House of Cards

AIDS Denialist Doc Fails to Convince


This film can save your life. This film can save you relationships. This film can educate you. This film can make you laugh. This film will make you cry. The best documentary I have ever seen.

I went into this film thinking the notion it investigates were crazy. Now I understand why people are angry about the film. It is not the message, but the danger of the message to the the scientists who have staked their entire career, awards, and grants on an unproved theory.

What is the unproven theory? the existence of HIV. The notion that drugs help when they kill or keep you sick.

@Dan Jones: Lulz, agenda much?
Why don't you go to the film for yourself and make that judgement. Don't be a sheep.
I care about this because it has effected my loved ones.

Here is an excerpt from the LA Times review on their website, "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."

Gary Goldstein, Los Angeles Times
Ms. Hallett,
Shame on you! Rather then providing your readers with a proper film critique, of a film that’s garnered over 11 awards and played in over 30 festivals the world over, you have instead elevated yourself onto your self proclaimed soapbox presenting a biased point of view. You failed to actually review our film and instead give your own opinions on HIV and AIDS.

For those seeking a real review of the film see Gary Goldstein critique from the Los Angeles Times. Also see the review from the Cambridge Film Festival which as the reviewer writes, This review “approaches HOUSE OF NUMBERS from a neutral position and attempts to discuss the film on its own terms.”

It’s quite evident you just you just goggled HOUSE OF NUMBERS and about the controversy surrounding the film such as the letter you quoted from Dr.’s that are claiming they were interviewed under false pretenses or were taken out of context. I would like to remind you again this has nothing to do with the film itself. Your job is not examining the periphery, but the movie.

Ms. Hallett, if you are looking for truth, then get on a plane and come to the editing room (my treat) and watch all the raw foot and see for yourself that NO ONE was taking out of content. Then review the release forms each interviewee sign off on during production. Even more, review the e-mail communications between Brent and the doctors before and following the interviews. Do all that and then tell me how they word were not expressed properly?

Then you sit in a theater with an audience of which 99% will probably completely disagree with what you are blaring about in your review. Then to the thousands of viewers that have already screening this award winning film, defend how you came up with you review.

I have a question. Do you know the genesis of this letter which took up the majority of your review? You would be best to do some due diligence. Also, you should research what the other 30+ interviewees have to say about the film. There is something in journalism called unbiased journalism and being fare and balanced. This basic concept seems to evade you. Research... Facts...Ms. Hallett are key in offering an option. Of your which your should be disregarded.

David Syner,

Facebook| HouseofNumbers
Twitter | houseofnumber
MySpace | HouseofNumbers
Blog |
This film should be viewed with an open mind, since none of us really know the truth about HIV/AIDS. House of Numbers is simply trying to identify and explain the myths and untruths about these diseases. Brent is in no way trying to manipulate us into seeing this movie through his point of view, he is a documentarian whose goal is to open our eyes and see that there may be fallacies in regards to this topic.
Wow, what a free thinking review, Allison. You must be a proud member of pharma-nation.

Or everyone else, the movie is actually really good and watchable for a serious documentary about a serious subject. That's why it's won awards in almost every festival its been in.

Oh, but I see, your paper is owned by the Stranger, which is published by Dan Savage, who is a giant pharma-slut himself. Nice going, guys.
Oh, and while I'm wasting my time putting information out to pharma-slut nation, I'll put a couple quotes from the film up here, so the illiterati can ridicule them, while they pop their prescription pills. Here's from the film, dumbasses, and here's why the pharmasluts don't want you to know about it:

“I think HIV is more difficult to transmit than other sexually-transmitted – than a lot of, probably most other sexually-transmitted diseases. I mean, I think that’s pretty widely known.“

From the longest study on HIV transmission. Never heard it, pharmawhores? Of course not, you're too busy being smarter than everyone else to bother reading.

Interviewer (Brent Leung): If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?

Dr. Luc Montagnier: Yes.

Interviewer: If you take a poor African, who’s been infected and you build up their immune system, is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?

Dr. Luc Montagnier: I would think so.

Interviewer: That’s an important…

Dr. Luc Montagnier: It’s important knowledge which is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccine.

Interviewer: There is no money in nutrition, right?

Dr. Luc Montagnier: There is no profit, yes.

Good luck, pharmasluts. Keep popping your pills. See you at the movies, if Dan Savage gives you permission.
I'm just going to keep posting comments from other reviewers since bitchy mcpharmaslut didn't bother seeing the movie.


Dr. Charles Geshekter Review, January 10, 2010
" Brent Leung has produced a watershed film, a splendid cinematic exposition..."

katherine, November 24, 2009
"This presentation really persuaded me to think for myself..."

Jennifer, November 23, 2009
"It really shook up everything I have learned about HIV/AIDS thus far in my life."

Tomás Brewster, November 22, 2009
"I tested HIV positive in September of 1997 when I was 27 years..."

Blair, October 27, 2009
"...the film literally supplies you with the facts from both sides of the argument..."

Jesaka, October 15, 2009
"...the long comments by Luc Montagnier were compelling and mind blowing."

John, October 10, 2009
"...this films ability to question such an intricate and controversial subject truly speak to me."

Kristin, October 10, 2009
"I was hesitant at first curious what the film was going to go over but was so happy I came..."

Karri Stokeley, October 7, 2009
"The following is my personal journey through the HIV/AIDS nightmare."

Tom, September 16, 2009
"...apropos input from a plethora of top HIV/AIDS figures..."

Jason, September 9, 2009
"It’s interesting to read some of the bizarre reviews that have been posted..."

Bryan, August 9, 2009
"I was planning to be trained as an HIV tester... I honestly cannot imagine doing that now..."
Somehow my comments are being deleted. I'll just let the Nobel Prize winner Dr. Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV speak for himself:

Dr. Luc Montagnier: “We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.”

Duh. Get it? You're not supposed to see this film, because the whole AIDS story is a lie, and Dan Savage does not want his little gig to be over, giving advice to paranoid little degenerates. I mean, herpes is a lot less scary than HIV, and if HIV isn't scary anymore, then Dan Savage is S.O.L.
"""Whether he's suggesting that amyl nitrate use was responsible for the prevalence of HIV infections in gay men in the '80s, or implying that current HIV testing science is inconclusive, Leung is broaching subjects that simply can't be sufficiently explored in 90 minutes.""

Okay ms. pharmaslut, did HIV testing science seem inconclusive? Did you do any reading AFTER the movie to see if there was anything to that idea? Did you think that after seeing Hoop Dreams there was enough information to figure out who was POOR?

Could you figure out after watching TITANIC that the SHIP SUNK? Or did you need MORE TIME to UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT?

Pharmaslut nation. A nation of bubblegum chewing pill poppers. Yes, don't see this movie. It's too good for you. Please, don't see it. You couldn't handle it. You've made that clear.
Want to see a good review of House of Numbers that just came out:
So, David Syner -- are you saying that you would readily infect yourself with the HIV virus in order to prove how inaccurate the claims of the scientific community are? From where I sit, that is the only truly non-biased way for you to approach your topic.
Otherwise, you are just as biased and agenda-centered as everyone you attempt to denounce. And that makes your entire argument irrelevant.
Blownspeakers and Ms Hallett,
If it was as easy as injecting myself with my wifes so called "hiv+" blood, then I would do it in order for the world to know the truth (if you are looking for parlor tricks). Ms Hallett you should be ashamed of yourself for coming across as some sort of an expert on this subject. Those of us that question hiv know more about this subject than the ones that have never questioned it.We have done our homework. Most of us have lived through this nightmare. You are a pawn of the pharma industry and are allowing yourself to be used. They bought this review among many other ones in different cities, I'm sure. Every city where this plays will have another one just like you, copy and pasting the same information you did. The only good thing about your review is that people will be intrigued over the controversy and go see "House of Numbers" now.

