House of Numbers

,    »  -   76 Comments

House of NumbersIn House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic, an AIDS film like no other, the HIV/AIDS story is being rewritten.

This is the first film to present the uncensored POVs of virtually all the major players; in their own settings, in their own words.

It rocks the foundation upon which all conventional wisdom regarding HIV/AIDS is based.

House of Numbers could well be the opening volley in a battle to bring sanity and clarity to an epidemic gone awry.

Leung manages to present a barrage of intriguing theories debunking our generally accepted beliefs... There's no denying, however, the value of exploring such game-changing topics as how HIV-infection numbers are cooked for monetary and political gain;

How the effects of global poverty may have led to so many AIDS-related deaths; how such widely used AIDS drugs as AZT have, themselves, often proved fatal; and whether HIV really exists.

This documentary is available for preview only. Get it at Amazon.com.

724
7.09
12345678910
Ratings: 7.09/10 from 35 users.
  • Samusakis

    Somehow I think this might actually be a good documentary. Definitely gonna watch it through! ^.^

  • Leonardo

    stagevu seems to only have the trailer too

  • Lisa O

    There is an entire documentary on this website about this topic (at least there was). I cannot remember the name of it, but I think it would be under Health, too.

  • Alen

    Anyone know a proper link for this? Tagtele is constantly buffering..

  • ashbreaksstuff

    The link for tagtele worked for me. This was interesting. I've never heard of that "popper" stuff.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    You're right @Leonardo Silveira. I've replaced the StageVu link.

  • Alen

    It's available for download @ Megupload. In case someone wants it.

  • alabilazab

    Dont waste your time, it is not available yet.

  • ez2b12

    Can't get this to play or download at either site, maybe it is just my connection but- i have no issues with anything else.

  • nomi

    i am SHOCKED .... after watching.

  • Leonardo

    the novamov links works fine, just needs to preload cus it is very slow. it is good stuff.

  • Auto

    Just watched this and it certainly is an eye-opener.
    Absolutely fascinating, filled with facts and opinions which were revelations.
    amust watch.
    Thanks for this Vlatko

    Auto

  • Tom

    This is one of the best docs I've seen in a while. I learned a lot about a topic that had been spoon fed to me by media the same as the narrator. I hate to admit it but if you had asked me about this topic before viewing this my answers would have been the same as the masses. I usually don't take a documentaries info on its own without my own research into the matter. The amount of information provided from multiple sources on all sides of the topic was refreshing. Too often documentaries have a strong bias to them only providing on side of the topic. Again, very informative and eye opening doc. I feel a lot of people could benefit from watching this.

  • coyote03

    like everyone else so far, I was shocked, this really was eye-opening! I used the novamov link, worked great for me :)

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    lol.. love the tag tele description

    The truth about aids
    "s#!t..it's english"

    BTW @ lisa O
    ure talkin about "hiv aids fact or fraud" which u can find by searching on this website. very good doco. eye-openers for sure, maybe even life savers.

  • rhea

    I'm also shocked -- ànd very upset.
    In the end it's all about the money again.
    .. ànd big ego's.

  • pheldespat

    HIV-denialist documentary. Nothing (interesting) to see here.

    HIV denialist Christine Maggiore is interviewed in this film. She and her daughter both died of untreated AIDS.

  • Samusakis

    @pheldespat

    You mean they both died without the use of those nasty high risk medications? (or poison as I like to call it).

    How about that dude with the eye-pach that died after the interview I recall he was using his 'poison', how is his death any less worth mentioning?

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    @ pheldespat
    Analysis of causes that led to Christine Maggiore’s acute renal and cardiac failure, pulmonary edema, and death
    by Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati Ph.D., DABT, DABVT

    Christine Maggiore was diagnosed with pneumonia on December 18, 2008 and was treated with antibiotics (Gentamicin, Rocephin, Azithromycin), Acyclovir, Fluconazole and corticosteroids. She also received Meyer’s cocktail, vitamin C, and calcium IV. She died on December 27,2008. She was 52 years of age.

    Christine suffered fatal renal failure caused by antibiotics, antiviral, and calcium received during the 9 days prior to her death. The microscopic examination of the H & E stained sections of her kidneys revealed the presence of changes consistent with acute tubular necrosis. There were also changes consistent with mild nephrosclerosis.

    Christine’s acute renal failure led to development of acute left ventricular heart failure, pulmonary congestion, and pulmonary edema. Christine’s pericardial sac and left chest cavity contained 100 mL and 200 mL of clear light brown serious fluid, respectively. Christine’s right and left lungs weighted 1319 and 1307 g, respectively. Her total lung weight was 2626 g, which is 750% of the average normal lung weight. The autopsy, pathology, and the clinical data and observation described in this report show clearly that Christine did not suffer from any AIDS indicator illness during the 2 years prior to her death or at the time of her death.

    Dr. David M. Posey performed the autopsy in Christine’s case and his gross autopsy examination was completed on January 12, 2009. He stated that Christine was a well-developed and well-nourished Caucasian woman who appeared younger than her age of 52 years. She measured 66 inches in length and weighed 145 pounds.
    his conclusion:
    Christine did not suffer from any AIDS indicator illness during the 2 years prior to her death and at the time of her death. It has been reported that Christine’s serum was tested positive for HIV with subsequent testing indeterminate in the 1990s. The clinical findings in Christine clearly challenge the clinical and the scientific validity of her HIV test.

    look up the rest if you feel like it.

    @ also, to say the child died of "hiv/aids complications" is synonymous with saying nothing or better yet "we don't know"! considering no autopsy was done or released (to my knowledge).

    aids is a syndrome (many different diseases, loosely tied together) which covers many natural reasons for death, but can somehow be classified as AIDS. (acquired immune deficiency syndrome could mean anything, many things wear out the human immune system)

  • Samusakis

    Now let me as you guys, the same guys who so value the scientific method.

