Friday, April 24, 2009

A film dares to go...yes...THERE.

Yesterday marked an important 25th anniversary. On April 23rd 1984, U.S. Health Secretary Margaret Heckler announced that Dr. Robert Gallo had discovered the cause for AIDS, a little known retrovirus we now call HIV. The press conferences and interviews that followed presented a confident Gallo - and promised to the nation was a vaccine within a few years. As you know, we have no vaccine, no cure, and oddly, last year the Nobel Prize did not go to Gallo for discovering HIV, but to Luc Montagnier of France.

A new film is making its way through film festivals this spring. House of Numbers dares to investigate the HIV/AIDS phenomenon by including all the important players in AIDS research - but it also includes voices of dissent - scientists, including Nobel Prize winners who question the role of HIV in AIDS. The film is causing quite a stir. Only days ago, at the Boston Indie Film Festival, a near riot broke out between people at a panel discussion. Hot words like "denialist" and "Orwellian" got thrown around. A civilized discussion was not to be had.

The orthodox scientists view HIV dissidents as dangerous to the public. They believe that to question the current medical paradigm is to promote unsafe sex and other reckless behavior - and that to forego pharmaceutical drugs in favor of nutrition and alternative therapies is to allow the virus to keep mutating and thus prevent vaccines and treatments from being effective. In a taped interview, men such as Mark Wainberg, former President of the International AIDS Society, have called for a constitutional amendment in the United States that would criminalize the act of questioning HIV/AIDS theories and imprison people so as to silence their dangerous assertions. And in some states, legislation has been proposed to quarantine HIV+ individuals who refuse HIV retroviral medications.

Dissident scientists believe that after twenty-five years, some new paths should potentially be explored. There are many people who have had HIV for over 20 years, never taken a drug, and never become ill. The CDC has continued to state for twenty years that up to a third of the HIV+ population is unaware of their status, and yet there has been no surge of these unknowing people rushing to the ER with AIDS defining illnesses as was seen in the early 1980s. And now, the leading cause of death for AIDS patients in America is liver and heart failure - from the HIV medications. In addition, there is no international gold standard for HIV testing; it is completely possible to test positive in one country and then negative in another - an odd reality given HIV is said to be a virtual death sentence without treatment. And some scientists make the claim that HIV has never been properly isolated.

I am excited to see this film once it's released on DVD. But the controversy troubles me - not the tension between the opposing views in the film (I love that drama!) - but the fact that director Brent W. Leung is being viciously attacked for having the audacity to allow dissident scientists to speak at all. He is also being accused of tricking orthodox scientists into participating in the documentary - not telling them he was going to present both sides. For his efforts I say, YOU GO, Brent! Freedom. Of. Speech. I applaud this filmmaker for having the journalistic hunger to travel the world for two years and then present what is a very important story.

Because again - yesterday was an important anniversary. Twenty-five years in the world of HIV=AIDS=DEATH. No cure. No vaccine. Lots of fear. Disproportionate numbers in the African American and African communities. The list goes on. Why not at least consider that something may have gone awry? Or somewhat awry? And even if people think that dissident views are ridiculous or silly - isn't it the right of anyone to practice free speech and exercise their curiosity as they see fit?

Here is the link to the website and trailer. Check it out. Weigh in.

House of Numbers


Nick said...

An excellent review of a film that a lot of us cannot wait to see, and a film that a lot more people should watch with an open mind.


John R. Hankins said...

Awesome review Matty. I'm a 41 year old gay man and I first tested HIV+ on a Navy entrance exam in January of 1986 when I was just 18 years old. I don't take the meds and I'm in perfect health. I believe the gay community will wake up soon and follow suit. The truth will surely set us ALL free! Again, kudos on your review.

Peace and Love, John

Anonymous said...

Bravo, Matty! So refreshing to see a balanced, thoughtful piece unencumbered with the all too predictable (yawn) hysterics from the "dissidents" and the "dissonants." By dissonants I refer to the mainstream research/medical establishment. Their cognitive dissonance is becoming increasingly evident, which is why this film may be significant. The "dissidents" are old news as well. It is new paradigm time!

Reduce The Burden said...

The AIDS Apartheid Strikes Back:

Why is there so much suppression of discussion of the AIDS industry? Because the AIDS industry is not protected by good science, but by the fear-based and hate-fueled tactics of dangerous activism.

Indeed, House of Numbers is a new film which does good investigative journalism in researching the nature of the AIDS industry. The film reveals deep-seated corruption within an industry that now has total control of the lives of tens of millions worldwide.

Have you ever heard of an investigation of the AIDS industry?

No, because the AIDS industry uses the fear and propaganda, not the open dialog of science, to force its agenda down the throats of millions worldwide. The individuals in charge of this massive propaganda attack are the AIDS Apartheidists.

What is an AIDS Apartheidist? It is a pharmaceutical activist intent on suppressing the Black population of Africa, the Gay population of the West, with a sex-death diagnosis based on over-applied and faulty tests, called “HIV tests,” which react with almost every recorded illness that occurs in people of poverty.

MattyZ said...

Reduce the Burden,

Your website remains one of the most thorough in terms of providing easy access to alternative information regarding HIV/AIDS. Good work there.

But as I am troubled by remarks by those like Mark Wainberg, I am equally troubled by words like "apartheid" used to describe those in the orthodoxy. Not because I'm politically correct or shy away from controversy - but because I don't see what such inflammatory language achieves.

If the goal is to vent your righteous anger - then go for it. And maybe you're even right in your analogy. But if the goal is to shed new light on the issues - such loaded assertions only serve to preach to your dissident choir.