You can read our story at or where there are other stories too. Our story is true, your review of House of Numbers is a lie.
Joe Stokely
The following is an excerpt from the article "Why I Quit HIV" by Professor Rebecca Culshaw:

"Over the past ten years, my attitude towards HIV and AIDS has undergone a dramatic shift. This shift was catalyzed by the work I did as a graduate student, analyzing mathematical models of HIV and the immune system. As a mathematician I found virtually every model I studied to be unrealistic. The biological assumptions on which the models were based varied from author to author, and this made no sense to me.
It was around this time, too, that I became increasingly perplexed by the stories I heard about long-term survivors. From my admittedly inexpert viewpoint...........
the major thing they all had in common -other than HIV- was that they lived extremely healthy lifestyles.
Part of me was becoming suspicious that being HIV positive didn't necessarily mean you would ever get AIDS."

Her conclusion was:

"After ten years involved in the academic side of HIV research, as well as in the academic world at large, I truly believe that the blame for the universal, unconditional, faith-based acceptance of such a flawed theory falls squarely on the shoulders of those among us who have actively endorsed a completely unproved hypotheses in the interest of furthering our careers. Of course, hypotheses in science deserve to be studied, but no hypothesis should be accepted as fact before it is proven, particularly one whose blind acceptance has such dire consequences...the craziness has gone on long enough. As humans-as honest academics and scientists-the only thing we can do is allow the truth to come to light."
Attention: Thinking People Of Portland,

I ask you, to ask yourselves, why is it that the "powers that be", DO NOT want you to view this film? Included are many of the TOP scientists, doctors, and researchers in HIV science from the past 25 years. I would politely ask you to not be dissuaded by a poorly written and very biased review of this film, and instead, go see it for yourselves.
Curious as to what the best and brightest minds in HIV medicine are saying after more than two decades?
Don't be a lemming.
See the film.
Decide for yourself.
What does it tell you when establishment scientists will only be interviewed when they know the agenda of the film ahead of time? It is clear from the film, and from uncut footage of interviews with Montagnier, Weiss, etc., put online by Leung, that these scientists were very relaxed and not under any pressure when being interviewed. They didn't realize that when Leung put all their remarks together a very different picture emerged than what we're normally told.
David Syner wrote:

"you should research what the other 30+ interviewees have to say about the film."

Good suggestion, try contacting Christine Maggiore and Kim Bannon.
Strangely enough, the ONLY people I know who fear this movie are those who receive money, directly or indirectly, for pushing HIV and AIDS testing and drugs to black and gay Americans. If HIV was a legitimate disease, it would not need to defend itself from a documentary.……
I don't know whether HIV causes Aids or not but after 30 years as a journalist covering Aids, I have long since been forced to the conclusion that Aids is at least difficult to transmit through sex.

I live in Dublin. We have had thousands of HIV+ heroin addicts in this city and I am well-known on tv, radio and in print for interviewing these people and bringing their stories to the public. I have never yet come across a case of the reported sexual transmission of Aids that wasn't at least dubious ("I always used clean needles so I had to have been infected through sex") or plainly false.

Don't take my word for it. Statistics throughout the western world show that Aids is a disease or risk groups i.e. Aids discriminates. True venereal diseases don't.

I am also old enough to have worked as a journalist in Africa before they started calling everything Aids. And yet the same disease that has proved at least difficult to transmit in the west is supposed to have spread rapidly and generally in Africa. How come, asks Mbeki? That's my question too.

I'm looking forward to seeing house of numbers.

Paddy O'Gorman
I am looking forward to watching House of Numbers, and I think there is way too much money involved in this debate for me to take some film reviewer's word that the movie is propaganda full of lies.

I'm mature enough to decide for myself. I have seen plenty of Creationist propaganda to date, and I don't feel any more convinced of Creationism after watching them. However, I have also been told that a certain book or movie was absolutely false or incorrect in the past, only to finally decide to watch it later and realize that my own conclusion was vastly different.

Reviews about controversial subject matter are as useful as asking a Yankee fan their opinion about how the Red Sox are going to do next baseball season.

See the movie yourself. Write your OWN review. How about that. It's not like this one by Hallett was very in depth or anything anyways.
As a movie critic, you'd think Hallet would understand that some films aren't meant for you to draw conclusions from, but get you thinking differently and asking questions.

"Leung is broaching subjects that simply can't be sufficiently explored in 90 minutes"

You mean the worlds biggest issues can't be explored in 90 minutes?! Well we better just ignore them! Your reviews belong in a High School newspaper Hallet.
Wow...they sure came out of the woodworks for this one.

Though, none of them seem to think that, if the pharm-whatever whatever movement is a conspiracy, that the anti-pharma-whatever movement could easily be just as big of a conspiracy.

I mean, one negative review, and this place is swamped with web links, quotes, statistics, etc. I seem to recall a rather famous Shakespeare line about people protesting too much...
Also...just because the reviewer doesn't agree with your point of view does not mean that she did not watch the documentary.

I mean, if everyone who watched the documentary agreed with everything it said, wouldn't that seem a bit like following the herd?
@ David Syner. Does over 11 awards mean 12 awards?
It's an excellent film. It's hard for people to accept (such as Ms. Hallett), because it upends some well-ingrained propaganda.

The bottom line is, Yes, AIDS is collection of serious diseases and, Yes, people wiht AIDS should be treated with dignity and compassion. But, it certainly isn't a death sentence, and may not even be caused a transmissible agent. Likely, it is a multi-factoral syndrome, caused in part by nutritional deficiency and/or chemical toxicity.

Watch the movie with an open mind.
It's a good film. It has to be watched with an open mind. There has been nearly 30 years of steady propaganda about the dreaded virus, and much of this propaganda has become entrenched. Yes, AIDS is a collection of serious diseases, and, Yes, we should treat such patients with dignity, respect and compassion. But, it's certainly not a death sentence, and may not even be caused by a singular new retrovirus. Likely, it is a chemical toxicity/nutritional deficiency disease.

Watch the movie with an open mind.
It's true, when you goggle this film it does come out looking pretty bad. I recommend a double feature with "What The Bleep", from which one would hopefully emerge as a nice blank slate.
Some food for thought:

I read somewhere on the online debate that the BMJ hosted between HIV=AIDS advocates and HIV=AIDS non-advocates that to isolate the virus in a 'pure' state would cost a sum of £400,000 and take several months for this to be accomplished.

Now considering this figure is incredibly small for the AIDS industry - why has it not been done?

Even from a business perspective it makes no sense not having isolated it as there must be millions of infected people globally who agree or at least sympathise with the dissidents who are potential customers of anti viral drugs.

So if it were so easy and cheap to isolate the virus in a pure state which would destroy the dissidents arguments and save lives AND INCREASE PROFITS I say again - why has it not been done?

This would increase big pharmas bottom line and we all know they will do anything to increase their bottom line.

Think about it.

I just read on the Perth Group website that it would ONLY COST MAYBE AS LITTLE AS $50,000 NOT EVEN £400,000 to conduct isolation experiments!