    What do you think about David Baltimores response when asked "how would he isolate and photograp the HIV virus?"
    His response ~01:07:40

    Wasn't there a bunch of scientist eager to replicated the experiment to prove or disprove its initial findings?!

  • anne V

    to the ones who comment here and say all this doc is bull. Please specify.

    I found this doc very interesting, had plenty of food for thought. It's the second doc I've seen on this subject and they're arguments are quite convincing to someone like myself that has never done any research on the subject. So if you have something to refute, please specify in some detail. It would be more appreciated than to read some arrogant snicker. Has there been any docs that refute this?

  • ez2b12

    I give up, I would love to see this but it will not buffer correctly. It goes to 100% then starts over at about 90% and does it again- over and over and over. I try and download it but they want money to join the site, on Novamov. Maybe one day it will be available on youtube or google or one of the others normally linked to from this site.

    I find the fact that aids isn't real a little far fetched but I can not comment as I have no way to see the exact claims made by this doc. Maybe I will try and do some google research.

  • ez2b12

    Finally, I got it to work. Wow, this was a real eye opener. After reading several of the comments here though I can not help but to feel that many have missed the point of this documentary. No one on this program tried to deny the existance of AIDS. They simply said that the science that surrounds it is flawed and confusing as well as manipulated for personal fame and monetary gain. Whatever it is causing these immune deficiencies may or may not be connected to the HIV virus, if that virus even exists. But clearly something is causing this deficiency and it is not the usual suspects or they would be identified as there are tests to confirm other deseases causing immune deficiencies.

    Regardless of what they find out about the cause we must do something to get these people living in poverty into better living conditions. AIDS or no AIDS no one could live for long in that kind of unsanitary environment and be healthy. Of course there will never be the kind of money sent to alleviate poverty as there has been to eradicate AIDS. Why, because trying to alleviate poverty doesn't employ doctors and lab techs, nor does it pave the way for some scientist to feel superior because he has discovered the new bug in town. Once again it is about the money and satisfying egos, not about helping the less fortunate.

    I have also seen the scientific method attacked, how ridiculus. Just because some doctor did not apply it correctly doesn't mean the process is flawed at all. I had a wreck when younger because i did not know how to use a manual clutch, does this mean that a manual clutch is some how flawed. The scientific method is just that, a method. The evidence this method uncovers has to then be interpreted by humans that have their own biases and agendas. This is were the failure takes place, not in the method. The method is simple common sense and is the absolute best way available to get at truth, period. If we do not use this method of observing and testing data, what will we use? I suppose we could pray about it, or ask some magic pendulum- does this seem more dependable? (LOL)

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    @ ez
    well said.

    uh oh.. you're starting to sound like an AIDS denier.. lol..

  • Charles B.

    I can't believe I took the time to read all these comments! If this is just a classic AIDS is not caused from HIV doc I don't have time or the mindlessness for such posh!

    Yes, poverty plays a part, but it's HIV that is the main disease producer for AIDS

  • Samusakis

    @ez2b12

    I didn't attack the scientific method! All I said was that this ignorant doctor talks *** and asked for an opinion on his comment.

    Scientific method as it is does not bother me, however for the scientific comunity to turn a bind eye on a matter such as this beggs the question, how much can we really trust it?

  • anne V

    @pheldespat

    thanks for the links.

    I find that documentaries should make full raw footage of peoples interviews to be available to the public. If they are going to do chop up editing to change someone's views, that's pretty sad!

    for the argument about AZT? does anyone have anything to share in making their claim wrong or right?

  • ez2b12

    @ Charles B.

    I find your dismissal of this question very shocking. Lets face it, the resaon you view HIV as the cause for AIDS is because the scientific cumunity said it was. Well that same community is now saying this has to be examined more closely. As far as I know you are no scientist or doctor, so you have no solid ground to stand on when dismissing a valid question- Did the scientific cummunity get it wrong? You have no issues questioning their correctness on physics that blows religiouse beliefs out of the water, but totally dismiss any questions about their correctness about this issue. Does that not help you see that you are simply accepting what supports your beliefs as gospel truth and questioning and denying anything that speaks against your own beliefs?

    I would venture a guess that you do not want to entertain this question because the missionary group you constantly talk about being part of has been dedicated to AIDS relief in Africa. Accept it man, there is a chance that the AIDS epidemic in Africa has been overblown. In fact certain organizations have admitted publicly to exagerating the problem.

    No one is denying the existance of the syndrome and very few question the existance of the HIV virus, they are saying that the science has been once again polluted by human agendas and flaws. They are simply suggesting we reassess our methods to make sure the help that groups like the one you are involved with do the most possible good. In the end we may find out that you guys are doing exactly what you should and are already make the largest possible difference, or we may find out that we could save many more lives by providing running water and more sanitary conditions. Don't let ego get in the way of helping the people, that is your aim right?

    Let me stress that I think the services the missinoary groups provide the people in need are wondeful and that it is commedable that you are envolved. I only think you should not just dismiss something that runs counter to your present beliefs. If you do you may find out you could have done much more good but let ego and refusal to accept change get in the way.

  • pheldespat

    One question for the people claiming HIV does not cause AIDS: You wouldn't mind being prickled with an HIV infested syringe, would you? I'm not talking about a dirty syringe picked up from a shady alley, no. Simply a HIV-ridden syringe, but otherwise aseptic and hygienic. Would you?

    HIV does not cause AIDS, so getting a shot of HIV would cause nothing, according to you guys. Do it and then post the results.

  • rmj

    @pheldespat
    it seems that you appeal to fear and panic when you run out of arguments.

  • ez2b12

    @ pheldespat

    Are you seriouse, did you really get that lost in the conversation. No one is saying that it definetly doesn't cause AIDS. We are saying that the science around the virus, how to detect it, whether it absoluteldy and for certain is the lone cause of the syndrome or has co-factors, whether it was ever really isolated- is in question. Of course I would not want to take the chance that it is the cause, does this make for a good scientific standard. If i am scared then it must be the single root cause of the syndrome. That is a pathetic arguement man, if we did science like this nothing would be certain would it?