What I think House of Numbers is trying to do (and as I implied - I have not seen the film, but have been following it's progress - so really, I offer no review - but merely observation) is to simply present cases from various sides. As it does so, the film clearly reveals that the numbers don't add up the way we've all been told.

Point is - effective communication does not vilify...unless vilification is the goal. If it is, then yes, use words like "apartheid" all you is serving your purpose. And you have every right to use it.

I simply would like for discussions on HIV/AIDS - an issue that affects human lives in devastating ways - to always be handled with care, intellect, and respect. And if dissidents want to be taken seriously, they should ALWAYS take the high road - because the high profile orthodoxy does not - by using words like "denialist" all the time.

Brian Carter said...


Loved your blog here. Great work.

However, I think there is good need for the description Apartheidist. Albeit, not to be used to describe everyone in the orthodox camp. I think it should be reserved for the fanatical sect, the ones hell bent on doing everything and anything that allows their funding to flow unhindered, unquestioned and unadulterated. Part of that ideology is to discredit anything in their path.

MattyZ said...


I'm not arguing that it is the "right" or "wrong" word to use. Maybe some people deserve such a label. I can certainly see that point. I simply posit that such language is counterproductive in trying to promote paradigm shifts.

When one has never even contemplated that an alternative viewpoint exists, and they come across such language, it makes those who use words like "apartheidist" appear as unreasonable extremists. I suspect it may shut people down to ever investigating the root of the accusation...and so they remain media illiterate and continue to fully accept, without question, the orthodox view.

Brian Carter said...

I do agree with you Matty. Most people will refrain from using this description. However certain people, like the ones who feel they've been most harmed and abused by the prevailing hypothesis, are more likely to counteract the word "denialist" with an equally counterproductive narrative, be it this, be it that. One current catch phrase is "kill them with kindness", but I don't see that working when dealing with the die hard fanatics though. One of the biggest problems is that all current language, i.e., HIV/AIDS is a narrow, one sided construct. Getting past that alone is by far the most relevant and important way to get through to these people to begin with. said...

I took hiv drugs for 11 years until 2 years ago when I got high speed internet and watched the film The Other Side of AIDS. In order to deprogram myself from the beliefs I held about hiv testing and discover the true causes of AIDS, I had to watch the documentaries and videos over and over until I really understood what went wrong in the history of hiv research. I ended up creating the youtube channel hivquestions (and healing alternatives) - see link above - and I continue to pray for humanity regarding this issue.

Pat T. said...

Some good insights in this review.

The central problem is that the HIV test is ambiguous and unreliable. So, many folks are deemed "HIV+" (a psychologically devastating diagnosis) who DO NOT HAVE THE VIRUS.

Based on this faulty diagnosis, the patient is pressured to take highly toxic drugs, such as AZT, an old cancer chemotherapy drug.

The patient is then killed by the AZT, but, lo and behold, the death is blamed on the virus.

Multiply this scenario by several thousand and there's your epidemic.

Jeff Parrish said...

The above comment is pretty accurate, but out of date. The new drug regime (the famous cocktails) are less toxic, because they contain less AZT. So, with less AZT, people live longer.

The problem, though, is that long-term use of the drugs wrecks your liver:

Besides liver failure, there are numerous other dangerous side effects of the drugs (anemia, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, Leukopenia, heart attack, pancreatis).

Most patients will do fine OFF the drugs, but there's so much pressure to take them.

Brian - alive and well said...

I'm an asymptomatic HIV positive person of 18 years. Against the strong advice of doctors and well meaning friends and family, I made a decision from the start not to take toxic HIV meds. It never made sense to me that a disease of immunosuppression should be treated with immunosuppressive drugs! I decided that if I was going to die I wanted to die "naturally". I was prepared to take on each symptom as it appeared and deal with it as best I could. Well guess what ... in 18 years no symptoms have ever appeared!!!! I used to think I was one of the lucky ones who had some special resistance to HIV. Now I have come to believe that I'm only lucky that I made a decision not to succumb to the overwhelming pressure to be sucked into the toxic often lethal HIV cocktail madness. My research and reading over the years combined with my own personal experience has lead me to question strongly the veracity of the HIV = AIDS hypothesis. I was shocked to learn that many scientists all over the world have questions as well. It is my strongest wish and my deepest hope that the truth about HIV will soon be uncovered. My own personal experience has convinced me that HIV orthodoxy today has it wrong. I plan to share this film with as many people as I can.

Anonymous said...

Here is an abstract of a study about the HIV Tests : not only there is any Gold Standard in this matter, but all the informations here below can be verified:

"How do we know who is really HIV-positive?

The answer to this question has more to do with sociology than science. Lab technicians, doctors and nurses are instructed by the test manufacturers to make this determination subjectively, based on socio-economic and sexual criteria. The HIV test has two different names for similar or identical reactions: “nonspecific” and “specific.” A “nonspecific reaction” (HIV-negative or indeterminate) is the diagnosis given to people determined to be in the “low-risk group.” A “specific reaction” (HIV-positive) is the diagnosis determined to be in the “high-risk group.” (...) It is highly unethical to assume that two identical reactions mean different things, based on socio-economic factors and sexual preference, but that seems to be precisely what is being done every day in HIV test labs."

Anonymous said...

Hello Matty,

thanks a lot for your comments.

Here is my small story : I am a french guy, and once I feared to be contaminated (condom broken ...)

At Hospital, thet gave me what they call "preventive tri terapy". I felt I would die from those medicine.

I don t know about hiv aids but I experienced during 3 months horrible medicine and I don t understand how people can bear it for years.

I really have pity for them and I will never ever use them !