Then again maybe it's just too much money for the government and pharma companies...

Can someone get me a trackback on where all the crazies are being linked from? I'm really super curious to see where this breed of mouth-breather lives.
Jeez, I've never seen this many comments on a film review here.

This is definitely an orchestrated campaign by HIV deniers.

They're full of it.

It is well proven that HIV causes AIDS. Here's the first step:

Take blood from someone with AIDS. Transfuse it into someone without AIDS. That person gets AIDS. What could possibly cause that? Hmm...

I don't think deniers are bad people, they just have some sort of mental problem. It's pretty common nowadays, in one form or another.
Uh oh....match yourself, jamdox. Up above, "Joe Stokely" claims that injecting HIV into someone without HIV in order to prove their entire denial stance is nothing more than seeking "parlor tricks."
You're technically correct jamdox, but only because in the U.S. a positive
HIV test is required for a diagnosis of AIDS. That's part of the definition of the syndrome. They may have already had the symptoms. For example, maybe as an HIV-negative person they had idiopathic lymphocytopenia, but once you infect them with the HIV virus they now have AIDS. This has nothing to do with whether the HIV virus caused their symptoms, and everything to do with how the syndrome is defined. Also, most of the "causation" data come from epidemiological studies. There does not seem to be strong mechanistic data to back them, making them almost worthless as evidence of causation.
Like any good documentary House of Numbers raises questions, important questions. I don't think the intent was to totally debunk HIV/AIDS theory in the meagre 90 minutes that it runs for, that would be impossible.

I have read many reviews which attempt to demolish this film, most published in media that have large drug company advertising revenues or close links to individuals within the AIDS "Industry". Yes there are some holes in this documentary, but not nearly so many as there are in the world of HIV theory.

If the measure of a good documentary is to make people stop and think, then this film is 5 star rated. If reviewers are meant to present a balanced approach to a film, then this review is a failure.
well Dr. Wilner did inject himself with blood from a spanish heamophiliac, publicly on spanish tv and remained negative. made big headlines when he did this.…

so - what do you make of that?
Beginning in September 2009 The tainted House of Journalists began their political marathon and more than likely pharma funded, to blast the film House of Numbers, making negative and derogatory comments all over the internet, helplessly whining about the film.. Why ? Have these journalists seen the film? probably not? Running scared these low paid budget journalists dare not speak a word against "HIV" if so . that would push them off into the "Denialist Inquisition"…

These self styled journalists would not dare tell the truth, albeit give their own children a toxic chemotherapy drug for the rest of their lives or use their own children as NIH guinea pigs for the "Good Cause" drug trials all expenses paid!
Instead, we read these Goldacre bent articles of how the "denialists" are promoting the film and how the Oregonians feel pressured by the film. when in reality it's these low profiled journalists who are promoting the film for us, a good apple for a bad one? No. Alison Halett will make it to CNN or FOX news one day and tell the world how [Antiretroviral Denialism] and [the Montagnier Denialists] is saving the world. JEANNETTE CATSOULIS AIDS Seen From a Different Angle was a perfect example how cockroaches scatter when the lights are turned on, we see from her message that no one really cares what she thinks.[0 comments]…

Another blurred fact here:… is that the low paid journalist who wrote this review is not named, how quaint? perahps AIDS Zealot John Moore wrote it or his Igor sidekick Bergman? doesn't matter the truth always prevails and the film is released. People will be upset, some people will remain in denial, yet most people apart of this criminal enterprise will be set free. The opposing force are running scared and when one bad review pops up 5 more will conquer.

My name is Tomás Brewster I was a victim of this HIV paradigm for 6 years and I, like so many have a story to tell too, I have watched House of Numbers and miss Halett is simply in denial to think I will jump back on the ol bandwagon, being an AIDS Denyalist saved me from an Antiretroviral death..…
"Can someone get me a trackback on where all the crazies are being linked from? I'm really super curious to see where this breed of mouth-breather lives."

Despite presenting itself as a journey of discovery by an "indpendent" film maker, "House of Numbers" is actually a propaganda project conceived and funded by a bizarre internet cult called "Rethinking AIDS". Their objective is to convince the world that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. A lot of them think that HIV doesn't even exist. David Crowe (who owns the ARAS page) is their president. They also have a facebook page, where you can meet most of the other commenters above.

You can read about the "pharmaslut" guy here:…

They do organised spam attacks whenever HIV/AIDS is mentioned, and particularly when the topic of their film comes up. Most sane people don't bother much with them any more.
"whereistheproof" ~~ the article you linked to is a crock a shit. The only person whose word/testimony that any of the purported act is true is Wilner himself, the person seeking to prove, surprise surprise, exactly what he did prove. Not to mentioned that Wilner's medical license was revoked. Notice how the article never mentions the heamophiliac being clinically tested in front of the panel of doctors. it is also simply Wilner's word (again, no scientific proof) that he has injected himself with the virus at an earlier date. If you want to make a point, "whereistheproof," please provide the proof that you yourself seem to be looking for.
@Snout - Thanks! Glad you posted that, was really curious. I wish IP addresses could be posted - I wonder how many of these commenters are the same people?

Snout? Is there any Scientific value left in this world? with a name such as that, who would believe a Doctor or Scientist named "Snout"? I'd trust a Custodian or Janitor named Anothony before i'd trust this person.
Snout? Is there any Scientific Value Left In this crazy world? Who in this world would trust or listen to a doctor or scientist named "Snout"? I would trust a Janitor named Bob before i'd trust anyone called 'snout".
Tomas, exactly where did Snout claim to be either a doctor or a scientist? And the fact that you would trust a janitor over a doctor or scientist is something you might not want to admit to so readily.
blownspeakers I don't think I'd trust you either. I will admit that so readily.
$nout consistently claims to be an "expert" on his own blogspot reckless endangerment. He is one of many that are paid to inhabit cyberspace, he trolls around all links to HIV/AIDS injecting his particular brand of venom in to the debate. His other notable cohorts include $eth Kalichman, JT De$hong, Poodle $tomper and the venereal Profe$$or John P Moore, who is the leader of the gang. Just as he was the inspiration behind AIDSTRUTH and a consultant to THE BODY. His efforts alone have netted Cornel University some 30 million in grants and he receives considerable gratuities and speaking fees from the pharmaceutical companies that coincidentally market anti HIV medications. THE BODY itself is simply an advertising vehicle for HIV medications and not a credible source of health information.

Simple analysis of the number of blogs they troll and make comment on shows that they cannot possibly hold down bonafide jobs eslewhere unless they are working 60 hour days.

He who pays the piper calls the tunes, in this case it's Glaxo, Pfizer and host of others that maintain sizeable budgets whithin their PR departments to fund this activity.

One shouldn't take them too seriously, they are just doing their jobs, and a brief visit to their various sites shows the quality of their cut/paste/insult/deride ventures. They all regularly engage in sock puppeteering in a vain effort to bolster their numbers and usually favourably comment on each others blogs in a verbal daisy chain. Often they are the only people to post on these open forum blogs and self congratulate each other their perceived witicisms, cyber masturbation if you will. Their propensity to attempt outdoing the others is matched only by their greed and lack of ethical or moral values which makes them by definition true sociopaths.