    All we want is one test that tells us whther or not we have the virus, with 100% certainty. Even if they have to do three tests, thats fine. People that have this virus are told they are going to die, this means we have to be 100% sure they have it before we shock them and ruin their life, before we put them on the admitted toxic drugs that are suppose to help.

    We want the doctor in Africa and a doctor here in the states to define the desease and its symptoms the same, define its risks of infection the same, define AIDS the same in fact. Right now they all have something different to say about how you get it, whether it will kill you, if your immune system is able to fend it off, right down to whether you have it or not- I mean when you get a positive and then test a week later and get a negative then test again and its positive etc. etc. something is wrong. When we have people that have the virus but do not develope the syndrome, does this not make you wonder at least.

    Besides, even if we are totally right about AIDS already and all these people on this documentary are just odd cases, what could it possibly hurt to do more research on the virus and its connection to the syndrome? Maybe we will find a cure along the way. Maybe at the least we could put these legitimate questions to rest. In a case like this all that matters is the peoples attitudes toward the situation. If people have questions or concerns and are not satisfied with the science then it should be worked on until they are, period.

  • pheldespat

    @rmj

    I don't know what you're talking about.

    I'm still waiting for some refutation of the claims stated in the links I provided. I have seen none. You guys keep attacking me, but the claims remain unchallenged.

    @ez2b12
    Can you write properly? What does "seriouse" mean? I tell you the same I said above: Still waiting for some refutation of the arguments exposed in my links.

    I say you don't understand: The. Whole. Documentary. Is. Bogus. It was edited to Hell and back and to Hell again. At least 2 of the scientists have complained about the editing of their answers and bad faith of the director.

    "what could it possibly hurt to do more research on the virus and its connection to the syndrome?"

    What the heck more do you want to f@#$%^& investigate, for God's sake?! Well, if you follow this bogus FUDmentary, it may seem to you that the link HIV-AIDS is not set in stone. Then, this FUDmentary was successful.

    The link HIV-AIDS is well-established and the evidence overwhelming. If you don't know enough to understand the science involved, or if you mistrust the science involved for non-scientific reasons, that's a different story. If you have evidence contrary to HIV-AIDS, show it.

    Also, still waiting for answers to my question about getting a jab of HIV. There's only one so far, so maybe the other conspiranoics don't share your views, ez2b12.

  • ez2b12

    @ pheldespat

    Think what you want angry little man. Your question was pop culture science not relevant to the question at hand. Just because we don't want to get jabbbed with a needle containing the virus doesn't mean it is definetly the cause of the syndrome. No one ever said for sure that it wasn't anyway, you can read right?

    Oh, and by the way if my writing bothers you so badly, in my opinion you simply wanted to attack something and that was the best you could come up with, too bad. I dont have the need to prove anything to tiny insignificant you. Attacking someones intelligence because you disagree with their point is childish and shows you have a very weak case. Luckily you have absolutedly nothing to do with the science or what steps will be taken next. I restate what I said before, if the public is not happy with the science surrounding this desease it should be addressed.

    After all isn't it one function of the CDC to keep the public informed and satisfied that desease is under control? Isn't one primary function of the medical cummunity in general to keep public fear of a desease or the chance of an outbreak down to a minimum? Well sounds to me like they failed. If they have the answers they need to put out a documentary explaining them, if they don't they need to re-work the science until they do. Not worry about whether people like you get offended or want to strut around insulting people. PERIOD.

  • A. T. Heist

    tagtele has a much better playback.

  • Alabaster

    It saddens me greatly thinking that the entire world could be dupped by the lack of integrity and scientific responsibility over the question and prevalence of HIV and AIDs. We're taught as young children (at least here in the west) that we are to trust authorities and not to question them because we are given solid truth and facts. This documentary demonstrates that we can no longer and should never take anything at face value. As I grow into the person I am becoming, I'm realzing that I've the wool pull over my eyes too many times by authoritive figures.

    A dammning documentary that saddens my heart and hardens my views.

  • Chris

    What's all this b@##$%^& about HIV not existing? This documentary looks ridiculous, I only watched the trailer but I felt the need to comment, having went to a biology lecture on the HIV virus recently.

    Anyone who has AIDS has it because the HIV virus has destroyed their t cells, via the viruses process of replication. That's all the virus does, destroy t cells. When enough t cells are destroyed, your immune system cannot function properly and the patient is said to have AIDS, and will then fall prey to a variety of opportunistic infections and diseases that would not affect a healthy individual with a normally operating immune system. Thinking that the virus doesnt exist is crazy, considering the AIDS patients blood is saturated with the virus.

    The amount can be measured, they can be viewed using electron microscopes such. We know a lot its life cycle, and is part of a family of well-known viruses that includes the common cold. The reason it is hard to treat is due to the fact that the virus has an outer coat with constantly changing proteins attached to it, meaning by the time our body has produced an immune response, the virus has changed it's outer coat and is therefore unrecognisable to our immune system.

  • ez2b12

    @ Alabaster

    Fortunately that is starting to change, the don't question authority thing I mean. I am 38 years old and my parents taught me to be respectful but to always question things, maybe not people in all situations but always question the things they tell you. In other words, it may not be prudent to question a teacher in front of the whole class for instance, but you should definetly question the validity of the facts they give you in private. Certain institutions depend on the authority of certain figures, this is why in my opinion you shouldn't question certain people in certain situations. Besides questioning say a judge at your own trial, well that may defeat the purpose of questioning him in the first place- see what I mean.

    Heres one thing I didn't question when growing up that I should have. I was told over and over growing up that I could be whatever I chose to be- this insinuates we are all equal. In reality we are not all equal, especially here in the southeast where I live. What they should say is that you can try and be whatever you like but it may be harder for you than others depending on who you are, where you live, and what you want to become. But I guess that doesn't have that American bull sh*t ring to it.

