral dosing of these botanicals achieves the tissue concentrations shown to be active in vitro.

Randomized controlled trials — even small, well-designed pilots comparing botanical adjuncts to placebo alongside standard antibiotic therapy — would substantially advance the evidence base.

Protocol-level evaluation is particularly important. The field needs head-to-head or protocol-versus-placebo trials of complete treatment systems, not only single-agent studies, to determine whether the structured combinations and rotations used in clinical practice add value beyond their individual components.

Long-term safety data for chronic-use profiles — particularly hepatotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, and drug interaction potential — are essential given that many patients use these agents for months or years.

Conclusion

The botanical evidence in tick-borne disease is real, but it is early. The three major protocols — Buhner, Cowden, and Rawls — represent thoughtful attempts to translate laboratory findings and traditional phytotherapy into structured clinical approaches, each with a distinct treatment philosophy. Buhner is the most pathogen-targeted and phytotherapy-forward. Cowden is the most structured and manufacturer-integrated. Rawls is the most host-centered, emphasizing cellular health and immune restoration over direct pathogen eradication. All three share a core pharmacopeia anchored by cat's claw and Japanese knotweed, and all three lack protocol-level controlled human evidence.

The responsible path forward is neither dismissal nor premature adoption. It is rigorous investigation conducted with the same scientific standards we would demand of any therapeutic candidate. In the meantime, clinicians who choose to incorporate botanicals should do so as documented adjuncts to standard care, with transparent informed consent, active safety monitoring, and intellectual honesty about the limits of what we currently know.

The patients who seek these therapies are often those for whom standard treatment has been insufficient. They deserve both our compassion and our scientific rigor — not one at the expense of the other.

References

1. Feng J, Leone J, Schweig S, Zhang Y. Evaluation of Natural and Botanical Medicines for Activity Against Growing and Non-growing Forms of Borrelia burgdorferi. Frontiers in Medicine. 2020;7:6. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00006.
2. Zhang Y, Alvarez-Manzo H, Leone J, Schweig S, Zhang Y. Botanical Medicines Cryptolepis sanguinolenta, Artemisia annua, Scutellaria baicalensis, Polygonum cuspidatum, and Alchornea cordifolia Demonstrate Inhibitory Activity Against Babesia duncani. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2021;11:624745. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.624745.
3. Ma X, Leone J, Schweig S, Zhang Y. Botanical Medicines With Activity Against Stationary Phase Bartonella henselae. Infectious Microbes & Diseases. 2021;3(3):158–167. doi: 10.1097/IM9.0000000000000069.
4. Feng J, Zhang S, Shi W, Zubcevik N, Miklossy J, Zhang Y. Selective Essential Oils From Spice or Culinary Herbs Have High Activity Against Stationary Phase and Biofilm Borrelia burgdorferi. Frontiers in Medicine. 2017;4:169. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2017.00169.
5. Thompson A, Hynicka LM, Shere-Wolfe KD. A Comprehensive Review of Herbal Supplements Used for Persistent Symptoms Attributed to Lyme Disease. Integrative Medicine (Encinitas). 2023;22(1):30–38.
6. Shor SM, Schweig SK. The Use of Natural Bioactive Nutraceuticals in the Management of Tick-Borne Illnesses. Microorganisms. 2023;11(7):1759. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11071759.
7. Sapi E, Bastian SL, Mpoy CM, et al. Characterization of Biofilm Formation by Borrelia burgdorferi In Vitro. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(10):e48277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048277.
8. Brorson Ø, Brorson SH, Scythes J, MacAllister J, Wier A, Margulis L. Destruction of Spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi Round-Body Propagules by the Antibiotic Tigecycline. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106(44):18656–18661.
9. Lantos PM, Rumbaugh J, Bockenstedt LK, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Academy of Neurology, and American College of Rheumatology: 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Lyme Disease. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2021;72(1):e1–e48. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.
10. Cameron DJ, Johnson LB, Maloney EL. Evidence assessments and guideline recommendations in Lyme disease: the clinical management of known tick bites, erythema migrans rashes and persistent disease. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy. 2014;12(9):1103–1135. doi: 10.1586/14787210.2014.940900.
11. Alexander W. Integrative Healthcare Symposium: Cancer and Chronic Lyme Disease [symposium/presentation summary]. Pharmacy and Therapeutics. 2009;34(4):202–214.
12. Horowitz RI, Freeman PR. Precision Medicine: The Role of the MSIDS Model in Defining, Diagnosing, and Treating Chronic Lyme Disease/Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome and Other Chronic Illness: Part 2. Healthcare. 2018;6(4):129.
13. Weiss J. Herb–Drug Interaction Potential of Anti-Borreliae Effective Extracts From Uncaria tomentosa (Samento) and Otoba parvifolia (Banderol) Assessed In Vitro. Molecules. 2019;24(1):137.
14. Hernández SA, et al. Association of Persistent Symptoms after Lyme Neuroborreliosis and Increased Levels of Interferon-α in Blood. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2023;29(6):1091–1101.
15. Fitzgerald BL, et al. Metabolic Response in Patients With Post-treatment Lyme Disease Symptoms/Syndrome. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2021;73(7):e2342–e2349.
16. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Charting a Path Toward New Treatments for Lyme Infection-Associated Chronic Illnesses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2025.
17. Buhner SH. Healing Lyme: Natural Healing of Lyme Borreliosis and the Coinfections Chlamydia and Spotted Fever Rickettsioses. 2nd ed. Silver City, NM: Raven Press; 2015.
18. Rawls B. Unlocking Lyme: Myths, Truths, and Practical Solutions for Chronic Lyme Disease. First Do No Harm Publishing; 2017.
19. Horowitz RI. Why Can't I Get Better? Solving the Mystery of Lyme and Chronic Disease. New York: St. Martin's Press; 2013.
20. Johnson L, et al. Antibiotic Treatment Response in Chronic Lyme Disease: Why Do Some Patients Improve While Others Do Not? Healthcare. 2020;8(4):383.
21. CDC. Clinical Care of Babesiosis. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated September 2, 2026. Accessed September 2026. https://cdc.gov/babesiosis/hcp/clinical-care/index.html.
22. CDC. Clinical Care of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 6, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/rocky-mountain-spotted-fever/hcp/clinical-care/index.html.
23. Biggs HM, Behravesh CB, Bradley KK, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Tickborne Rickettsial Diseases: Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and Other Spotted Fever Group Rickettsioses, Ehrlichioses, and Anaplasmosis — United States: A Practical Guide for Health Care and Public Health Professionals. MMWR Recommendations and Reports. 2016;65(2):1–44. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6502a1.
24. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Cat's Claw: Usefulness and Safety. National Institutes of Health. Accessed September 2026.
25. Yang L, Aronsohn A, Hart J, Jensen D. Herbal hepatotoxicity from Chinese skullcap: A case report. World Journal of Hepatology. 2012;4(7):231–233.