Of course they will vehemently deny this and claim that they are serving the interests of public health when in fact they are only servicing their bank accounts. John Moore has of late taken to threatening everyone and everything with libel actions if he disagrees with your point of view. Everytime you lend credence to these mercenary cretins the cash register goes Ka Ching and they laugh out loud. At humanities and your expense.
Tomas, it's nice to know that you don't trust the people who question your claims.
"Simple analysis of the number of blogs they troll and make comment on shows that they cannot possibly hold down bonafide jobs eslewhere unless they are working 60 hour days." That's a wonderful comment, "In the Know," especially considering the number of AIDS denialists that have trolled this single thread.
Blown Speakers or whatever this particular sock puppets real name is also spending an inordinate amount of time trolling his particular brand of apologetic orthodoxy. Go back to DeShongs website where your comments will be welcomed. Run along now and report back to base that the nasty dissidents don't like you and were mean as well. While you're at it pop a few hundred milligrams of AZT, it's harmless you know.
"blownspeakers" more like blownfuse or popped a gasket, my favourite though...Nutter.
Speaking of sock puppets and reporting back to websites, "In the Know," where exactly did you learn about this review? Because you've only commented on this thread, and (surprise surprise) have only been commenting since yesterday. Was it through something on the RethinkingAids website? Or maybe the House of Numbers website? I'm just curious; because popping up here all of sudden, only to spout off more denalist zombie propaghanda, sounds a lot like sock puppetry. But, I guess I shouldn't try and throw obvious logic into this equation. I don't think it would do much good. And I'll gladly injest some AZT, "In the Know," once you inject yourself with HIV..."it's harmless, you know."
You're a Sockpuppet Denialist !! Blownspaeakers
blownspeakers is simply a pathetic cliche', I refer back to my original post for a definition of him. I strongly suspect that he is in fact Todd DeShong, the language and writing styles are identical and he has already posted on Seth Kalichmans' site regarding this review thread. Now stand by for his denial of identity followed shortly by the "real" DeShong posting to prove the point, or not. Poor DeShong is having to troll lately as his last 3 self published rants on dissidents@dumbees have received 0 (zero) comments and the 4th got 1, from a fellow troll. DeShong is a failed blogger defending a failed paradigm, he'll be getting desperate soon as his funding will be in jeopardy.

For his information I got this thread from Kalichmans site denying aids this morning and have posted late as I've been away working and having a life for the last 6 days. Now I'm going back to that life as this thread has become another tiresome puppet show. Thinking about it the usual suspects remind me of the 2 old hecklers on the muppet show, slanging off at everything, sockmuppets! LOL.
"For his information I got this thread from Kalichmans site denying aids this morning and have posted late as I've been away working and having a life for the last 6 days"

Sorry, In the Know. The review you spammed which was linked from Seth Kalichman's site was from the Oregonian, not the Portland Mercury.…

We've only got a sample of two so far, but it's nice to see that film critics in Oregon are no fools.

Gee, must be hard keeping track of all your spam targets, eh?

Does anybody have any logical reasons why the government hasn't isolated the virus to shut the denialists up seeing as it's so cheap?

Though I refrained from responding so far, as I don't feel like getting implicated in one of those usually endless yes-no "discussions" on some blogs or "comments", in which "anti-denialists" seem to be champions in "mauvaise foi" as some dissidents seem in naivety (only some, I'm all but saying dissident questions are naive) - making me think of street battles between rival gangs (especially one blog seems to exist mainly for the sport of "dissident hunting"), here are my 2 cents.
No comment about the film, as in France we haven't been able to see it yet (just the footage everyone has seen by now). I for one am looking forward to the release on DVD. As David Syner and Brent Leung may read this: Please make sure you release the DVD with decent subtitling in a couple of languages. Gary Null's "Aids Inc.", for instance, was lost for many people for that reason.

"Follow_the_money": "Does anybody have any logical reasons why the government hasn't isolated the virus to shut the denialists up seeing as it's so cheap?"

No, I haven't. But I often wondered about that. Maybe it's a pity dissidents didn't put money together to have some of the tests proposed on the Perth Group website done, but it's not too late to do so.

Further, I agree Alison Hallett's article sounds more like her opinion about aids (and clearly the opinion of someone who's not familiar with the controversy or has decided once and for all that dissidents are perverted animals and their ideas not really worth a thought) than a more or less neutral review. But she's not the only film critic giving an opinion and I'm not sure that what we ask film critics in general is pure neutrality anyway. So, to me, this is just a negative review next to positive reviews.

My "opinion" on hiv is that, despite reading tons of stuff for nearly 3 years now, I still have no final opinion. "Proof" from both sides fails to convince me (for longer than a couple of days, when thinking it all over starts again). The only things I'm sure of is that there ARE questions that remain unanswered by "orthodoxy" and the other thing is that I'm convinced research IS flawed by the toxic cocktail of mainstream opinion, media, politics & pharma and other interests (almost a mathematical necessity in this case and in others). So I'm very happy with every effort to bring these unanswered questions to a wider public - which is, it seems, exactly what Brent Leung did or at least tried to do -, hoping that one day we may all, orthodox and dissident alike, benefit from the answers - because in the end, that's the only thing that really matters.

And now that I'm at it, dissidents being called denialists irritates me terribly, but every "mainstream thinker" being called pharma slut irritates me as much. I'm pretty sure most "normal dissident deniers" have not a penny of interest in whatever pharma business; they're just shocked, as I was myself 3 years ago, at discovering the dissident points of view & questions. The first thing that gets to your mind is "are they f*king crazy", "totally irresponsible", "they put people at risk". Maybe unpleasant for dissidents, but I think it's a normal and decent and human first reaction. The dissidents I know started with that same initial reaction. Only when you (have to) dig deeper, you start discovering (jaw dropping with surprise) that there is a lot more than what the media tell and you can only agree that dissidents are definitely right (and even morally obliged) to ask questions.

Right on cue Snout. Didn't take much to flush you out of your septic tank.
Yes, "In the Know," because I disagree with your stance and question your claims, that means I can only be one person and one person only. That is the most sane, logical, and watertight reasoning I do believe I have ever seen.
"Does anybody have any logical reasons why the government hasn't isolated the virus to shut the denialists up seeing as it's so cheap?"

HIV-1 has been isolated, cultured, identified by PCR, electron micrographed, its genes fully sequenced hundreds of times and its protein structures elaborated in exquisite detail. Anyone can go the the NIH's AIDS Research and Reference Reagent Program" and see that thousands of isolates of HIV-1, HIV-2, EIAV, FIVs and SIVs have been isolated and fully characterized. These have been routine procedures in virology labs for decades. Even the most prominent "dissident", Peter Duesberg, acknowledges that "HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method science has to offer" (infectious molecular clones).

The claim that "HIV has never been isolated" comes from a pair of Australian hospital workers with no qualifications or practical experience in virology. They have made up their own protocol for "isolation", according to which not a single virus has ever been "isolated" - for the simple reason that their protocol has been designed to be impossible to carry out. Real virologists roll their eyes at the Perth Pair's bogus claim, but it plays out well rhetorically to lay internet audiences with no background in virology.

"House of Numbers" cost millions. Surely if the "dissidents" have that kind of money to splash around for propaganda purposes they could surely spare the 50 grand for supposedly real scientific experiments, wouldn't you think?