    I know what you mean about this upsetting you though. I grew up in the AIDS scare, early to mid eighties, and I bought the whole thing hook line and sinker. Now I do not know what to think. It may be that HIV does cause the AIDsyndrome, but the science and all around it really makes you wonder. If they isolated the virus, which they claimed to have done, why do they not have a test that can tell you one hundred percent sure that you are infected? From my knowledge of virus detection, which is limited i will admit, if you isolate the virus a valid test is easy to design. And how can we have different definitions for the same desease if they know all that they claim to know about it. Like I said earlier, they have to keep working the science until the public is well informed and satisfied, otherwise they have failed.

  • jari

    @pheldespat, thanks for the link and your last comment.

    Wikipedia:
    "In the film, Leung interviews a range of scientists and AIDS denialists, including Christine Maggiore, an HIV-positive denialist whose 3-year-old daughter died of untreated AIDS. Maggiore herself died with pneumonia and several AIDS-related infections several months before the film's release, although her death is only mentioned in small print in the closing credits along with a claim that it was "unrelated to HIV." A group of scientists interviewed for the film later complained that they had been interviewed under false pretenses, and that the film promotes pseudoscience."

  • Irene

    I think it is a good documentary. It is informative and entertaining, otherwise they don't sell. I think it also fulfills the objective of raising debate and sheds a new light on the issue. I don't like the editing of just sentences as they could mean diferent things in a different context. I know this gives rythm to the film. It calls for more investigation on our part, the viewers. And again, one more warning on the pharmaceutical industry.

  • kitteh

    WOW this documentary was really interesting and compelling. I had never thought about this alternative truth.I am speechless. This demolishes everything I have ever been thought about HIV-AIDS. And the best thing about it it is it was made by a person my age, of my generation. This kind of documentary makes me lose faith in mankind, especially in politics, in the scientific community, and in lobby groups (especially pharmaceutical companies). After seeing this, I think that if I were ever diagnosed with HIV I would refuse any treatment! But if HIV does not lead to AIDS, what is it, and what does it do? And where does AIDS come from? Is it true that it happens to people who are unhealthy for other reasons to begin with?

  • Aequitas

    I love how everyone is suddenly an expert on viruses and diseases.

    One Example:

    "Charles B. I can’t believe I took the time to read all these comments! If this is just a classic AIDS is not caused from HIV doc I don’t have time or the mindlessness for such posh!

    Yes, poverty plays a part, but it’s HIV that is the main disease producer for AIDS"

    @Charles B. - You proved this or what? Nevermind just don't answer that please.

    As for me, I couldn't care less I'm just tired of reading comments and seeing that no matter the topic everyone is an expert. News flash... none of us know anything other than what we have been told (hence using hyperlinks as "proof").

    Have a nice day!

  • Elliot Rosewater

    Chris,

    Thanks you for summing it up for me. It started out kinda believable, by the last half I could hardly believe what i was hearing/seeing.

    Many of the people in this film feel misquoted, a warning sign.

    The idea that aids cases are overstated and big pharma doesn't have the right incentive to find a cure seems logical enough.

    On HIV tests; unlike, the narrator I understand how test have to balance type 1 and 2 errors. But he may have a point...

    The rest was illogical. On the whole it seems this doc borders on dangerous. While treatment may have its long run costs they have to be balanced with, to be blunt, not dieing on the common cold. Not taking meds because of this doc would almost certainly be very foolish, given what has happens to that woman and her child.

    I would urge the webmaster to put some links to criticisms of this doc, for a more balanced view.

  • Mike

    All i can say is "WOW" Must see this guys, this is kind of mind blowing! I have only watched a short YouTube vid about HIV before this, and never had any clue about the facts. Absolutely, undoubtedly MUST SEE FILM!!!

  • Adam

    As a microbiology and immunology student, I find the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS completely ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence and a lot of people studying it. My virology class consisted of several lectures which included photos of SEM and TEM of the virus, gene sequences and a detailed explanation of its life cycle, INCLUDING the records of the experiments that elucidated this information. Saying that people only know about something because they're told it is even more ridiculous, how else do you acquire information without redoing the experiment yourself, and every experiment that allowed you to perform that experiment? Good luck with that.

    The scientists in this film are strategically misquoted, and the definitions of many diseases are changed periodically. To top it off, even when the scientists are right, the narrator chimes in and says something that makes them look wrong.

    What annoys me the most is the way this information is manipulated. The information about Africa is frustrating and stupid. They don't have the materials to test for AIDS, so a series of factors were outlined to define AIDS in Africa. Are they perfect? Of course not! To be perfect you would need proper medical equipment which is unavailable in Africa. Nevertheless, the factors attempt to create a diagnosis for patients coming into hospitals with a series of symptoms which are representative of an AIDS infection.

    What the epidemiologist is saying, when he is largely misquoted, is that a patient could present with TB, but would be diagnosed with AIDS because they don't perform a test. There are no resources to perform a test! If you looked at it the other way and said that they were diagnosed with TB but they actually had AIDS, we would not be debating whether TB exists. (Although something tells me we might, looking at the comments on this website)

    This whole documentary is sensationalistic and slightly revolting. And yet I can't look away.

  • Adam

    Oh for g-d's sake!

    The manufacturers do not state categorically that their test is 100% accurate for a couple of reasons. You don't have to be a microbiology student to figure this out.

    #1) No test for any disease like this is 100% accurate. They just aren't. There are always limitations
    #2) If the person is negative and it shows that they're positive, they can sue that company for damages, and so the companies are covering their butts so that they don't get sued. Every test on the planet will probably say that additional testing is recommended.

    The woman at the Robert Koch institute is completely right, the diagnosis should be determined based on the test that is most sensitive, but because she had to translate the sentence and make sure what she was saying wasn't misconstrued or misinterpreted, she sounds uncertain.

