Fake Banner
    HIV Halted By Plants
    By Erin Richards | September 29th 2009 04:49 PM | 27 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Erin

    I am a current graduate student at USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. I write for Neon Tommy, a digital news website, as a science...

    View Erin's Profile
    HIV/AIDS has been one of the most devastating diseases of the twenty first century. Since the discovery of the HIV virus, our research has demystified the life cycle and actions of the virus, but we have yet to develop a vaccine or adequate long term treatments to the infection.

    Treatment options for HIV positive patients are limited. Anti-retroviral drugs have helped to significantly increase the quality of life for patients, but taking the highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) leads to HIV resistance and adaptation, leaving patients unable to control or suppress their viral load. 

    HIV molecule: Applied Mathematics Department, University of Colorado, Boulder

    Researchers are looking for other treatment options, and they’re having some luck in the plant kingdom. According to Dr. Randall Alberte, chief scientific officer for HerbalScience, a botanical research company, the amount of practical drug applications found in plants is indeed significant. “About 60 percent of our drugs contain a compound from plants, like Taxol, which is used in chemotherapy,” says Alberte.

    The National Institutes of Health has set up a whole department, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) devoted to funding and exploring these areas, including botanical research, for treatment options. The NIH dedicated budget for NCCAM for 2008 was over 121 million dollars for clinical trials and research studies of complementary and alternative medicine.

    HIV patients are no strangers to herbal and botanical supplements. According to a study led by the Cambridge Health Alliance, 15% of HIV positive patients in the US used herbal medicine to help ease or reduce symptoms. These include botanical extracts from gingko biloba and Echinacea.

    Collaboration between the University of Miami Leonard Miller School of Medicine and HerbalScience Group, has produced a new study, which was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Antiviral Chemistry and Chemotherapy.  The study examines the effect of certain botanical compounds on the HIV virus’ ability to infect cells. A specific class of compounds called flavonoids was demonstrated to bind to the virus particles, called virons, and prohibit them from infecting cells.

    Photo credit: Green tea by flickr user Ayelie

    Alberte feels that the results of the study are promising. He says that botanicals “…open the door to the possibility of developing alternative means to reduce viral loads in HIV infected individuals, as well as a less expensive means to provide alternative treatments to those who are unable or cannot afford to receive traditional drug therapies.”

    The study examined three botanicals including elderberry, green tea and cinnamon. Elderberry has demonstrated previous anti-viral activity against influenza virus that led researchers to question whether the anti-viral properties could be effective against the HIV virus. Compounds in green tea including proanthocyanidins like EGCG also have anti viral activity that researchers examined in this study. Lastly, cinnamon extracts are rich in polyphenols and chemical analysis revealed that the properties have similarities to elderberry, including possible antiviral activity.

    The research revealed that the flavonoids in the extracts bind to what Dr. Alberte identifies as the “knob of the virus,” which is found on the protruding parts of the viral envelope. The botanicals inhibit
    the virus’s ability to interact with cells by preventing its entrance and ultimately its infection of the cell. Without the ability to enter cells, the HIV virus cannot reproduce and cannot spread more viruses into other cells.

    The authors of the study conclude their discussion on a positive beat, noting that “these flavonoids are potential small molecule lead compounds for new anti-HIV-1 drugs addressing a new therapeutic target for HIV-1/AIDS.”

    The herbal pharmacy industry is definitely growing; countries like Japan, China, and Taiwan have many large companies invested in doing research on plant and other botanical compounds like mushrooms, Vitamin E and gingko biloba. An emerging company in Taiwan, G&E Herbal Biotechnology Company Limited has only seen an increase in profit. Its stock has risen to over 80 dollars per share from just 55 since 2008.

    However not everyone feels that this research means a new herbal drug therapy for HIV. Dr. Michael Dube, Professor of Clinical Medicine at USC’s Keck School of Medicine Division of Infectious Disease, is cautious of the antiviral applications of plant-based research. “I am a little skeptical that there would be something in a plant that could protect an animal from a virus. There is no reason in nature for there to be an anti- HIV substance in a plant. That said, it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be looked for.”

    The results of this initial study look promising, but Dube and other researchers are calling for more research to prove the effectiveness of plant-based therapies for HIV.



