Thursday, August 13, 2009

House of Numbers - film review


Director Brent Leung is a brave man. But what makes his explosive documentary, House of Numbers, so undeniably effective, is that he didn't set out to be. As he tells us in the film, he was born in 1980...part of the first AIDS generation, a group who came into their sexuality with the threat of HIV strapped to their genitals like a potentially lit bundle of dynamite. A few years ago, Leung came to learn there has always been a debate over the current HIV/AIDS scientific paradigm. Having never known a world without AIDS, this intrigued him, and so his investigative journey began. He was not trying to show courage through radical activism or by asserting some aggressive agenda. He had some questions, and he went around the world asking top HIV/AIDS scientists for the answers.

Now...one would think that, at least on the basic facts, these pioneers of HIV/AIDS research and treatment might all agree. Think again. They not only don't agree, they contradict each other in ways that are truly terrifying. From these orthodox HIV experts, there is no agreement on what HIV looks like, how it kills human cells, how the virus is isolated, how one confirms an HIV test, how drugs should be used to treat it, whether co-factors are necessary, or if our own immune systems can beat it all on their own. And there is much scandal on how it came to be "discovered" in the first place. There are moments in the film when I found myself laughing heartily at this clownish behavior from our world's top scientists; it almost plays like satire. But then I'd remember: this is about lives. And there is nothing at all funny about this. To his credit, Leung does not try to elicit laughs...he simply places the interviews side by side, juxtaposing so as to highlight the contradictions. It serves to rattle any trust one may have in our medical establishment. In an instant, these scientists lose credibility and reveal that on the issues of HIV/AIDS, it is confusion, not certainty that prevails.

In addition, the film gives voice to many self-proclaimed "dissidents" like Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize winner), and the late Christine Maggiore - along with investigative journalists Celia Farber and Liam Scheff. To many, their opinions might seem downright insane. What do you mean HIV might not cause AIDS? What do you mean we're wasting money giving Africans HIV drugs when all they need is clean water and nutritional food? What do you mean "lifestyle" may indeed have played a role in the immune collapse of some gay men in the early 1980s? None of these are said to be "true" and all are politically incorrect at best, heretical at worst. But accompanied by the orthodox swamp of contradictions, one sits back and ponders...deeply.

The film was screened this week at the Washougal International Film Festival. Brent Leung and his producer were present and most humble. Knowing the film has received great backlash from the orthodox scientists he interviewed, I asked the director to respond to accusations that he has somehow misrepresented them in the documentary. He simply said, "Not one person has ever offered a specific example of how I have done so. We invite them to join in on the discussion. We want there to be an ongoing dialogue." An audience member asserted that many of the outraged are linked to pharmaceutical companies that manufacture HIV medications. My research has shown this to be, at least in part, true. And one must ask, "How could he misrepresent them?" There are long interview segments with clear, unedited responses. It's not as if Leung utilizes second-to-second jump cuts to create a message. In fact, the style of the piece is very straight-forward and journalistic with very little editorial commentary. It trusts the audience to draw individual conclusions.

If there is one moment of overt theatricality in the film, it is in its final frames when the score serves to highlight a most shocking revelation offered by Luc Montagnier, who just last year was awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering HIV. He says that one can be exposed numerous times to HIV and that if they have a strong immune system, their bodies can cleanse it out. He is asked to repeat this notion by Mr. Leung...as if the director cannot believe what was just said. Montagnier does not hesitate. He reaffirms with a simple "yes" - and with that, the ominous piano and minor synth-string chords echo out. But you know, this moment earns a touch of scary music - because the implications are monumental.

If Luc Montagnier is correct...if the discoverer of HIV is right...then an HIV+ status might be meaningless. If one is exposed to HIV and cleanses it out, then the immune system's antibodies have done their job - but those antibodies would still show up on the HIV antibody test, resulting in a + result. This happens a lot with other diseases. For instance, I test + for TB, which means I was exposed to it and beat it. But with HIV, a + test result currently means lifelong drugs and eventual death. Are there thousands of people partaking in the drug protocol who actually have immune systems strong enough to battle it alone? Given the drugs are lethally toxic, might this be considered a type of mass medical homicide?