    To top it off, the questions that they ask are relevant to the diagnosis, because you can only contract AIDS in certain ways.

    That's like asking me if I've ever been to Africa/parts of Asia when doing a test for malaria. Obviously if I've never been to a place where I could contract malaria, I couldn't get malaria!

  • ricci1003

    Modern medicine has made bigger and longer blunders that "HIV" as cause of "AIDS". Think scurvy, beri beri, pelllagra, SARS, SMON , cancer, heart disease, H1N1, H5N1 etc. Look a bit further and notice what "AIDS" is: A syndrome; collection of old diseases with recognised cuases and treatments. Being told one is "HIV pos" destroys the immune system too.

  • http://twitter.com/sybmw Yve Star

    Misquoted? Thanks to the wonder that is youtube extended uncut 40min to 1hr interviews of all the interviewed persons are now available free

  • Sadys

    Im a med student and eventhough I understant the point of view of some of this scientist that maybe some diseases such as the p carinnii may have been attributited to the HIV virus prematurely, you cannot deny the correlation between HIV and AIDS. Unfortunately someone very close to my family passed away from HIV AIDS. He did not consumed any drugs, was healthy and acquired the disease from his stable sexual partner. Unfortunetly he didn't told anyone he had the disease and never sought treatment. He recently died after 13 years of being diagnose with the disease, he was immunodeficient. Is sad to think, that people that are HIV positive and don't engage in drug use and have a healthy lifestyle may watch this documentary and don't seek treatment thinking that there is no correlation between HIV and AIDS. Good documentary overall.

  • Tantosammy

    Why are you hysterical about this? Irrespective of all that has been said, the fact that HIV exists has not been denied only what causes AIDS is being disputed. Therefore there is HIV, there is AIDS and AIDS kills. How HIV causes AIDS is the issue. The fact that you have seen/studied the virus does not explain how the virus causes AIDS. If not you should stop the debate by explaining this to those who have doubts.

  • Sieben Stern

    poverty and malnutrition? gay men and poppers? really? I figured I'd watch to see what they had to say, but this was just laughable.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-Ely/1448711887 Elizabeth Ely

    I'd like not to reply, but I was a friend of Christine Maggiore. We all know that Wikipedia can be manipulated, and this is one more example. Christine did indeed die in December 2008, and the complete autopsy cited renal (kidney) failure as the cause of death, apparently from the interaction of several prescription drugs. I talked to her in those months leading up to her death and she was clearly not well. I almost want to thank someone for noticing how sick she looked in the film -- except that the remark is made with vicious disregard for her. I, too, was shocked (but concerned) to see just how tired and drained she looked. I asked when this interview was done, and it seems to have been in the summer of 2007. I knew her all that time, and while she told me she was ill, I never saw her in person looking like that. I would have been more concerned than I already was. However, to then claim that she "died of AIDS" is a very large leap of logic. Christine was the aggrieved mother of a three-year-old daughter who died after taking the antibiotic amoxicillin, and she sought and published an autopsy that ruled out, through scientifically verifiable evidence from a licensed pathologist, that it was not "AIDS." No one claimed her little girl died of "AIDS" until they knew that the mother was a very effective activist against the AIDS mythologies. Christine was as much if not more confused about how this could happen so suddenly as anyone else was. But instead of being left to deal with her grief, she was confronted by numerous people, both publicly and privately, who tried to blame her for that death and even sent her hate mail. She even watched a character based on her die in an episode of "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit." Think on this for a moment, if you are at all a compassionate and rational human being. What would that do to you if it happened to you? Christine often said that she wasn't allowed to get sick like other people, because then it would "mean" something to her detractors. In actual fact, as documented in her book and on her Web sites, she tested positive once, then re-tested and found a mixture of confusing results including negative and inconclusive. This is the truth of the "HIV test," that it is subject to interpretation. The fact that she got such confusing test results is the very reason she got involved in this. And yet, when it proves someone else's point, they are happy to claim that she "had HIV." And no, she wasn't perfectly healthy. Apparently not. Is every person who is not perfectly healthy "dying of AIDS"? And is every mother under attack for the sudden death of a child expected to be happy and healthy? For how many years? I hope that people visiting here will look further into Christine's history as she herself told it. She put up a Web site called "Justice for EJ." Her organization was called "Alive and Well," and it is a treasure trove of information. Christine strove always to help others. She was a mother not only to her two healthy children; she acted in the true spirit of motherhood and gave herself generously to all who came to her. I only regret that she didn't receive in the same fashion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-Ely/1448711887 Elizabeth Ely

    You are right that "if you isolate the virus a valid test is easy to design." Not even necessarily to look for that virus, by the way. You can look for a "surrogate marker" -- something, like a concentration of proteins, that is as good as the virus test because it's been validated to one. Unfortunately for the theory, though, no such validation has occurred. If anyone claims this, they need to come forth with the evidence of that validation. I have never even heard that the makers of the tests themselves claim this, and you can sure bet they would have told the FDA about it. Interesting, huh? In other words, they're not lying, because the FDA won't allow them to do that. What happens is a chain of mass communication that the government health authorities have encouraged or at least let go unchecked. The information we are led to believe about "the test" is simply media hype that few have questioned. Why? That was always the more interesting issue, to me. Sure, there's money to be made. But it's a lie people were only too ready to accept in the early '80s, given its connotations of sexual contamination, dangerous gay men, diseases invading from Africa, salvation through genetic technology, and other such ideas. When a lie fits prejudices already alive in people, it gets accepted pretty fast. The next time someone tries to sell the "HIV" story to you by trying to convince you that it's somehow bigoted not to be concerned about the "stigma of HIV," think back to this, please: What prejudices does the story itself reinforce?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-Ely/1448711887 Elizabeth Ely

    You can look at a particle in an electron microscope, but nothing in that image can tell you whether that particle is endogenous or exogenous.