     



     



     


    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    I am a little skeptical that there would be something in a plant that could protect an animal from a virus. There is no reason in nature for there to be an anti- HIV substance in a plant.
    I'm curious as to the basis for this statement.  Any ideas?
    Mundus vult decipi
    spinner
    I think Dr. Dube feels that since plants don't have viruses, they don't have specific compounds that would act as antiviral molecules. He doesn't really take into account that the relationships may be serendipitous instead of intentional.
    This is ridiculous. OF COURSE plants have viruses! And plants have many many antiviral compounds! In fact, the compounds studied by these folks are important inhibitors of virus infections in insects.
    The question is whether they can a) get to their target and b) retain activity while c) not causing nasty side effects in humans. Biomedical studies often ignore one or more of these requirements.
    It's hard to tell whether this study has any utility at all,since it isn't available (without purchase) yet. The abstract suggests that all they did was bind the compounds to virions then see if the virions were infective. Flavonoids and proanthocyanidins (tannisn) bind to any protein or nucleotide, and would inhibit virus infection done that way. They would NOT (and frequently do not) have the same impact in the body.
    That said, plants are nature's largest, most diverse pharmacopeia, and antivirals abound. This report is almost entirely uncritical, retreads really old territory (NCAM isn't new), and may even lead us astray

    kerrjac
    Fascinating topic.
    The National Institutes of Health has set up a whole department, the
    National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
    devoted to funding and exploring these areas, including botanical
    research, for treatment options. The NIH dedicated budget for NCCAM for
    2008 was over 121 million dollars for clinical trials and research
    studies of complementary and alternative medicine.
    This is excellent coming from the NIH. One goal that the NIH should have - this maybe emerging slowly - is to fund areas of research that are less likely to be funded by other sources. As it is, they have a short evolving list of funding criteria: an ever changing ratio of feasibility to benefit, researcher expertise, and more recently funding PI's earlier in their career. But I've always thought that research less likely to be carried by others (eg private industry) should explicitly be added.

    The conundrum revolving plant research is obvious (eg, not patentable, not prescribeable), albeit not likely to be solved by the NIH; while the payoff to society for just a bit of genuine research into this area is quite high. Despite its poor reputation among many doctor's, the gray area of alternative medicine is at least partly a reflection of arbitrary FDA regulation.
    “I am a little skeptical that there would be something in a plant that
    could protect an animal from a virus. There is no reason in nature for
    there to be an anti- HIV substance in a plant. That said, it doesn’t
    mean that it shouldn’t be looked for.”
    A friend of mine was telling me how viruses (and most infectious agents) aren't technically living organisms, nor even single cellular organisms, which makes their existence all the more mysterious. I'd suppose an evolutionary theory would be that they're here to test our fitness. But it makes you think that they had to come from somewhere. Moreover plants are well-known to cure certain modern ailments (eg, Artemisinin in malaria).

    There's no reason to think that there's an anti-HIV substance in plants, but at the same there's no reason to think that plants should have any effect on the immune system (or any other part of functioning) whatsoever. That so many plants have such diverse effects on us - I would think - is a huge clue...about something.
    Till a definitely curing medicine is find out, all the curing possibilities such as using this plant therapy could be well explored to save the mankind from the grip of HIV infection.

    spinner
    I think that it is definitely worthwhile. It is also interesting that the same botanicals also demonstrate a wide range of anti-viral capabilities as well that have potential for other viral diseases aside from HIV.
    It blows my mind that anyone would question the use and validity of plant-based medicine. Just a couple areas where our bodies react to plants: We can't live very well without vegetables in our diet; Pollen and plant allergies - which are AUTO IMMUNE. Some scientists must forget that all of life - in one way or another - is a cellular reaction, and that our existence is tied to the world around us. We breathe oxygen because of plants, for goodness sake! And if this brief rant has not shed enough light on the topic...Don't forget where antibiotics were found - in the soil. In the rotting organic material of our world. We are fools to rule out any naturally occurring solution to any medical problem. Sheesh!

    There's a huge difference between using plant extracts in clinical trials and determining what chemicals in the plants may have medical applications and swallowing so called herbal remedies like gingko biloba and Echinacea - which have only anecdotal stories and no clinical trials or even regulation.