Throughout the film, the struggles of an HIV+ baby girl and her adoptive parents are followed. While still a toddler, she experienced horrific side effects from the AZT regimen given to her by doctors to keep her alive. When the parents reported the horrible side effects, they were told it was HIV creating the leg cramps and other painful symptoms. Finally, the parents turned to dissident Peter Duesberg who convinced them to take their daughter off the meds and leave HIV behind.

During the Q&A after the film, this little girl - now a beautiful, healthy 19 year-old young woman - came onto the stage with her mother. It was a truly breathtaking moment - one that could not be more illustrative. She has not taken a drug since she was a toddler. She has no idea what her "numbers" are in terms of CD4 counts and viral load. For her, it is clear HIV is something of a mythological boogey man...something that haunted her early childhood, and has been forever locked in the closet.

And that is what I was left with. Is HIV the deadly epidemic that defines modern sexuality? Or is it a boogey man perpetuated by a passionate, often well meaning medical community that might have it all wrong? Brent Leung is a brave man, because he dares to ask. But what scares me more than anything is: how have we come to a place in our scientific discussions that one should have to be brave to simply ask a question?

NOTE: The film is screening all over the US and in the UK in festivals and other showings. Check HouseofNumbers.com for more information.


20 comments:

joe said...

Matt,
Thank you. That was an awesome review of House of Numbers and you put some things into words that I was thinking about the film. I have been a rethinker for 2.5 years now and we never looked back.There is no evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Check out my wife's website at www.myspace.com/rethinkaids

There are many of us HIV questioners out there. Don't be surprised when the small group of internet bloggers come to bash your blog. Some of them work for the NIH and want to make sure the truth does not get out. They love to suggest that if you are not in the medical or AIDS field, then you are not possibly intelligent enough to come to this conclusion on your own.

Thanks again,
Joe Stokely

rethinker said...

Quite Clearly Matt thinks outside of the box and has presented us with a impressive review of the film House of Numbers!

He himself can see some pretty major flaws in the HIV=AIDS theory.
one being Luc Montangnier co discoverer of HIV idea that the body can get rid of HIV
So unknown to you, you get infected with HIV your healthy body does its job kills off the HIV leaves you with protection (antibodies) and some time later you give blood and are found to be HIV positive.

Thats a really Great Trick! a virus that can still kill you indirect even though you no longer have the Virus, wouldnt it be nice to know your body defeated the virus and medication was not required?

My question is,
is there a HIV test for healthy people who have fought off the virus? clearly these people do not require medication!

Oh I know in this case the body does not produce antibodies against the virus therefor a test would be pointless.
so bear with me, sometimes the virus makes you have antibodies and sometimes it doesnt?

seems pretty stupid to take a test in that case.

Fraser said...

Unfortunately many "rethinkers" have completely misunderstood what Montagnier was saying.

There is nothing surprising or radical about the fact that one can be exposed to HIV multiple times without becoming chronically infected. Depending on the type of exposure, only a fraction normally result in infection: about 90% in the case of blood transfusions, roughly 25% in babies born to HIV positive mothers down to well under 1% with some types of sexual contact, although this is dependent on multiple different variables that can increase or reduce the per contact rate of transmission.

Montagnier's point was that good general health seems to be a protective factor in reducing the chances that an exposure will result in infection.

Unfortunately, a confirmed positive on an HIV test indicates not just exposure, but in almost every case an established chronic infection. There are two cases I am aware of where this has not happened - one reported in the UK and one in Israel - but these are exceptional.

There've been a few occasions where an antibody response has been observed in people who have been exposed to HIV but have subsequently been found not to be chronically infected: this is always brief and transient, disappearing within weeks, and with the exception of the two cases I mentioned above is well below the levels that are required for a confirmed diagnosis of "HIV positive".

Unfortunately, Montagnier has been misinterpreted as claiming that HIV infection can spontaneously clear after an established chronic infection (which is what a confirmed positive antibody test indicates).