  • brutalsea

    It seems you've entirely missed the point of this whole documentary.

  • http://www.facebook.com/afrhodes Mark Rhodes

    Yet more misleading representation of studies, medical experts, and officials. The intellectually dishonesty, and blatant incomprehension of basic biology and immunology is staggering. AIDS exists, HIV exists, period. These are not completely human conditions, either. There are well known equivalents that occur in several mammals, and vary in range of virulence. It makes perfect sense for a virus adapted for a mild to moderate incapacitation of a chimpanzee due to virulence would have devastatingly negative health effects. All of our common diseases are zoonotic in origin: smallpox, chickenpox, tuberculosis, Creutzfeldt-Jakob, the flu, etc. Diseases are brilliant at exploiting niches. We have illness that range from fatal familial insomnia to encephalitis lethargica. As odd and improbable as those diseases are, what is so odd about having a long term incubating virus that kills via immunodeficiency. Prions can wait for decades before they began to misfold, and cause the gamut of horrifying neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's.

    If Billy Mays can successfully sell stickup lights a brilliant cutting edge innovation then I know the 'evil Big Pharma' conglomerates could do the same for any of these purported 'natural' cures (though it is funny how misleading 'natural' is since arsenic is natural, and occurs in wild almonds and appleseeds.) Never underestimate the power of capitalism to result in a breakthrough. 'Big Pharma' are downright unethical to be sure, but you can also use that tendency to develop some constants. They want to make money. Spending billions creating a sham epidemic of such a relatively small scope is not the place to do it. There are plenty of emerging diseases that can still make companies lots of money to include but not limited to: anti-biotic resistant staph/strep, pandemic flus, hemorrhagic fevers, drug resistant TB, etc.

    They make more off of ED pills and hair loss treatments in a year than in the entirety in the history of HIV/AIDS treatment. If there was really some ominous cloak and dagger conspiracy then they're doing a crappy job at it since they would have had to spend infinitely more to contain this alleged misdeed. Not to mention that it strikes some of the most marginalized and impoverished people. Unless there's an upcoming swing in usable income within the drug addict, hemophiliac, prostitute, third world denizen that I don't know about. I could see baldness, ED, and obesity as likelier candidates for nefarious corporate shenanigans. Plenty of mundane natural things can also kill. You can overdose on water and oxygen. Essential trace elements can painfully debilitate and kill if stored in higher doses than needed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/afrhodes Mark Rhodes

    1: No scientist has rebutted those papers because they are too ludicrous to even seriously critique. You cannot correct someone when the knowledge base they build their assumptions from is so completely and comically ignorant.

    2. If you REALLY want to formulate some shadowy brouhaha then there are infinitely better options than HIV/AIDs. Common sense would dictate that if you wanted to make oodles of money on illness then you don't pick/create/whatever one that is so entrenched in such an impoverished demographic. Typical HIV/AIDs sufferers tend to be: drug addicts, hemophiliacs, young male homosexuals, third world populations, prostitutes, prisoners, etc. Exactly the people that for the most part have no money (and thus no economic clout), and even if they do it is often pathetically far from the levels needed to make any real money.

    Assuming 'Big Pharma' wants to hook the hapless sheeple hordes on expensive drugs for a long term manufactured condition then why don't they save all the expenditure and clandestine activity for the true perennial moneymakers: male pattern baldness, ED, hay fever, obesity, menopause, contraception, and acne. There's more money in the eczema (30 million in America alone), gynecomastia (man boob disease that occurs in some form at some point by 60% of men worldwide), market than there is in the HIV/AIDs (approximately 33.3 million worldwide) market. Remember: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it's most likely a duck. And don't go looking for zebras.

  • think_thru_bs

    You have way too many stats in your reply.. this is not just about making money or deception, it is a piece of the larger puzzle. Misinformation is key in keeping people scared and/or confused. The fact that there has been strong opposition to the status quo AIDS story from the pioneers that created the techniques to test for such, should be enough to make you question the whole schema. If not, then go ahead and swallow everything you have been fed... Honestly though, I think you are right, it is way too crazy to think we would be lied to for financial gain. Our government would never allow a few people to suffer for the "greater good." I'm glad I live in a place where I can trust big corporations to supply me with clean fluoridated water, natural genetically modified food, safe pills to take for any ailment and thorough education that teaches me responsible conservation. I enjoy my whitewashed western view of the world

  • senorknowitall

    What the hell are you talking about? Do you have any idea how much the AIDS industry makes off of research alone? AIDS isn't even a top killer and yet they make more money for research than all cancers combined as well as heart disease.

  • senorknowitall

    "Assuming 'Big Pharma' wants to hook the hapless sheeple hordes on expensive drugs for a long term manufactured condition then why don't they save all the expenditure and clandestine activity for the true perennial moneymakers: male pattern baldness, ED, hay fever, obesity, menopause, contraception, and acne. There's more money in the eczema (30 million in America alone),"

    BECAUSE THEN THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO FIND A CURE.

  • Ann Rhodes

    Erm, no they don't. A college level introductory class in genetics and microbiology will help you understand why even the 'simple' diseases are hard if not impossible to cure.

  • Ann Rhodes

    Makes off research? Research makes no money which is why there hasn't been any of it going on for diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. The money is made when the medicine is bought. Diseases that have been primarily relegated to the third world (malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV) make no money because even sold at cost the governments and citizens could never hope to afford them.

  • Ann Rhodes

    Your mistake is in giving superhuman qualities to 'the government.' They're people just like you or I, and are therefore just as prone to mistakes and are unable to keep secrets. The number of people essentially for the bare bones implementation of any of the hare brained schemes you allude to is staggering. That all of them would somehow be able to pull this off not only without screwing it up (as people are prone to do), without breathing a word of any of it, or without experiencing a crippling attack of conscience is the stuff of Ian Fleming novels and not reality.

  • senorknowitall

    You know i was quoting some other guys post, who coincidentally has the same last name as you.