    The only herb that I've known friends with AIDS to use was marijunana - it reduced the side effects of the AIDS medication, including reducing nausea and increasing appetite and eliminating pain symptoms.

    Nina, using herbal medicines is not popular in the US, but it is practiced by 80 or the world's population, evidently with some success. You're certainly correct that swallowing herbs and developing medicines from them are not the same thing, but they are connected. What people swallow suggests places to look for useful chemistry.

    For an example of an herbal medicine thought to be effective against AIDS, visit
    http://www.wlbcenter.org/ticips.htm

    In my reply to Nina, that should have been 80 percent of the world's population (using medicinal plants).

    jtwitten
    This is an argumenum ad populum. The fact that a lot of people around the world use herbal medicine says nothing about their actual effectiveness. While folk remedies might suggest useful places to look for therapuetic compounds, it is not evidence.
    Herbs may be used by 80% of the global population

    but the problem is that it is not with any evident success, because the herbs are not tested in clinical trials, and there is no tracking and collating results - anecdotal stories are not evidence.

    If I get a cold and take herbs and it goes away in a couple days, well, it would have anyway without the herbs - the herbals would have to have a measurable effect on the duration or severity of the symptoms, they do not.

    the other issue is that so many of these herbal, ancient, naturopathic treatments are complimentary to western medicine.

    well, that doesn't suggest a person getting better was down to the additional use of herbs or homeo, naturo whatever treament - you'd have to run trials of people with a disease and have one group get the western meds and the other group get only the "alternative" one and see how many people are better or dead at the end of the trial.

    the reality is that so call complimentary or alternative treatments are not proven and as such, largely cannot be proven and tend to have their origins in mystical "ancients" or can be traced back to snake oil salespeople - we shouldn't be using our healthcare dollars on treatments that at best provide false comfort and don't interfere with whatever actual treatment you are undergoing and at worse can interfere with actual treatments and waste insurance and medical coverage dollars.

    Gerhard Adam
    the reality is that so call complimentary or alternative treatments are not proven and as such, largely cannot be proven and tend to have their origins in mystical "ancients" or can be traced back to snake oil salespeople - we shouldn't be using our healthcare dollars on treatments that at best provide false comfort and don't interfere with whatever actual treatment you are undergoing and at worse can interfere with actual treatments and waste insurance and medical coverage dollars.
    While not proven is true to a degree, it is important to remember that modern pharmacology originated based on the knowledge of herbal medicines.  Aspirin wasn't created by someone's imagination.  The active ingredients were identified in 1829 based on the use of willow leaves to relieve pain.  This was based on early documentation by Hippocrates (one of the mystical "ancients") on it's use for headaches, pain, and fever.

    The medical industry wasted plenty of money and abused treatments when antibiotics were given for viral diseases (talk about false comfort).  While there's certainly the opportunity for people to be mislead or to assign greater abilities to herbals than are warranted, the same problem occurs with modern drugs.  Pharmaceutical companies are not spending millions of dollars in television advertising because they think that's the only way to keep doctors informed. 

    A recent article shows that gabapentin may be a dangerous drug to a developing fetus when given to pregnant women. 

    "It's a bit scary that a drug that can so powerfully block synapse formation is being used in pregnant women," Barres said. "This potential effect on fetal brains needs to be taken seriously.
    This type of situation compromises scientific credibility in these kinds of arguments.  It is clear from this study, that the drug has been given out of total ignorance regarding its effects on the fetus. 
    "[Barres said] There is no question that pregnant women with epilepsy who have been advised by their neurologists to continue their anticonvulsant treatment with gabapentin during their pregnancy should definitely remain on this drug until instructed otherwise. But there is no long-term registry being kept to track gabapentin-exposed babies."
    So effectively what we have is that no one knows what the effects might be, but no one wants to climb out on a limb and suggest that it is definitely dangerous.  So it does raise the question about what scientific studies and clinical trials were actually conducted before this drug was prescribed to pregnant women.