He is not saying that at all.

Anonymous said...

Clearly THE review for House of Numbers. Thank you very much Matthew. Good bye HIV, good bye AIDS. Hello food and water for all God's children. Dr Henry Bauer was right, deaths, births and communicability statistics do not add up in the epi-centre of AIDS. Aid agencies already know food, multivitamins 'cure' any AIDS. Pharmaceutical industry is exposed at last. Retail seem fair and objective! At least in a shop you have choice, with this diagnosis comes death by pill. The world was waiting for this film. Master your fear long enough to hear the message. Science will never live this down. It takes brave lay people to expose the murder and hysteria and lack of a rational, life preserving approach in science and medicine- what ever their capacity, in this case film. Star Zwan

MMMark said...

Thurs. 09/08/20 13:24 EDT

Fraser said, on August 18, 2009 2:34 AM:
>Unfortunately many "rethinkers" have completely misunderstood what Montagnier was saying.

There is nothing surprising or radical about the fact that one can be exposed to HIV multiple times without becoming chronically infected. Depending on the type of exposure, only a fraction normally result in infection: about 90% in the case of blood transfusions, roughly 25% in babies born to HIV positive mothers down to well under 1% with some types of sexual contact, although this is dependent on multiple different variables that can increase or reduce the per contact rate of transmission.<

I suspect you're just making this stuff up, but I understand the distinction you make between exposure and chronic infection.

Fraser said, on August 18, 2009 2:34 AM:
>Montagnier's point was that good general health seems to be a protective factor in reducing the chances that an exposure will result in infection.<

Which is just another way of saying that "Acquired Immodeficiency" is more a function of one's "poor general health" than one's "exposure" to, or "infection" by, "HIV." Brilliant! Could we apply this lesson to "the African AIDS epidemic"?

Fraser said, on August 18, 2009 2:34 AM:
>Unfortunately, a confirmed positive on an HIV test indicates not just exposure, but in almost every case an established chronic infection. There are two cases I am aware of where this has not happened - one reported in the UK and one in Israel - but these are exceptional.

There've been a few occasions where an antibody response has been observed in people who have been exposed to HIV but have subsequently been found not to be chronically infected: this is always brief and transient, disappearing within weeks, and with the exception of the two cases I mentioned above is well below the levels that are required for a confirmed diagnosis of "HIV positive".

Unfortunately, Montagnier has been misinterpreted as claiming that HIV infection can spontaneously clear after an established chronic infection (which is what a confirmed positive antibody test indicates).<

Although you haven't explicitly stated it, you imply (or at least, I infer) that:
- "Chronic infection" means that "HIV" multiplies faster than the immune system can eradicate it.
- Presumably, this would result in the manufacture of, not just "a few" antibodies, as in the case of "exposure," but "a great many" antibodies, as the immune system frantically tries to "keep up" with "HIV" replication.
- A "confirmed positive antibody test," then, indicates, not merely the presence of antibodies, but the presence of "a great many" antibodies.

Which would be consistent with Robert Giraldo's observation that the blood must be diluted 400 times, otherwise the test would always be "positive." (see 3.2. Everybody has different levels of HIV infection)

But this doesn't sound like "immunodeficiency," "acquired" or otherwise. The rapid manufacture of antibodies sounds like "immunoproficiency." In fact, in both cases ("exposure" and "infection") the immune system responds appropriately.

Furthermore, the "rapid manufacture of antibodies" is inconsistent with the "latency" theory. If HIV is "hiding," there would be no rapid manufacture of antibodies and hence, according to your theories, no "confirmed positive antibody test." Therefore, HIV cannot be "hiding," and the "latency" theory is nonsense, despite the fact that antibody positive individuals remain symptom-free for years, if not lifetimes (assuming they eschew long-term toxic "anti retroviral" drug "therapy").

ex-Hollywood Liberal said...

The best and most accurate and thoughtful review of the movie so far. HON is powerful because Leung allows the scientists to speak for themselves. This may be the most important documentary produced in the 21st century.

onecleverkid said...