    I was saying that AIDS research is profitable in itself without ever even coming close to curing the disease.

  • senorknowitall

    You are absolutely incorrect. Do you really think scientists have been researching HIV for the past 30 years pro bono? Where do you think the billions of dollars that have been raised for HIV research by charities and the government have gone? Charging the sickly is not the only way for them to make money. Even still, you've unwittingly hit the nail on the head. The reason there is no research being done for malaria and TB is because they're not raising nearly as much money for the research. If HIV wasn't raising money either, then wouldn't be researching it just the same. The fact that they have been researching it consistently for 30 years should tell you that money is pouring in from somewhere. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) spends over $3000 in research for every one death caused by the disease while only spending about $37 or so for every one death due to cardiovascular disease despite the fact that it kills more people than AIDS and the NUMBER 1 leading cause of death in America. AIDS isn't even one of the top 15 leading causes of death. Diabetes, cancer and heart disease all receive less funding than AIDS does. More people die from the flu and Parkinson's disease than die from AIDS yet receive significantly less funding...funding that pays for scientists to do research. You need to do a lot more research before you try and educate people on things they clearly understand better than you.

  • isomore

    Wow.. I haven't herd that one before now.. Constantly changing proteins.. And I had it explained to me by a HIV lecturer from one of Australia's leading universities, who lectures in the U.S. That was 6 or 7 years ago though.. How about I give you a sample of my blood, you find live HIV in it as it destroys a cell, get it on E.M. and show the world what no one, and I mean NO ONE has done yet.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1449577430 Mel Carey

    That is a fairly ignorant belief even for a so-called educated person. Its done that way because money/wealth demands attention. If you have no money/wealth, then you can't wage a counter. If this was done in the wealthiest of communities, money/wealth and political pressure would insure a swift end. In this scenario, its easier and more profitable in the long run to prey on the emotions of the wealthy for finance than to infect them. As its said: Never bite the hand that feeds you.

    The wealthy have always profited off of the poor. As far back in history as you would like to go you can see this. Why would this situation be any different? Where have you been hiding?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1449577430 Mel Carey

    You sound like a sheltered child. Where have you been hiding. It doesn't take an army to hide a secret. It takes a determined few with an objective and the promise of death and eradication of a family name. Governments and/or organizations that have the capability to "kill their own" have the capability of keeping a secret. Don't be so benighted.

  • Ann Rhodes

    You're ignoring the reality of the HIV virus. It's highly complex, disguises itself quite adeptly, and has displayed a highly mutatable nature. In only around 50 years HIV has developed two distinct types (HIV-1 and HIV-1), four groups (M, N, O, and P), and nine subtypes (A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, and K), and innumerable CRFs with the potential to become subtypes in their own right. To say we can cure or create a vaccine for HIV at our current stage in medicine is like saying we can do the same for influenza. The most we can do is create vaccines in response to new flu strains (and the influenza virus is much easier to detect, isolate, and target), and give supportive care to sufferers. The same is applicable to illnesses like the common cold, it's just HIV is not a temporary infection.

  • Ann Rhodes

    If having been to several third world countries, and witnessing unimaginable levels of poverty counts as sheltered then I suppose I am.

    Recognizing the inherent inability people have at keeping secrets, even under threat of retaliation or death, is simply common sense. The more monumental the secret and widespread the coverup only increases the likelihood of discovery.

    If we couldn't keep our method for constructing the atomic bomb out of the hands of the Soviets in the 1940s then I fail to see how such an even larger conspiracy in our day and age could ever hope to last a few months or years, let alone decades. Today's industries can't even get a handle on corporate espionage. Coke couldn't even keep their recipes out of the hands of Pepsi courtesy of a single pissed off secretary and her ex-con brother, and these are the people you claim have some multinational medical scheme?

  • RightwingHunter

    I tried to bear through this Aids denialism tripe but could not make past the 45 minute point. Like most conspiracist propaganda this documentary presents a lot of distortions and fake facts that are not backed up by any mainstream scientist.

    What is impressive is the directory managed to con several prominent Aids scientist to be featured in this film by editing their interviews. Sadly at least 3 of the HIV positive people who appeared in this film have passed away from well known AIDS related illnesses.

    I always ask a simple question of the AIDS denialist. If you don’t believe HIV causes AIDS then why not make the ultimate leap of faith and inject yourselves with HIV positive blood to prove your theory.

  • sofia

    Hi I was with hiv for 14 years and i never had any ilness, i was wondering why, so i met this guy who showed me the denialism theory, i was not on meds, so i did not start, well i get really sick i had toxoplasmose, tuberculoses and a cronic diairreia thaat almost killed me, doctors start giving me the retroviral drugs, and my health improved, i am alive now thanks to the drugs, this is not theory, is real life, real facts. God help those who bealive on this denialists.

  • Joe Farmarco

    It's amusing how many posts there are from people who apparently haven't even sat through this documentary. The contradictions from the HIV=AIDS "experts" is ASTOUNDING!!!

    Even Luc Montagnier - a man who won a Nobel Prize for his work on AIDS - admits that, with proper nutrition and sanitation, the alleged HIV epidemic in Africa would disappear. Does that sound like a virus to anyone with more than a couple of working brain cells in their head?

    The only distortions of truth in this documentary come from the people who are supposed to know the most about the subject - and they don't agree on anything! The producers of this film make all of the interviews available in their entirety - which means there are no distortions and nothing to hide. The people interviewed said what they said - period.

    Nobody has ever isolated HIV - and nobody has ever produced a diagnostic test for it that they were willing to stand by. That's what the facts show, and any other comment to the contrary is merely anecdotal.

  • Petar Posavec

    Sofia... just because you got better from ARV's, doesn't mean 'HIV' was to blame for the illness you developed. ARV's are a combination of drugs that encompass 'wide-range' of issues (they can destroy fungi, bacteria, microbes, etc.). As such, they CAN pull a person from the 'claws of death' - but the trick is, they were NOT designed to be taken indefinitely. Any decent doctor will tell you that drugs (of any kind) were designed to be taken on a SHORT-TERM basis, in emergency situations and only if there's no other option available.