    I'm sure the reasoning will be something about how expensive drug development is and how long it takes to get FDA approval and bring a drug to market.  While these are all legitimate business concerns, there isn't much scientific about them.  If science can't definitively answer questions about drugs, then it can't put its "stamp of approval" on their indiscriminate usage either.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I guess you have trouble with natural selection, Josh. There wouldn't be a populum using them very long if they didn't do something. No, it's not strong evidence (or even strong inference). On the other hand, the statement that "...folk remedies might suggest useful places to look for therapeutic compounds..." says essentially the same thing.

    jtwitten
    Actually, I have no trouble with natural selection, but it is clear that you do. I do have trouble with the common perception that selection is the only thing going on with evolution. Non-oversimplified evolutionary dynamics indicates that persistence of an idea in a human population does not signal that the idea (e.g., eating X prevents Y) has any fitness advantage. Using folk remedies to inform research is really only useful because the number of potential compounds and the number of potential diseases to treat is so large that any potential information, no matter how bad or noisy, is potentially useful. 

    For homework, consider why this statement is neither logically or statistically sound:
    There wouldn't be a populum using them very long if they didn't do something.
    Probably won't have to encourage you to compose an essay on the topic.
    Well, with your sophisticated knowledge of Latin, I won't have to translate 'ad hominem' for you. I think the translation is "wast of time", in this case.

    jtwitten
    Nothing about using a technical term from logic implies a sophisticated knowledge of Latin. A discussion of why a term meaning "argument to the people" as opposed to the commonly used "argument from the people" would betray such a sophisticated understanding.

    Nothing about my critiques of your logic or understanding of evolutionary theory constituted an argument based on perceived negative qualities about you as an individual, such as don't believe Jack he is stupid or evil or both.  My critiques were directed at arguments not personal qualities, even if those critiques were made in my own patented disrespectful and irascible tone.

    Your snide "sophisticated knowledge" comment, however, could be interpreted as an anti-elitist ad hominem.
    "There wouldn't be a populum using them very long if they didn't do something. "

    not true at all.

    - the herbs can have no effect and there's still going to be people who will recover all on their own.

    Gerhard Adam
    Using folk remedies to inform research is really only useful because the number of potential compounds and the number of potential diseases to treat is so large that any potential information, no matter how bad or noisy, is potentially useful.
    That's a bit unfair.  After all, modern drugs are a relative newcomer to the issue of medicine with herbal remedies having been in use for millennia.  While this doesn't automatically convey legitimacy to their usage, nor does it assure efficacy, there is a bit more historical basis for considering their use beyond mere superstition or folklore.

    It is equally important to consider that many herbal remedies may have originated with observing animals self-medicating, so it isn't something that should be dismissed out of hand.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n13/curt01_.html

    Mundus vult decipi
    jtwitten
    Gerhard, it is not dismissed out of hand.  It is simply acknowledging that even low quality information is useful when the search space is effectively infinite. 

    I shall repeat myself.  The persistence of an idea amongst humans does not signal that the idea is adaptive with any reliability, as is assumed by these kinds of arguments.
    Gerhard Adam
    I agree that the prevalence or persistence of idea doesn't convey credibility nor reliability and that scientific query has done much to validate claims and advance development of useful medicines.  However, having said that, there is also a tone that sometimes gets conveyed by the scientific community that begins to look a bit arrogant when herbal medicines and even folklore is introduced.

    The feeling that many people have is that humans have survived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years without modern technology and modern medicines.  As a result, there's a sense that perhaps the non-scientific, untrained individual (especially if it's passed down through families), just might have a viable alternative to the expensive pharmaceuticals being peddled with unceasing regularity.

    It is unconscionable that drug companies think that it is legitimate to advertise prescription drugs to individuals that, by definition, are unable to prescribe them.  Given that climate, it is easy to see why more primitive remedies may be sought.  While such remedies may not be as effective, or may only behave as placebos, they are also less likely to do real harm either.  

    In truth, I have little confidence in an average doctor's competence to know what the medications being prescribed actually do, so why should I trust their opinion about what herbals do?  If science wants to be credible in this environment, then it needs to provide open access to studies and data, so that interested people are able to confirm the claims often made.  I would suspect that the majority of people taking medications today are doing so on "faith" or trust that someone knows what's going on, instead of actual knowledge.  How is that any more scientific?
    Mundus vult decipi
    jtwitten
    Actually, Gerhard it is quite possible that traditional remedies can be relatively harmful without being noticed by the population at larger. In a country the size of the United States, a few thousand negative reactions or even deaths can go unnoticed rather easily, unless there is systematic oversight and data collection.