The claim you (Snout) mention seems indeed a weak point in the reasoning of the Perth group, as it would apply to other viruses as well (for what I read, being typically a specimen of laid internet audience with no background in virology). The tests I had in mind are Proposal 8: Study to find out the real meaning of HIV Tests - Principal Proposers: Dr Harvey Bialy and Dr Roberto Giraldo, and Proposal 9: To test the reliability of one of the main laboratory methods currently used to quantify HIV in the blood of seropositive individuals - using the Electron Microscope - Proposer: Prof. Etienne de Harven: (in…). Both probably to be updated and reformulated as we live about 10 years later, ok.

One of the items on my wish list is a larger scale and longer term study in industrialized and in poor countries about viral load and CD4 in seronegatives, and not only healthy ones. Both studies mentioned above (reformulated version 2010) might be interesting in that respect. Maybe one day I'll understand how seronegatives can have less than 200 CD4 (2008:…), seronegatives with TB less than 300 CD4 (from 2000 is seems:…). And idem for viral load (1998:…) - maybe today pcr tests are more accurate, but I would still like a larger scale study on seronegatives. And all this of course not for the sport of rhetoric but in a context of arv meds for life and the difficulty to reassess possible causes once you're stamped "positive".
Numa, the mistake you are making is thinking that your are reasoning with a real human being in "Snout". In fact he is a ventriloquists doll with a hand up his backside giving the illusion of animation. The fact that he uses terms like "Exquisite Detail" show that he is simply reciting an ancient viral mantra and if you look closely you'll likely see John Moores lips moving slightly. He goes strangley quiet when Moore takes a drink of water though!

HIB ish va cause ov AIB's........glug glug glug.

Numa, PCR testing is used to screen all (seronegative) blood donations for HIV in Australia, the United States, and I gather many other countries, and this has been routine for some years now. The reason for this is to pick up any recently infected donors who are still in the few weeks' window period prior to developing HIV antibodies and would thus be missed by antibody screening alone. If you are looking for specificity data based on millions of PCR tests in seronegative individuals I'd try searching PubMed for evaluations of this routine screening practice, or contacting your local blood bank.

I've only had a brief look at the "experiments" proposed by the dissidents in the Mbeki AIDS panel and my understanding of laboratory procedure is limited, but I see no reason to disagree with the overwhelming majority of real - you know, actual working - scientists in this field that such proposed experiments are similarly either already done, or otherwise impracticable, unnecessary, bizarre, or unlikely to produce meaningful data. I particularly like Giraldo's proposal to conduct EIAs using different dilutions of reagents, which is analogous to testing the performance of a radio designed to run on 12 Volts by trying to run it on different voltages ranging from 12 to 6000 Volts. Surely you don't expect anyone familiar with how EIA technology works to take the guy seriously, do you?

However, my point remains. HIV/AIDS dissidents routinely claim a support base of "thousands of scientists and doctors and other professionals". Surely if this were the case someone would at some stage over the past quarter century managed to conduct even one experiment yielding useful data supporting their contentions. The plain and simple fact is they haven't. Their claims are nothing more than hot-air.
"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in
human blood." (Abbott Laboratories, ELISA HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Sensitivity and
"EIA testing cannot be used to diagnose AIDS... The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly
reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories, ELISA
HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the Procedure")
"Clinical studies continue to clarify and refine the interpretation and medical significance of the presence
of antibodies to HIV-1." (Abbott Laboratories, ELSA HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the
Western Blot Test
"Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." (Eptope, Inc., Western Blot HIV
Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the Procedure")
“The clinical implications of antibodies to HIV-1 in an asymptomatic person are not known.” (Calypte,
Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Western Blot Kit, section “Limitations of the Serum and Plasma Procedure”)
PCR "Viral Load" Test
"The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test, is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a
diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection." (Roche, Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Test Kit,
section "Intended Use")

Routinely used yes, valid no.
Yes, ITK, we are all familiar with the collection of quote-mines from test kit inserts that is endlessly copy-pasted from denialist website to denialist website to threads such as this one. Check your formatting next time, and it won't be so obvious that your "comment" was copy-pasted.

All test kit inserts include specifications and instructions for use, and also include information on what the test can be used for and what it shouldn't be used for - for example you cannot say that someone has the immune system disease AIDS solely on the basis that they have HIV, and you shouldn't use a test designed to quantitate for qualitative purposes. You shouldn't diagnose HIV simply on a single reactive test, but rather an algorithm of tests and clinical data. Sensitivity and specificity of the Abbott EIA were calculated not by comparing with a "recognised standard test" (which is only one way of calculating sensitivity and specificity) but using other methods which are described in detail if you bothered to read on from the quote you contextomied.

Can you explain why any of the quotes you posted indicate that the tests they refer to are invalid for the purposes for which they were approved? Or does your understanding of this not extend any further than your ability with the Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V keys?
You the man, Snout!

This thread is officially EPIC.
My Dear Snout, unless you are quoting from your own peer reviewed published papers, every word you utter is quote mined straight out of AIDSTRUTH and THE BODY. This is typical of your double standards in doing exactly what you deride others for. The major difference between us is that I have the ability to think for myself. You simply regurgitate the AIDS mantra like a ruminant chewing its cud. And like all ruminants you suffer from a herd mentality.

A classic example is how you will deride Duesberg for using others papers for the basis of a hypotheses. Claiming that he has no direct knowledge and does not conduct the research himself. Yet when Max Essex produces his latest piece of Dogma you cheer and kalichman cheer loudly as if it is a seminal paper proving your case.

In fact this paper is not new research but a collection of quotes from previous papers. Many of your recent hallowed papers use not new research but "Meta Analysis" which is a fancy way of saying "Quote Mining", Boily et al is the latest you are using, attempting to plug the gaping holes in the Padian paper.

When a paper is quoted that you don't like you claim that the research is outdated, stating along with Moore that science has learnt so much more since then. Case in point ,Gallos' original papers that have been shown conclusively to be dishonest and prove nothing. Then along comes Myron and Voila!, he quotes all of the original papers and just about every reference is pre 1996, but that's OK and proves your point, hurrah.

You and your orthodox mates are dishonest, hypocritical and plainly either stupid, corrupt or a sad mixture of both, which is exactly what I stated in my original post. The only thing that rocks about you are the pebbles rattling around in your head.

Another quote mining exercise, this one from the Journal of AIDS. Your bible.

"Short fragments of cellular RNA can be misleading, being recognized or interfering with the amplification systems used by the different quantification methods. Targeting other nucleic acid sequences could lead to the amplification of background, providing false-positive results, usually with low values, as it was seen in our cases.

Our data support the notion that viral load quantification methods must be used for monitoring plasma HIV-1 RNA levels in patients already known to be HIV-infected. Since their specificity is not well known, these tests must not be used for diagnostic purposes (as has been suggested by others)"…

This is YOUR PCR science Snout from a paper that showed HIV Viral Loads in between 10 and 20% of tested subjects that were shown to be HIV negative. This is what they screen the bloodbanks with which is fair enough to protect the supply, but plainly criminal in diagnosing an individual. And yes the Nobel Prize winning inventor of the technology states it should not be used for this. But I am sure you will have a profound answer to it all.
No, IDK, blood banks don't use viral load tests for screening. They use *qualitative* PCR tests for screening - tests that are approved for diagnostic screening purposes. Viral load tests are not *qualitative*, they're *quantitative*. They are approved for prognostic use, not diagnostic use. Although both use PCR technology, they are completely different types of tests.

Perhaps you should take some time out and learn the difference between diagnostic and prognostic tests and how they are interpreted before you make any more of a fool of yourself.