Fraser said, "Unfortunately, a confirmed positive on an HIV test indicates not just exposure, but in almost every case an established chronic infection. There are two cases I am aware of where this has not happened - one reported in the UK and one in Israel - but these are exceptional."

But since there is no test which tests for ACTUAL virus, he is spewing the same made-up nonsense that is embarrassing to watch in House Of Numbers. Montagnier has long advocated alternative treatments for people who test positive (including fermented papaya), so why not listen to him?

NM said...

Here are the voices of some self-proclaimed "dissidents." Judge their honesty for yourself.

Duesberg, Koehnlein, Rasnick:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pddrchemical.pdf

"The largest and most influential of these surveys was conducted by Palella et al (1998) who investigated in 1998 1255 anti-HIV drug-treated “patients, each of which had at least one CD4+ count below 100” from nine clinics in the US. However, all of these 'patients' were 'nonhospitalized', AIDS-free subjects. 'Patients with a diagnosis of cytomegalovirus retinitis or M. aviarum complex disease before study entry or during the first 30 days of follow-up and patients with active P. carinii pneumonia at the beginning of follow-up were excluded.'"

The Palella study:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/338/13/853

"Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)–defining opportunistic infections were analyzed in the aggregate; in addition, separate analyses were performed for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, M. avium complex infection, and cytomegalovirus retinitis. Patients with a diagnosis of cytomegalovirus retinitis or M. avium complex disease before study entry or during the first 30 days of follow-up and patients with active P. carinii pneumonia at the beginning of follow-up were excluded from the analyses of the incidence of that opportunistic infection."

Celia Farber:

http://www.mothering.com/azt-roulette-impossible-choices-facing-hiv-positive-women

"This despite the fact that criticisms have been made of the design and the conclusions of 076. The study’s authors themselves, when they reported their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1994 admitted that the efficacy of AZT in reducing maternal transmission of HIV is 'impossible to quantify [absolutely] because of the very small numbers of infected babies [studied].' They also noted that the rate of the HIV transmission in the placebo group was inexplicably high.7

7. The New England Journal of Medicine 331, no. 18 (November 3, 1994): 1176-1177."

The cited ACTG 076 paper in NEJM:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/18/1173

The New England Journal of Medicine 331, no. 18 (November 3, 1994)

"It was impossible to identify prognostic factors for HIV transmission (other than treatment) in this interim analysis because of the small number of infected infants in the zidovudine group."

NM said...

onecleverkid wrote:

"But since there is no test which tests for ACTUAL virus"

Yes there is, virus culture. It is used to diagnose pediatric HIV infection due to the issue of maternal antibodies. Lindsey Nagel's virus culture was negative, meaning she is uninfected. Nagel's doctors appear to have been guilty of malpractice, as the result of the virus culture test was ignored.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cfontrial.htm

"Examining her daughter's medical records after discharging the physicians, Cheryl found that although Lindsey had indeed been antibody-positive to HIV, her viral-culture test--the test that measures the actual virus--was negative. 'It said Negative in big bold letters across the page,' says Cheryl. 'I was so shocked.' Why had the Nagels been told that this particular test was positive? 'We don't know,' she says. 'There are a lot of questions we still have to sort out.'

So this is a story of what happens when medical practice guidelines are NOT followed. But to Celia Farber (and, it seems, Brent Leung):

"Lindsey's story encapsulizes the absurdity of current HIV and AIDS medical practice."

MattyZ said...

In researching the p24 antigen test used for neonates, one finds that in the early 90s (when Lindsay was born) - the NEJM admits that it is only accurate about 50% of the time:

"CONCLUSIONS. Viral culture at birth can correctly identify about half of newborns with HIV infection. The fact that this usually sensitive technique fails to identify about half the ultimately infected neonates suggests that vertical transmission of HIV may occur late in pregnancy or during delivery."
NEJM, 10/22/92

In other words, it may have been looked at as a late transmission of HIV.