    Failure to go extinct is no evidence of special knowledge.  Our species, as a whole, can survive just fine without modern medicine and modern practices.  We cannot, however, support a population of 6-7 billion.

    Given the misuse of scientific terminology and data in the woonackery (ahem, i mean complementary and alternative medicine) market, it is not clear to me that the average person is equipped to evaluate the information from clinical and scientific studies.  Whether your doctor is, is a different question.
    kerrjac
    In a country the size of the United States, a few thousand negative reactions or even deaths can go unnoticed rather easily, unless there is systematic oversight and data collection.
    And even in the case of systematic oversight, thousands of negative reactions and deaths can go unnoticed. Which raises the issue that, to the degree that lay people may be in a poor position to evaluate clinical trials, scientists might not be much better.

    It's hard to deny that specific plants and fungi can have broad effects on humans, be it positive, negative, psychological, immune-related, or cardiovascular-related. This may just be by chance, perhaps due to their great diversity, but when you see a connection so large - an entirely separate kingdom having such broad effects on another - you sell yourself short to minimize it as mere coincidence.

    The only true coincidences in nature are puns, and most of the time they're not either.
    Gerhard Adam
    I understand and I realize we're talking in generalities where there are numerous exceptions and conditions if we were to consider specifics.

    However, my point is that we're not much better equipped in dealing with medicines based on the information provided by scientists and clinical studies.  Therefore, in both cases it is ultimately an act of faith (namely, who do you trust).  Negative reactions and deaths may not be unnoticed, but they are certainly unreported to the public at large, until there is a sufficient cause to raise an alarm.

    I think that the public is also becoming more aware (although I don't think the pharmaceuticals realize this), that the commercials they're bombarded with, don't inspire confidence.  Often the condition being described is relatively innocuous compared to the side-effects from the drugs. 

    Perhaps people are unqualified to assess the data, but it is still their perogative to do so.  It certainly isn't the medical community's responsibility to police people or dictate how they should behave.  There are many people that believe far weirder things than this.
    Mundus vult decipi
    AIDS Treatment :
    1. People with AIDS must be treated in a Free Radiation treatment Room ( FRR ), where the radiation effect must be under 25 rem.
    2. The ideal FRR would be located underground.
    3. It is not necessary to do chemotherapy, just high-nutrient food from natural substances but not from genetically engineered substances. The suggested menu is roast beef from a fat young cow.
    Please see on http://www.yalagada.com ......Forum.

    THE CURE for HIV/AIDS.......AMBUSH

    THE IDEA that AMBUSH cures AIDS
    is being proven by the more than 400 individuals who have taken a dose of 60 ml three times daily for 21 days. The result is that AMBUSH 'KILLS' the virus by causing the protein envelope to rupture and the viral particles are discarded by the white blood cells. AMBUSH is able to 'KILL' the virus that are 'hiding' in the lymph system by its 'natural radioactive' properties. This process allows the body to 'return to normal health' with a corresponding immunity to that or those strains of the virus.

    What is AMBUSH ?
    AMBUSH is a radioactive isotope of uranium that is found in the 'palm' plant of which there are more than 3000 species. When ingested, AMBUSH causes the body temperature in the trunk area to rise to about 102 degrees when the individual is sleeping. The preparation takes four hours per batch, which is then given to the individuals for consumption 60 ml three times daily for 21 days. AMBUSH is a herbal preparation in this form but it contains an active ingredient which is a 'NEW' crystalline substance, a drug from the 'palm plant' similarly to ASPIRIN originating from the willow tree bark

    RESULTS:
    After 21 days on AMBUSH, ALL the individuals experienced a decrease in viral load to undetectable, an increase in cd4, increase in RBC, an improvement in general health such as more color to the face, decrease in Buffalo hump, an increase in gluteal muscles, a decrease to having no joint pains whereby individuals can bend to touch their toes, and walk up steps are but a few examples. There is also a dramatic increase in their sexual appetite beginning after the first week of therapy

    DISCUSSION:
    In any plant concoction such as percolated 'tea', there are 30-40,000 compounds, whi ch would take the scientific community twenty years to isolate one particular ingredient if they knew what they were looking for. The LORD GOD has given me seven steps to isolate the active ingredient, which is soft and metallic in nature and has a carbon- uranium-sulfur-(classified)-phentolamine configuration or structure. This is similar to Federick Kekule and the discovery of the benzene ring where he dreamt the structure.