No one is diagnosed with HIV on the sole basis of a detectable viral load result. The specificity of the test used in this unapproved way for diagnosis is, as your citation says, unknown. However, both diagnostic and prognostic PCR tests during a possible seroconversion period can add useful information to diagnostic algorithms under some circumstances.

Similarly, no-one is diagnosed with HIV infection solely on the evidence of a qualitative (diagnostic) PCR test, either. Alone, their specificity is better than viral load tests, but is probably inferior to approved diagnostic algorithms using a variety of antibody tests in most circumstances. However, their sensitivity during the pre-seroconversion period can make them very useful under these circumstances. Get it?

And no, meta-analyses are not quote mining exercises. They are broad surveys of ALL the available literature on the subject, and must necessarily represent the data and conclusions of the various authors accurately, in the context of the totality of the literature. Denialists like Duesberg cherry-pick small nuggets from the literature that can be made to seem to support their own personal theses and disregard the bulk of the data that refutes it. They regularly misrepresent and even frankly lie about the work of other scientists, in order to try to support their own points. This is why the scientific mainstream regards Duesberg and other denialists with contempt.

Well, it's getting out of my scope to respond to the responses, and maybe they'll kick us from this page supposed to be comments regarding a film critic anyway ;-), just some points, randomly:

1) I checked the NIH's AIDS Research and Reference Reagent Program, but it will take a couple of days to first find my way through this labyrinth and next to find any info I'm able to understand.

2) I will try to search pubmed for blood bank pcr screening. I've been searching for viral loads in negatives for quite a while, but never thought of blood banks. Thanks, that will be my next hunt.

3) At least in some cases viral load in seronegatives seems not to be the running up to seroconversion (Dr. Juliane Sacher, blood tested under her own name came back "clean", the very same blood tested under a fake name came back with VL 1800).

4) As to the use of fake names here. Then I'm a puppet too. The day I'll have a real overview and made up my mind, and will be able to defend my position, whatever that will be, I'll use my real name.

5) I (try to) refuse to take part in schisms (the RA and PG one included). I understand how they arise, how people from both sides get sick and tired of "discussing" over and over again the same stuff with the other side, that they don't really think worth a thought, but I still dare to think that it's a pity and probably a waste of potential. I don't feel so oversized as to think all "main streamers" are crazy, not knowing what they're talking about and being paid by big pharma, but I also wonder where the fresh air would come from, if it weren't from dissidents. The pressure of not putting people at risk by questions or alternative views is so general and enormous (and understandable, of course) that whatever GP might have some doubts, will shut up (I know one personally, more than 15 years ago he already said things didn't add up, but he'll keep these doubts to himself in front of his patients), and whatever researcher who would like to explore alternative/complementary roads, will probably not get the same opportunities as "main stream" researchers. Many of them will simply shut up, for the sake of safety first as well as for their professional status and career. I'm afraid of those slowly growing spirals of mainstream consensus, fuelled effectively and perversely by politicians and media (with probably the best of intentions - and money and interests, not always with the best of intentions), as most of them know as much about the question as I do, if not less. And then you get things like the swine flu hype and maybe also practices like putting seropositives of 25 years old, with a CD4 count of 700, on Haart (read this on a Dutch "regular" forum for seropositives - isn't that overshooting the target?). That's why I'm very glad "dissidents" are keeping doors open.

6) Another thing is that antioxidants do help improve health (the PG came with that, in the beginning, it seems, oxidative stress etc.). Why one gets "offered" to participate in a study to boost CD4 (maraviroc, in France right now), adding nr. 4 to your "tri package", but to bump into stuff like this:… , you'd better visit dissident websites from time to time. Bad for seropositives without money.
7) This puppet & dummy is going to shut up. But just for the record, I just received a book I ordered 2 weeks ago, Biochemistry for dummies. (See!) I see one of the authors is John Moore. Is it "the same"? I bet it must be a name that's not so unusual in English speaking countries. Funny coincidence anyway. Maybe one day I'll be able to take part in discussions like this one on a higher level ;-)
Numa, not being a microbiologist or virologist does not mean you do not have a valid opinion or are not entitled to ask questions. My argument with the orthodox defenders is that they have the arrogance to presume that they are just plain right and there are no questions to this problem.

In 25 years the theory and trick technology has given us nothing of value. The mainstream research contradicts itself regularly and is used very selectively to prop up a lucrative theory.

The crux of the whole issue is HIV = AIDS is built on a premise published in 1983. This original research has been shown to be invalid. Rather than reinvestigating that material, science has been attempting to prove a dubious proposition and the facts are manipulated to that effort. Eventually it is bound to fail, but what damage will be done in the meantime? It would be easy to shut us up, just redo the original research properly and honestly.

HIV was the tip of a viral iceberg. The same people who looked at finding a cure for cancer in the 70's were virologists, they are still in key positions at the CDC and NIH, who dictate policy in this area. They are convinced that virus's are responsible for nearly everything and have sporned industries built on this. The pharmaceutical companies are not evil empires, they are profit making businesses and will happily go with anything that makes money, they will defend those profits vigorously though.

Virology and in particular retro virology went astray long ago, confusing cause with effect. Try having a look at XMRV, Ad-36, HPV, HCV and a host of others, they are all offshoots from HIV research. After that if you truly believe that virus's cause everything from obesity (yes), cancer: including skin, throat, cervical and many more, chronic fatigue, gum disease, heart disease, the list goes on an on and is expanding, then good and well.

To me though it seems odd that humanity has been assailed by a host of hitherto unknown organisms in the last 25 years of our ancient history. Most if not all of the increasing array of previously rare maladies can be better explained by degraded lifestyles, toxic environments and ignorant profit driven medicine.

Individuals like "Snout" have elevated science from a search for truth to a quasi religion that should not be questioned. If you think that mankind is too sophisticated these days to do that, then look at the amount of warfare we are involved in to indicate our true level of sophistication. Technologically we are advancing, but our basic natures aren't that far from the trees we fell out of.
*Nex hugs an eagle*

God bless the Internet!
"Nex," please stop with your sockpuppetry.
Agree with most of what you say, ITK, the trees included, but can't judge about retro/virology. I have my opinion, but it's only an opinion, and "work in progress" way. As said, I try to keep my mind open on both sides and not to jump to conclusions or to overly simplify (not saying that's what you are doing, but some do). On dissident's side, for the time being, there are tracks to be explored further, but mainly questions, imho. As to the "religion" aspect of main stream, sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if this religion or consensus is much more worm-eaten than we figure, even among orthodoxes. I stop here, having nothing to add for now. Let's continue questioning, ourselves included.
Questions are fine, Numa, provided you have a willingness to listen to the answers. In the case of complex questions this means taking the effort to understand the knowledge base underpinning what are necessarily complex answers.

If, for example, you want to understand how different testing protocols were developed in different parts of the world, you would need to sit down with the people who developed these algorithms and explore the rationale behind the why particular decisions were made for times and places. A film consisting of jumbled soundbites interspersed with "commentary" by individuals who clearly don't understand the issues is obviously not trying to answer or explain - it is doing something else.

The HIV/AIDS dissidents use "questions" not to explore or increase understanding of a topic, but as a rhetorical device to promote their ideology. The aim is not to provide clarity, but rather confusion. And House of Numbers is a carefully crafted example of the art.

My hope is that in the future the film will be studied in schools - not in science or health classes, but dissected in media studies. It's very important that we teach kids how techniques of persuasion work - how to spot the manufactured controversy or the hanging question; how to recognise the hidden assumption behind the endlessly recycled argumentoid; how selective editing works to change the intent of a communication; how to spot logical errors and non-sequiturs, to distinguish reasonable from unreasonable doubt, and genuine skepticism from conspiracy-thinking.

