ironhorse_iv
Widely rejected by mainstream scientists, this film's claims on how human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is harmless and does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), is mostly BS. Often dismissed as pseudoscience and conspiracy theory masquerading as even-handed examination. This film by director Brent Leung, is a hard sell. Even the group of scientists that the film interview, later stated out, that their comments had been misrepresented and taken out of context, and that the film misused them to promote the filmmaker's belief of pseudoscience. They also state out that the editing of film footage, made them look like fools. Even some of the AIDS-deniers being interview looks like idiots, as they really have no clue, what, they're trying to say. A good example of this, was an HIV-positive activist and anti AIDS promoter, Christine Maggiore. Her influence on South African president, Thabo Mbeki's decision to block medical treatment of HIV-positive pregnant women was often criticized, with medical researchers noting that an estimated "330,000 lives were lost to new AIDS infections during the time Mbeki blocked government funding of AZT treatment to mothers." Another reason why her testify has always been a bit controversial, is because the fact that her 3-year-old daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, died of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, which consider to be an AIDS-defining illness. Not only, was she in the wrong idea that HIV was harmless, but Maggiore had not taken medication to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to her daughter during pregnancy, nor try to have Eliza Jane tested for HIV during her daughter's lifetime. No matter, how she wanted to spin it. This sounds like medical neglect and child endangerment to me. Worst off, most of her claims about the Padian paper, were later, proved to be false, because Christine Maggiore falsified the dates in her HIV tests and misinterpreted the results. To top it off, she later died before the movie was released, from HIV related illnesses such, as Pneumonia. The ending credits make a small note to her passing, and try to say it wasn't AIDS related, but clearly, the official story is she died from Pneumonia as a result of AIDS compromising her immune system. It's hard to debate against facts like that. Despite all that, I do have to play Devil's advocate for a bit, and give the director, some credit. It was very well shot documentary, for the most part, with its low budget. Also, some of their statements are somewhat correct. Things like how Center of Disease Control (CDC), budget was increase in the 1980s, due to AIDS reserve, are factual. However, the film got some of the information that belong with that statement, wrong. The mission of CDC expanded beyond its original focus on smallpox to include sexually transmitted diseases was transferred to the CDC in 1957. Long before AIDS was created. Nor was the CDC in endanger of budget cuts. Still, I have to give some credit, in showing that CDC hasn't always been relatively free of political manipulation. I like how the movie show CDC's response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s has been criticized for promoting some public health policies that harmed HIV+ people and for providing ineffective public education. I also like the film show that HIV testing could be inaccurate in third world countries, in poorly run tent hospitals. It's something, I could believe in. However, I doubt, the movie can run with the idea that all HIV testing are inaccurate, because the reality is very different. HIV antibody tests are extremely accurate. When, used by a skill doctor, the studies can show, nearly a 99.9% accurate. The film does not mention, this. Still, I can somewhat believe that a small bit of immune problems that people face, when dying, could be common ailments such as drug poisoning, lack of adequate food and fresh water, extending to starvation, and or common form of Tuberculosis (TB), malaria or Flu influenza, rather than AIDS. After all, AIDS is very broad term. However, that statement is nowhere near close to a scientist fact. So, I can't say, I'm for AIDS denialism. At all, hundreds of textbooks, scientific journals, and medical studies, within the last 40 years, that proved, otherwise. I just know, you should be, open to a small window of doubt, when talking about subjects like this. Overall: House of numbers is more like House of Cards. Its structure and argument is built on a shaky foundation. Not only does the science element seem removed from the film, but most of its core argument. It will quickly collapse on its own weight. With that, I'm not saying, you should be, for, or against the movie. Just simply be watch it and judge for yourself with an open mind.
aberusugi
House of Numbers is a documentary that claims to have been made for the purpose of "searching for truth" so to speak. This seems to be a common trope among modern alarmist documentaries. We have ushered in the age of anti-science documentaries being big business, and there seems to be no shortage of people willing to make one to get a whole lot of money, for not a lot of research.There are many points in the movie where the directing is just awful. Constantly using the same shot to show the "investigator" at the same angle, slow motion moving in. From a cinematographic point of view this movie is vapid. The music was boring, obvious ripoffs of various improvised dramatic keyboard music from reality shows.Now on to the meat of the subject. Where to begin...Brent tries to push the point that you can't take a picture of HIV and no one ever has. Pretty sure simple google search could have solved this. Not only that, he dishonestly edited the interview with the man involved in this sequence to push his point. As of the time of my writing, you can watch the full unedited interview on the House of Numbers channel, and find out for yourself it was heavily edited to convey a different message.His claims about the Padian paper are false, and Dr. Padian herself has said that. Maggie, on camera, falsified the dates in her HIV tests and misinterpreted the results (either on purpose or because she was in denial), and there were obvious graphical manipulations with one of the tests shown to be deceitful, then died before the movie was released, of PNEUMONIA as caused by AIDS. The ending credits make a small note to her passing, and try to say it wasn't AIDS related. But honestly, the official story is she died from Pneumonia as a result of AIDS compromising her immune system.See it for yourself. I gave it a 2 instead of a one, because I would like to thank Brent for bringing this insidious cult-like AIDS denialism into the internet's skeptical eye. Now we can see that people who think like this do exist, and maybe change their minds. Oh and the film's creators don't find it fit to let anyone criticize what they have created. They have filed false DMCA's against a youtuber that made a 5 part video series over the past couple of months debunking many of the movies insinuations and claims. His videos were not for profit, no ads, and fell under Fair Use guidelines. They used the automatic takedown bot to try and silence someone who disagreed with them.If your opinions are that backed by the evidence, they should stand up to any and all criticism on their own merits, or you could present an official response. This kind of fascistic takedown tactic disgusts me and many on the internet. Like I said, check it out for yourself, and prepare to yell out loud in disbelief that people could actually be this stupid.
bacontrees
I have been researching blood tests, treatments and disease statistics for years due to close family members and friends falling ill. Just 'looking into it', but pretty deep. I came across PDF's for blood tests of various viruses and among them, HIV, and if you look at the test literature, you will find exactly what the film states about the tests (you can download the literature from the FDA website and Health Canada website).THEN, I saw this film. There are others as well (AIDS, Inc, & The Other Side of AIDS and more). As far as some scientists being 'misquoted', that is not exactly the case; they rebutted saying that their interviews were taken out of context, after they saw it (read their rebuttals for yourself, they are available, and decide for yourself if they were actually 'taken out of context').But, whatever you do, watch this film with an open mind. Check all the 'facts' stated by whatever means possible (do further research). I knew some of this stuff already, so I can only say that the Brent Leung did a fabulous job at 'discovering' what the general public is not being told about HIV. This should be required viewing for doctors, researchers and everyone who is living in fear of the mysterious 'retro-virus', which can supposedly 'hide out' for years in your body, but that nobody can actually find directly in a person. Hmmmmm. Well done Mr. Leung!!
