House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic (2009)

Too much of everything

Really Surprised!

People are voting emotionally.

Fantastic!

This is urgent, if you have HIV/AIDS go to the doctor quick and get treated! Still don't believe me and want to brush my review off, then listen. In this documentary a girl named Christine Maggiore is interviewed and used as a talking point. She made her and her child not go any treatment of HIV, and unfortunately they both died. Of HIV related diseases. If you still don't believe me, then fine in the documentary they talk about the South African leader Thabo Mbeki who worked with HIV denialists and then started working to stop HIV treatment in South Africa, and when all treatment stopped things happened. Of course in the documentary they don't tell you what happened, but what happened was over 300,000 people died of HIV related deaths. In conclusion, this documentary promotes people killing themselves and has proven deadly. And if you don't believe it, then don't believe it, but I have a few questions and this will close out my argument: If someone made a movie denying cancer, saying that it had nothing to do with the deaths and was all made up. Then how would you feel? Would you believe it? Would you tell others or force others to follow this cancer denying documentary? And last of all, Would you follow it if you got told you had cancer? Thank you good night.

Widely rejected by mainstream scientists, this film's claims on how human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is harmless and does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), is mostly BS. Often dismissed as pseudoscience and conspiracy theory masquerading as even-handed examination. This film by director Brent Leung, is a hard sell. Even the group of scientists that the film interview, later stated out, that their comments had been misrepresented and taken out of context, and that the film misused them to promote the filmmaker's belief of pseudoscience. They also state out that the editing of film footage, made them look like fools. Even some of the AIDS-deniers being interview looks like idiots, as they really have no clue, what, they're trying to say. A good example of this, was an HIV-positive activist and anti AIDS promoter, Christine Maggiore. Her influence on South African president, Thabo Mbeki's decision to block medical treatment of HIV-positive pregnant women was often criticized, with medical researchers noting that an estimated "330,000 lives were lost to new AIDS infections during the time Mbeki blocked government funding of AZT treatment to mothers." Another reason why her testify has always been a bit controversial, is because the fact that her 3-year-old daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, died of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, which consider to be an AIDS-defining illness. Not only, was she in the wrong idea that HIV was harmless, but Maggiore had not taken medication to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to her daughter during pregnancy, nor try to have Eliza Jane tested for HIV during her daughter's lifetime. No matter, how she wanted to spin it. This sounds like medical neglect and child endangerment to me. Worst off, most of her claims about the Padian paper, were later, proved to be false, because Christine Maggiore falsified the dates in her HIV tests and misinterpreted the results. To top it off, she later died before the movie was released, from HIV related illnesses such, as Pneumonia. The ending credits make a small note to her passing, and try to say it wasn't AIDS related, but clearly, the official story is she died from Pneumonia as a result of AIDS compromising her immune system. It's hard to debate against facts like that. Despite all that, I do have to play Devil's advocate for a bit, and give the director, some credit. It was very well shot documentary, for the most part, with its low budget. Also, some of their statements are somewhat correct. Things like how Center of Disease Control (CDC), budget was increase in the 1980s, due to AIDS reserve, are factual. However, the film got some of the information that belong with that statement, wrong. The mission of CDC expanded beyond its original focus on smallpox to include sexually transmitted diseases was transferred to the CDC in 1957. Long before AIDS was created. Nor was the CDC in endanger of budget cuts. Still, I have to give some credit, in showing that CDC hasn't always been relatively free of political manipulation. I like how the movie show CDC's response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s has been criticized for promoting some public health policies that harmed HIV+ people and for providing ineffective public education. I also like the film show that HIV testing could be inaccurate in third world countries, in poorly run tent hospitals. It's something, I could believe in. However, I doubt, the movie can run with the idea that all HIV testing are inaccurate, because the reality is very different. HIV antibody tests are extremely accurate. When, used by a skill doctor, the studies can show, nearly a 99.9% accurate. The film does not mention, this. Still, I can somewhat believe that a small bit of immune problems that people face, when dying, could be common ailments such as drug poisoning, lack of adequate food and fresh water, extending to starvation, and or common form of Tuberculosis (TB), malaria or Flu influenza, rather than AIDS. After all, AIDS is very broad term. However, that statement is nowhere near close to a scientist fact. So, I can't say, I'm for AIDS denialism. At all, hundreds of textbooks, scientific journals, and medical studies, within the last 40 years, that proved, otherwise. I just know, you should be, open to a small window of doubt, when talking about subjects like this. Overall: House of numbers is more like House of Cards. Its structure and argument is built on a shaky foundation. Not only does the science element seem removed from the film, but most of its core argument. It will quickly collapse on its own weight. With that, I'm not saying, you should be, for, or against the movie. Just simply be watch it and judge for yourself with an open mind.

Wow... just wow. This film is so boldfaced in is lies it is the first film I have ever cried at. Here is why, if you believe this film to be honest it can kill you, no I am not saying that like "Transformer 3 was so bad it will kill you!" no i honestly mean that literally like do not stand in a pit of fire or you will die. You may see this in jest or as sarcasm... no people in this film LITERALLY DIED OF AIDS... CHILDREN LITERALLY DIED OF AIDS. There had been real people real as you and I that could be alive that this film and it's cause literally in my mind murdered them. Horrifically twisted, untruthful,harmful, venomous, deceitful bile. Worst film of all time, Spielberg and Ed wood agree. 0/10, vile garbage.

This documentary can be summed up in one word: controversial. Although some justifiable criticisms have been made of it, if the people who made it and those who appear in it - particularly Peter Duesberg - are not being entirely honest, they are far from the only ones.In fact, I interviewed Duesberg last year, and I have to say I found him 100% sincere. That doesn't mean he is right, but the principal contentions of this film have yet to be refuted. Let us for the moment ignore the existence or non-existence of HIV, what can we say for certain?Not everybody is equally at risk. AIDS is not an epidemic, at least not in the West. There are no universal criteria; if you have influenza in London, you have influenza everywhere else. The same cannot be said for AIDS or HIV.The pathology of AIDS is strikingly different in different parts of the world. And, for all the countless billions spent on research, we are no nearer to finding a cure now than we were back in the 1980s.Having said that, AIDS has been and continues to be big business, including for the condom industry; incidentally, condoms do more to spread sexual diseases than to protect against them due to something called risk compensation behaviour, which is never mentioned by either the condom or the AIDS industries.Another big name who appears herein is Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis. It is, or should be clear, whatever else they are, that so-called AIDS denialists are not to be classed with Creationists must less Flat Earthers, though you wouldn't think so if you listened to the AIDS establishment.