"House of Numbers" is, as they say, a target-rich environment for such study.
Denialist? What is a denialist? No one that I know who challenges the HIV paradigm denies the reality of AIDS and that many have and do continue to suffer from AIDS and its horrible treatments. The persistent use of the term "denialist" is a nasty, Orwellian attempt to control debate at the expense of truth. What is so threatening about giving people the facts and letting them decide which path to take? And who are you to demand rigid adherence to a specific scientific theory? Prove that HIV causes AIDS, that it kills T cells, that the AIDS meds aren't toxic, and I will submit to your way of thinking. Till then, show some respect and stop with the "denialist" nonsense.
Initially wasn't mean to be so long, but let me give a short version of the following:, what would you do yourself, snout?
Well, it would be interesting to know what, as well snout as ITK (sorry, you're just the most active ones in this thread, it's not personally, don't wish it to anyone), would you advise your doughers or sons with CD4 at 4. Not? Happily I haven't (yet, such things can happen every minute to everyone) been faced with such challenges (what a f*cking empty management word anyway: challenges), just a friend with CD4 around 200. But we're both almost old, so who cares, whatever the option, we're not 20. And what would you say, snout, to that young guy, supposed to be "infected" after one successful "blow job" (= sperm in mouth, 1's, only one fucking time, only OnCe, even orthodox don't think that's really possible)? But his tests show he IS S+. So start the meds, boy? You're 28, ok, but be happy the meds exist ! Just stick to the protocol. How it could be that such a guy is not going to look for "other reasons" and consequently for "other remedies", or none at all, just for another "life style"? Wouldn't you do the same? For sure, I would.

And ok, you're right, snout, asking questions means you should listen to the answers (I'm serious and agree that many don't.) People don't listen, I agree (I'm not sure I always do, my preconceptions can get in the way, yours not? not to speak of my lack of scientific background, yours not, I don't know you, but take you for an hiv specialist in some of the hiv fields). But the official hiv story doesn't even pretend having all answers, so why they couldn't at least try to see if Some (not all, just some of those 2000 doctors and other people who studied stuff and have decent diploma's) have maybe some ideas about filling part of the gaps? Orthodoxes could have a decisive influence on who's asking questions, if they gave some air to those who have real questions. I know "a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer", but there are not only fools among the dissidents. Fools are giving dissidents a hard time, but orthodoxes should be wise enough to make the difference, as the result should be the only thing that counts.

Whatever, what would you Really do, Snout, if you tested positive? And what would some dissidents really do when they tested CD4 0, or 4, or 20? I know from some what they did or do. They're terribly courageous. I give the answer for myself, in case, I would search and search and search the only thing that's available, the internet, and find a lot of info, much more than I could handle, so much that it might make me sick, because I wouldn't understand it all (I bet even regular doctors and hiv-specialists can't keep up with the flow) . So what? You just ingest meds and shut up? Or you don't ingest and are torn apart from worry? What you suggest? (Snout. I'm really trying, though I know it's naïve and even stupid, and I admit I'm a hypocritic, to get over those schisms, because I think that if you (try to) dig to the bottom there's more than the "fun or rhetorics" (digging, you're at least trying to do something). You think you have the answer, "orthodoxy" mapped all sequences of hiv by now, ok, ok (all in vitro, we agree?). How about people who got "hiv" in the early days, started with azt, got sick, but believing in it, continued, for years, and then, ran (by accident) into a homeopath, who manages their health since, for over 15 years, with homeopathy? Even I wonder if in such cases it's homeopathy or an overall change of life style and more, "believe", (that profound conviction, I mean, the thing that you believe above all –which has a powerful effect, whatever name you give it - don't you agree, at least, that that exists?) that coincided with that homeopathic treatment that makes the difference, but it's the results that counts. And the person I'm talking about is perfectly healthy, even able to drink too much 3 times a week, so not the perfect example of a healthy life style, just a human example. It exists.

On the other hand (that makes me the perfect hypocrite), at least one of the persons on 'werelivingproof' died in-between, and is still on the website. I tried to contact a couple of others (only 2), they didn't answer. So I give to you that, snout, dissents aren't perfect, some even die. Even aidstruth didn't notice yet, haha, funny not? not!
So, as a typical hypocrite, I wish orthodoxes as well as dissents became less hypocrites, because I'm sure there are lots of things to investigate, lots of orthodox research to be sowed by dissidents, and vice versa.
Montagnier is a kind of example of that "rich diversity", don't know what, a merging point that never really existed but is situated between 5 and 15 years ago. I believe more in the potential of ideas of one of our fellow French dissident chemists that in what Montagnier said recently. To me, he's already on a next agenda (water, liquid signatures of DNA etc, forgive the formulation, of course there may be a link with hiv, but accessory), and that's what he's really thinking about during his HOS interview (the one that's on-line and everyone has seen by now). Maybe I'm nuts, but I think indeed Montagnier is already elsewhere, and that's not a good point for hiv-positives. Forgive me, professor L. Montagnier if I'm wrong, it took me a couple of overdoses of seeing that video before I could put a name on what seemed a total disconnection towards people living the reality of aids or hiv, hoping to find hope in your words (that makes words very heavy, everyone understands, they weigh tons, but you should know, have known). Personally, already as a kid, I felt sorry for the princesses born to our "maison royale" (happened to be only princesses), and now I think the same for Nobel prizes. I can understand that one has better to do than to keep going in the tunnel you got the prize for, especially as one Swedish MP said that Nobel reward was especially meant to shut up dissidents points of view - nobel, kind of ;-). Bad luck for the guy. Thanks for having been honest, but not thanks for not open you arms and possibilities to other researchers. Even without endorsing them, you could have given them an answer (GP). But, maybe, we should just leave you quet. Researchers are probably a kind of poets, people one shouldn't disturb. That’s when they're able to do good, their best, work. That's what I think, so I wish you good and quit work, your research about water is very interesting, and poetic.

For the others, give them a hand, you already did, but give those PG papers a decent review, for instance ? And a couple of others to? And tell me also, what you would advise your daughter or son of 22, seropo? Go on the meds, my love ? You're having power. To my opinion, it's controversial power, heavy power, like an unwanted relationship, personally I wouldn't want that power, and I'm lucky, I haven't any ;-). It must be hard on a personnal level as well as on science level (the supposed to be objective science), as the poetry of science gets no air, once nobelized. But give a hand to those having ideas and even much more than ideas, develloped ideas, on paper, just need to be read and critisized., fed and fuelled by other scientists. Give your point of view, after decent consideration, and go on with your poetry.

One thing I want to add to this that I didn't want to write, HON (House of Numbers) might be once a course in schools about social manipulation (ok, a short cut, but that's what you meant, not?). Ok, probably. I think there are better examples, but ok. My turn: I think that how Gallo got away with his "discovery" might well be a school example of how you short cut scientific rules and practices when it suits politics (to me that's the only argument that could explain how he could get away with this, I don't believe scientifics are "bad", just some get drugged with politics and media). Whatever the inelegance of his proceedings, to put it mildly, it doesn't in itself invalidate his ideas. He was right, on some points, but the rest of the picture is still waiting, not?
Problem is we're not in any laboratory, are we? and the real world has a terrible need of those "orthodoxes" with all the knowledge they have, and the holes in it too, to address reality. Reality is that many people don't even know they're "positive", that "positives" as long as they don't bump into an alternative info, usually end up by thinking they're doomed, so take the meds, and be happy and don't ask for more, that others (or the same, but later) start wondering, and bump into alternative sites & advices, but get no help from doctors. They have to "invent" everything themselves, for the better or the worse. Everyone needs help. And everyone might need help tomorrow, you too, whoever you are.