    As an antiviral and 'natural radioactivity' producing agent, AMBUSH is also effective against leukemia, lupus and HPV. Here I am saying that I have 'GIVEN' AMBUSH in the same 'strength' and dosage to patients with leukemia, lupus and HPV. A 35 year old male with HIV found it difficult to impossible to urinate was put on 'green tea' and water while the doctors contemplated prostrate surgery. One of the doctors gave him my number , I sent him a supply of AMBUSH an d he has not been given any more ARV's, since taking AMBUSH 18 months ago, is in 'good' health and has expressed a willingness to be examined by HIV investigators like many others who have taken AMBUSH.

    I have sent this 'IDEA' to most HIV research agencies, scientist of the field, universities, hospitals, clinics, politicians and news agencies to which it is REJECTED because the name of THE LORD GOD is mentioned. He has steered me scientifically through the processes such as which plant and how to produce the active ingredient. What are the odds of a Florida Pharmacist picking a plant would contain the CURE for HIV/AIDS ?
    I have never charged any of the people for their supply of AMBUSH but a life saving has been spent on the project with NO renumeration from any sources because AMBUSH falls outside the walls of modern medicine and research.

    PROPOSAL:

    My proposal is that I PROVE that AMBUSH CURES HIV/AIDS by giving it to a number of END-STAGE or DRUG-RESISTANT people and the scientific community watches their recovery. This proposal addresses the problem in that I have already outlaid the results to be obtained.

    This IDEA is unconventional in that the scientific community has rejected AMBUSH because I say it is GOD given. Secondly if I wrote it according to certain standards, then it might be peer reviewed. However, THE LORD GOD has also shown me that there are five enzyme systems associated with the virus, reverse transcriptase, protease, fusion and two more of which causes the virus to be AIRBOURNE. This means that without DIVINE intervention mankind and ALL warm- blooded mammals will be extinct in a number of years.

    The PROOF of what I am saying is found in scientific papers wherein it is found that when the protease cuts the viral strands, it cuts it at DIFFERENT lengths EVERY time, to which it should always be a valine at the end but is a different amino acid every time. This is why it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce a VACCINE.

    Since this is NOT a hypothesis but there are about 400 individuals who have taken AMBUSH, here lies a vast area in which to check, recheck and confirm that AMBUSH CURES AIDS. Let it be mentioned that during the HIV reproductive cycle, reverse transcriptase converts viral RNA into DNA compatible to human genetic materials. Thus the human DNA has been 'hijacked' and since each person has a DIFFERENT DNA, then the new viral copy is unique to that person which shows that each individual has a DIFFERENT STRAIN of the virus. Consider two HIV positive people swapping viral strains and increasing its complexity with multiple partners.
    It can also be proposed that they be revisited as proof that the strain or strains that they had were 'killed' at the time of taking AMBUSH considering that a person can catch as many different strains as there are people who are infected by HIV.
    I am also willing to work with the scientific community in identifying those individuals who took AMBUSH and wish to be identified with this process notwithstanding that some are stigmatized while others are jubilant,

    Once AMBUSH is verified as being able to accomplish that which is aforementioned then the next stage might be the natural and artificial synthesis of the substance.

    Finally, if this is accepted or not, believed or not, THE LORD GOD always wins and this is the heavenly truth to which AMBUSH was divinely given to mankind for the CURE of HIV/AIDS and it will be here forever. Apostle Shada Mishe.

    apostleshadamishe@gmail.com

    Here is a video taped presentation that I gave at t he Martin Luther King library in Washington

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V53D1w__Po
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPwuwlVBOV0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZejptOwMTzQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqcTgIAhrhc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7HPKcT_iwY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iQfgiYAnw
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3RzRS6tJDM

    Ashwani Kumar
    A large number of plants rich in tannis and latex have been shown to possess anti Hiv activity in vitro using RT inhibotors and Protease inhibitors. I wish they could be tested on animal systems also