My understanding in HON is that her initial antibody test at the time of adoption was negative - which also indicates late transmission if later the HIV test is reactive (which it was). Might her doctors have simply looked at the conflicting data as a sign of this late transmission and carried on with a proactive and aggressive drug protocol?

Am I way of base? I admit, I may be assessing this incorrectly.

Thanks to all for the fairly civil discussion. It's been interesting to follow.

NM said...

p24 antigen and viral culture are two different things. The data you are citing is only from at birth, follow-up testing at 1-2 months and 3-6 months is also required. There a pediatricians who have been dealing with the horrors of pediatric AIDS since the first cases in the early 80s, does the film not talk to any of them about how it is diagnosed and treated? I guess not, as you've seen the film and you're trying to figure it out for yourself.

"Might her doctors have simply looked at the conflicting data as a sign of this late transmission and carried on with a proactive and aggressive drug protocol?"

There isn't a guideline in the world that would have suggested they do that. Immunological criteria and symptoms were (and still are) also included in guidelines. It appears more likely that they did not have a clue what they were doing and did not follow diagnostic and treatment protocols or seek an expert consult.

MattyZ said...

All very interesting. FYI - the cited reference was a study on both p24 and viral culturing. Here it is: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/17/1192

What is clear is that she tested negative and then positive. And based on her answers at the film festival, her last known test was positive - but was from her early life.

It sounds as though what is being suggested is that she is not truly infected with HIV and that her HIV test was a false positive due to her birth mother's antibodies. Yes?

It would be interesting to know if she is currently reactive in both Elisa and Western Blot - but given her near death experience, I can hardly blame her for never testing again. There is such a psychological component to this, which makes sorting out discrepancies around HIV/AIDS all the more important.

NM said...

Does the film even mention the virus culture results?

MattyZ said...

As to the culture results, I cannot recall if the film mentions it or not. I know there was a lot of confusion on the part of the family; I don't remember if that was part of it. I saw the film once and took good notes, but did not catch every detail; there's a lot of information.

I'd like to state...

Yes, there were "dissidents" in the film. But it was not their assertions that I found most intriguing; it was the lack of consensus among the HIV experts. And Brent Leung did not take things out of context. There are long interview segments and clear answers to clear questions. This claim that through the magic of film editing he twisted their intent is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, the film is fairly "unsexy" in its style. And what has me scratching my head is: why such a hysterical response from people like Moore, Gallo, etc? No one responds in this manner unless something is askew.

I am not sure what this film exposes. I don't know what the ultimate answers are. I do think this movie reflects what a growing number of people realize - especially gay men like me who have known nothing BUT an HIV/AIDS world: something has gone awry here. Nothing...absolutely NOTHING has gone as predicted. And all one has to do is follow the narrative from 1981 to now to see that. Does it mean that HIV doesn't exist? No. Does it mean an HIV+ test result should be ignored? No. Does it mean there's some big conspiracy? No. But it might mean some major missteps were taken in an attempt to explain these horrible deaths in the early 1980s. And given there's still no cure...there's still no vaccine as was promised in 1984...might it be appropriate to revisit the origins?

Brent Leung did not claim to have answers. He did not say HIV doesn't exist. All he said at the post-screening talk-back was that he wished for a healthy dialogue.

There is no such thing as a scientific fact. There is no such thing as scientific certainty. To make such claims is to misunderstand science entirely. Questioning is exactly what good scientists do; they work tirelessly to disprove their own theories. Was this done properly in the rush to understand AIDS? It is healthy to question what we "know" - because tomorrow, we often realize we never "knew" it to begin with.

I am deeply disturbed that there are people who think this film is "dangerous". It is not dangerous. IT IS A DOCUMENTARY. Grow up! Learn to think. Learn to shed your wool and deny your inner sheep and demand integrity in our scientific and medical communities.

The film does not promote reckless sex or any other irresponsible behavior. It posits, perhaps, that the most responsible thing anyone can do when considering their own health and well being - is to ask questions...and demand clear, honest answers.

Wendell P. said...