    There are a number of causes of toxoplasmosis, tuberculosis and chronic diarrhea - none of which have to be connected to HIV as such. Please do some more research on this topic.

    AIDS is real - the above film questions the validity of HIV=AIDS theory (which is still a theory).
    Keep in mind that evidence is not proof and correlation (regardless even if there's a 'mountain' of it) is not proof of causation.

    One of the also intriguing premises is that if a person does test HIV+ on the antibody test, and their doctor knows about it, they will attribute EVERY SINGLE medical condition a person develops from that point on as being caused by HIV, instead of trying to resolve the problem as it usually would (without looking at HIV as the 'cause'). Indeed, many people who lied about being HIV+ to their doctors but had other medical issues received standard treatments that cleared the problem and were fine.

    I'm sorry, to me, the whole HIV=AIDS theory is shaky at best.

    Considering that HIV tests only test for antibodies and not the actual virus says something. The creators of the antibody and PCR stated (and both tests have such disclaimers) that they cannot be used for determining the presence of a virus in the person's body, nor for prognosticating about person's long term health based on the results.

    The industry seems to go up against these disclaimers and uses the tests however they want.

    The antibody tests themselves are extremely cross reactive. You can test + in one town, and - in another. The tests can react if you suffered from a simple cold before, or are currently sick from something else. Malaria infection for example causes the antibody test to react + Pregnant women test + for HIV on a regular basis simply because they are pregnant. And there are about 30 (or more) other conditions that can cause a + tests.

    As for the whole 'AIDS denialists' thing - people, get yourselves educated and learn to make proper distinctions. Those who question HIV=AIDS theory question the HIV as being the causal factor of AIDS (which we understand as being very real).

  • Petar Posavec

    And I am appalled at the seemingly 'super' properties being attributed to the HIV. That thing seems to gain new 'abilities' by magic and out of thin air.
    The scientific method is thrown out the window whenever HIV is in play.

  • Petar Posavec

    Evidence is not proof and correlation is not proof of causation. There are a number of causes for immunodeficiency, none of which have to be connected to HIV.

    Even if people seemingly lead 'healthy lives' and don't do drugs, tells you little. What was his diet like exactly? Some people may claim they eat 'healthy' but in reality they are basically consuming tons of processed foods and other foods that are simply labeled as 'low fat' or 'low in calories', etc. Do you know of all his daily habits or possible exposures to a variety of environments?

    Regardless of how well you might think you know someone, you don't live in their shoes, therefore, you cannot possibly know everything about them.

    To make assumptions simply on what people tell you without examining the topic and ALL other external factors is foolhardy.

  • truthbetold

    This video is absolutely accurate and after watching it all of my suspicions and findings have been validated.

    About 6 years ago a friend of mine had a husband that died of "AIDS". She supposedly contracted the HIV virus from him. She took 3 separate tests at different hospitals and each confirmed that she was HIV positive. She had been HIV positive for about 5 years so was not in a very good mental state of mind.

    I've always been skeptical about the whole AIDS/HIV epidemic. I grew up in the 80's over in South East Asia and remember very well when the media got a hold of the whole AIDS epidemic, it never really sat with me.

    Anyway, I convinced my friend (whom lived in Idaho) to come out with me to Illinois to have some anonymous tests ran because I always wondered if they used the information you gave them as a reason in itself to find you HIV positive, and I really care for her as a friend and hated to see the depression she was going through.

    I had read a story about the famous basketball star Magic Johnson about 16 or 17 years ago. When he was diagnosed with the HIV virus Magic had reached out to Dr. Peter Duesberg (look him up if you don't know who he is) to see what he needed to do to survive this virus he had acquired. Dr. Duesberg told him that if he wanted to live, he needed to get off of the ATZ otherwise he was going to develop full blown AIDS. No as you may know, Magic Johnson tested positive for the HIV virus way back in 1991....that's over 23 years ago! and yet he's still active and healthy as hell and always has been. It was that story that made me REALLY think that something fishy was going on.

    Now, I know that my friend and her now dead husband were shooting up Crystal Meth for years so were sharing needles all the time and probably sharing with other people as well. I was the one that had her husband thrown in prison for two years on drug related charges which finally got the both of them off that crap. All of her doctors knew about her husband dying of AIDS and she had of course told them about the needle sharing....so of course she was HIV positive....without a doubt, 100%, no denying it....yada yada yada.

    Anyway, so she came out, stayed with me about 2 weeks and we went to 5 separate hospitals around the Chicago area. I gave her a basic story to go by when answering the questions from the doctors which was; you in anonymously and I was to go with you, you had PROTECTED sex with a virgin about 6 months ago, you hadn't had sex in over 5 years before that, you are not promiscuous and never have been, you have had a total of 2 partners your entire life (or something along those lines, it's been over 6 years so hard to remember everything I told her). I was allowed to sit in with her for each of the 5 times they asked they questions and pulled the blood.

    As I said, I've always had a nagging feeling whenever I heard the words AIDS or HIV thrown around, but that didn't help ease the gut retching suspense that both of us were going through while waiting for those little calls to come in.

    Before the end of her 2 week stay we had our answer from each of the hospitals. Each and every one of them were negative and each time she insisted that it was a typo so we would call up the hospital and convince them to confirm it over the phone and each confirmed that she was HIV negative.

    After that she quit going to the same doctor for her tests and only goes in anonymously and even after all these years she is still HIV negative.

    There is definitely something going on that we are being kept in the dark about. Anyway, that was my experience, I was there....5 different hospitals and 5 negative results.

    Oh, and when she went back the first time to her usual doctor, she of course tested positive, but as soon as she went across town and used my story anonymously....negative, each and every time.