Source?

And I assume your mean "Central" America.

Again, it is not a cure. To use this word is misleading at best. I am one of the researchers who are developing this treatment, if you did not pick that up from the wording of my comment you replied to.

The bacteria being used for treatment are not contacting the bat or the environment, therefor there is no persistence on either. Please read the article before making these kinds of assumptions. This is exactly now misinformation is spread.

Quite the contrary. Microbiome research conducted on bats does not suggest a dysbiosis is responsible for the white-nose syndrome fungal infections. The fungal inhibition observed during these treatment trials is being elicited by non-contact antagonism. This means that the bacteria have to merely be in the same shared airspace as the fungus or infected bats for a short period of time, to inhibit the fungal growth. It is yet unknown what the exact mechanism is, so it may be antifungal volatile organic compounds (VOCs) being produced, immune system stimulation, or something else.

The trials that were conducted were a treatment, not a cure. A cure insinuates the organism is no longer susceptible to the disease, which is not the case with these treatments. A better article, that represents our research and treatments, and quotes us better, is the MNN article below.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matte...

The article you reference is not done by the same group that conducted the treatment trials. In fact, the bacteria in that article is a completely different genus. The link below is the research that led up to this treatment. I am an author on the paper below and am a researcher at Georgia State University who was a part of the group that conducted the treatment trials.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1...