That's my hypercritical message, by which I mean I recognize as well the work done by "orthodoxy" as the questions of dissidents, and the "tests" dissidents perform on themselves, because no one is going to help them, no zen-smile of Montagnier, no-one. Just test for yourself, just die for yourself or live for yourself or eat meds for yourself. I admire all those "tryers", and Montagnier should feel deeply concerned, and come with more concrete stuff then a zen-smile and stuff that others mentioned 15 years ago. So...?
tried desperately to change doughers in daughters ;-), but no way, forgive me loads of other mistakes as well, english is not my language
Numa, I am not a scientist of any kind or a specialist AIDS clinician. I don’t work in the area, even (as some have fancifully claimed) as a paid pharmaceutical industry operative. I am not an “expert” and have never claimed to be. So I am not here to advise specific medical treatments for serious conditions to anyone, certainly not to friends, strangers or friends of strangers on the internet. What I would suggest to your friend is to sit down with his doctor and carefully go through his options, with the pros and cons of each, and develop a plan both for the short term and the long. If the doctor is too busy to be able to spend enough time to answer his questions to his satisfaction, then he should ask to speak to a nurse or properly trained counsellor in the clinic who can set aside the time to sort through his concerns (and everyone’s are different). It’s complex and confronting stuff, and I don’t think it can be rushed.

The internet can sometimes be a good source of information, but it is also a source of disinformation from individuals and groups with odd agendas (which is why I think it’s so important to teach kids the critical skills they need as consumers of modern media). Areas as complex and emotionally charged as HIV/AIDS are well outside most people’s comfort zone of knowledge. It’s easy to become disoriented clicking from website to website. When that happens it’s hard to keep a sceptical perspective, and it’s possible to get sucked in by the unscrupulous, the ill-formed, those with hidden agendas and the just plain batty. And there are a lot of those on the net.

Those “2000 doctors and other people who studied stuff and have decent diplomas” is a good case in point. The purpose of such a list is to look impressive to a casual web-surfer, who thinks, “Gee 2000. There must be something to it.” But when you look closely, very few of the names there are actual practising doctors who have ever dealt with HIV/AIDS, and virtually none of the “scientists” have any relevant qualifications or actual real-life experience in the area. Most of the names there are students, “writers”, naturopaths, retirees, engineers and scientists in only peripherally related areas like chemistry or nuclear physics. The same, incidentally, is true of the dissident “leadership”. Contrast that with the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of physicians, nurses and laboratory scientists in the world who actually deal with HIV/AIDS in real life on a daily basis.

I haven’t looked at the Perth Group’s ideas in huge depth, but what I have checked out is extremely unconvincing to say the least. Neither of them has any real-life experience with treating HIV/AIDS or productive HIV/AIDS research. What they do in their papers is selectively mine the scientific literature for small nuggets they can arrange to suit their preconceived argument, which has been essentially unchanged for over a quarter of a century. Their references are often old and obscure and difficult to track down. When you manage to find them it often turns out that the Perthians have misrepresented or simply not understood the authors and the data they are quoting, and they arbitrarily dismiss the vast amount of evidence (often in the same papers that they cite) that runs counter to their claims. Personally, I wouldn’t bother with them unless you have access to a very large medical library with extensive archives going back decades so you can check whether the literature they cite says what they claim it says. And the time and patience to do so. Ultimately, their argument boils down to a demand to show that HIV has been “isolated” according to criteria they made up themselves, and which no actual virologists accept as valid. I don’t think they are honest brokers.

As for Montagnier, his fundamental views on HIV as the cause of AIDS and the importance of medical treatment for the disease are entirely conventional. He certainly does have some fringe interests such as exploring whether there can be any scientific basis to homeopathy, and personally I think he overstates the case for antioxidants. In the HoN footage that has been posted all over the web, he was discussing his hypothesis that nutritional status might be important in determining whether a sexual exposure to HIV results in chronic infection or not, and thus could help explain the large differences in prevalence in different parts of the world and offer an approach to reducing the high HIV incidence in Africa. I don’t think he’ll turn out to be right there, but it’s an idea that is possibly worth exploring. But what has fascinated and infuriated me is how the HoN promotional team and their supporters have taken the footage and misrepresented Montagnier in the most bizarre ways, like saying he has "admitted" that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS or that diet can cure AIDS when he is clearly not saying that at all. And not just on one website with open discussion to follow – on literally dozens of sites, including several youtube channels. All at the same time! It was clearly a carefully planned and coordinated disinformation operation. Such a transparent and dishonest campaign by these people annoyed me so much I made a detailed post about it on my own website, explaining what Montagnier was talking about (which he has since essentially confirmed). You’re welcome to discuss it further there if you like. Sorry about the comment moderation, but someone has recently been trying to post links to viruses in the comment section – it’s for that reason, not to censor alternative viewpoints.

Best of luck to you and your friend. Don’t stop asking questions or listening to the answers. Above all, it’s important to develop a sense of sceptical discernment about what is credible or not when you’re wading through the cacophony of voices on the internet (and other media). I’m not exactly sure how you do that – but what I am sure about is that it’s vital.
Thanks for the responses to my sometimes confused responses. I really stop here!
Latent syphilis is the cause of aids

--penicilin never cured latent syphilis
--the syphilis-tests missed 3rd stage syphilis in the seventies
--the hiv-test tests 3rd stage syphilis, when syphilis-antibodies disappear
and a TH2 response sets in

like lyme its a chronic TH1 disease

The basic questions that Dr. Duesberg has hammered away with for some time now has never been answered. If you look at how easily the rebuttals to his dissent have been brushed aside, it's obvious that the drug companies have something that they don't want you to know.
It's kind of sad that there are such shills out there who insist on keeping peoples minds closed. AZT is obviously toxic.
Thanks for the information..It was very helpful!
Alison, take the emotions out of the equation and do watch the movie with an open mind. I know that going against the flow is scary but you are a journalist. You chose to use your skills to challenge people into reality and honesty. There are too many comments to ignore, too many 'denialist' websites, too many books, too many videos, to just ignore.
I don't know the truth and need a committed journalist to find out where it is and to let me know about it.

Thanks you!

James Baker
Thanks for the information..It was very helpful!
Allison Hallett,

I have to agree with David Syner in that it is obvious that you just googled the film. You say the same thing every other reviewer of the film has said nearly verbatim. For Christ sake! Did you copy Wikipedia?
What a joke YOU ARE! Why don't you actually investigate and gain some integrity in your review. Add to just one of your copied answers like telling us WHO THE 18 SCIENTISTS ARE that released the joint statement which you mention in the exact wording of nearly every other "review" of this film?
I'd assume that each scientist interviewed that made contradictory statements in the course of a single interview and looked like complete morons would be among the 18 or the "oh so flustered" idiots at a complete loss of words when trying to explain some basics of "HIV science". I'd like to know what other cowards feared the loss of their positions and are a part of the 18.
Redeem yourself. Write something with substance rather than plagiary.

Michael Campbell