Hi Marty,

Nice review. I see no problem with ordinary people questioning a medical phenomenom, such as AIDS. Relying on well-paid experts and shills for pharmaceutical executives is hazardous to your health.

The movie really knocked by socks off. I saw it in Nashville. Great crowd, lotta energy. This crazy woman, Jeanne Bergman, of AIDS.truth.org started ranting and raving at Celia Farber, who with grace and class just fended her off.

These AIDS zealots are a hoot. They act like Catholic sycophants from the Middle Ages, yelling at us that the earth is really flat, and how dare we question the church doctrine.

Well, we DO question the AIDS doctrine.

Oigen said...

Why such a hysterical response from people like Moore, Gallo, etc? Yeah, why indeed. Over at the Huffington Post, Filmmaker, Brent Leung responds to Huffpo Blogger, Thomas DeLorenzo criticisms of his film, House of Numbers , Moore goes ballistic and then abruptly leaves the discussion. Typical behaviour of the high priests of the Church of HIV/AIDS.
Wait! This just in. John P Moore last seen supine in the middle of dissident street. Bystanders reported his last words before collapsing. I'm gonna Huffington and Puffington your House of Numbers down. AAAAAAh HUFF, PUFF, phew, gasp, arrgggh AHhhh....plop!

MattyZ said...

Further research has uncovered this from Lindsey's father, which I think is very interesting. There are no clear conclusions to be drawn, except that there seems to be the potential for variance in test results and medical opinion regarding HIV/AIDS, treatment, etc.

The quote:

"The "virus culture" was negative at the University of Minnesota only. L was seen by the U of M, Childrens, Mayo, and Rush. She had -multiple- culture tests. The reason that we have remarked on this one is that it came back negative but the doctor told us it was positive. We did not learn of this until almost 2 years later when we reviewed her actual file and found the doctor at the U of M had not told the truth. What the people/dogs at the other sites don't understand is that when you are -tested- this is not a dip and dab one time thing at a Walgreen's. Every 6 weeks my 9 pound child had 3 blood samples the size of my middle finger taken and tests run."

--Steve Nagel, 9/2/09

Frank Dennis said...

MattZ wrote:

.."there are no clear conclusions to be drawn, except that there seems to be the potential for variance in test results ..."

That's exactly right. Even if HIV does something to the body, there ought to be a validated test to coherently detect it -- not antibodies to it, not RNA viral fragments that may or not be from it.

The uncertainty of the test is bad enough, but, as in Lindsey's case, it is compounded with pressure from AIDS doctors to take very toxic drugs.

Why so few people cannot see this flawed dynamic (toxic drugs taken by potentially uninfected people) is an enduring mystery.

MacDonald said...

MattZ,

You are very insightful, but in this case you are unfortunately being BS'ed by NM, so let me help clear things up for you:

They call it "virus culture", but it does NOT detect the virus directly.

Virus culture is not the gold standard test, that's probably why it was being overridden by the antibody tests (a combination of ELISA and Western Blot usually, but in infants possibly together with a nucleic acid test - see below) in this case.

How do you think they decided the sensitivity and specificity of viral culture and the p24 antigen test in the study you cite?

They can only do that by using another test as reference, which again means that that test overrides the viral culture results.

It is easy to determine if Lindsay tested positive because of maternal antibodies. If she was still antibody positive after 6 to 18 months, depending on the sensitivity of the test (18 months seems to be the cut-off used in the study you cite), she will have been deemed a true positive.

Today, they don't use viral culture but a nucleic aid test (NAT)to determine if infants below the age of 6 months are true positives. Those detect fragments of genetic material claimed to be unique for "HIV"

NATs are usually only used for diagnostic purposes in infants (because of the maternal antibody problem), and in any event only in combination with a positive antibody test.

MacDonald said...

Correction, it is not at age 6 to 18 months for the antibody tests. It is now 18 - 24 months depending on the sensitivity of the test. It is accepted that on some newer tests, the child can test false positive because of maternal antibodies even after 18 months, but in Lindsay's case the guideline was almost certainly 18 months.