House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic

While I praise this documentary for making us doubt about everything we know about HIV since its earlier cases in 1981, I recognize that despite the various authorities on the issue and their strange contributions with alarming facts, this is a one-sided portrayal perfect to match the opinion of the disease's denialists and their conspiracy theories. The director guides us and acts as if being a curious person like his viewers are to later become the paladin bearer of the ultimate truth. In his first (and as of now only) film he seems to a be dedicated researcher seeking the truth but only looking at one side of the matter (to deny AIDS existence). Doesn't convince for too long and neither does most of the interviewed people here.

I liked it solely because of its good filmmaking, well-put together without making a giant mess with the information gathered (for a moment I almost trusted some of its false items) and above all because it makes us doubt, it raises deep and still unanswered questions and this can be good sometimes. Of course, he's gonna confuse many people and make a lot of disservice but prudent minds know how to see this in other perspective. I'm just worried with people who know little about the disease and will "buy" the theories presented. This is dangerous, offensive and cruel. The Wikipedia page is far more reliable than this movie, really.

Who's here? The CDC team who investigated the first HIV cases (Doctors James Curran, Harold Jaffe and Don Francis); the controversial Robert Gallo, one of its discovers along with Luc Montagnier, another pioneer who is also here among other medical doctors, patients, regular people who know little about AIDS and "miracle" cases (awfully manipulated by making us see crying parents we're led to believe that the infected baby had died years ago when in fact she was alive as a teenager during the making of the film).

Here's the destruction little by little, the best I could remember: according to what was shown HIV is not of easy transmission; there's always co-factors which are important to dictate if you'll get it or not like the use of poppers; reckless or poor lifestyle; heterosexual transmission is put into jeopardy, as inexistent or rare; if acquired it IS the thing that's gonna kill you (even with the use of medication which prevents its growth). The medication side effects, OK we'll give you that because is truth, AZT as villain (sure, back in the day alone and with no other helper it was a main issue); the inadequacy of tests - Western Blot is pointless, confusing. Who do we trust? The rapid method used in some African countries is ridiculous. And the "perks" of being infected - which I'm not sure if it was real, it was too optimistic - I mean, people were secured homes because they have AIDS? But the medicine is still expensive.

One thing truly amazed me: the charts system used to describe the difference between having AIDS or having an occasional low in the immune system. Several diseases besides HIV/AIDS also causes failure in the immune system, low levels of CD-4 count (immune failure due to stress, most of us have and we get sick.) But according to the 1992 chart (still on use) those drops could be classified as having HIV/AIDS. The thin line used in this criterion is quite intriguing.

It lost great potential when it skimmed the most frightening topic: the role of pharmaceutical companies in developing a cure. They don't want to find it. We'll never find a cure because of reasons. Another downer was an unflattering image of Brazil (and I doubt the man filmed those in here cause we have better places than what was shown. 5th economy of the world, we're not a country of just slums) focusing on poor conditions but the director failed to show our medical program widely acknowledged by the United Nations as an example to the world.

It's reported everywhere that some of the doctors interviewed were taken out of context; one of them easily falls in contradiction three times in less than two minutes. As for the doctors who felt misinterpreted, it's your own fault. Educated, highly paid and cultured experts like you can't afford to not knowing how to explain facts and proofs. The worst was an impatient and snob doctor who refuses to create a image of the virus in a way to show how the virus mutates. "I have more important things to do than to teach you things" he says to which the director inter-cuts with dumbfounded reactions of other doctors who simply can't expose a new image of the virus as if to say all doctors in the world are led to believe such disease exists based on a 30 year-old image, and no new studies were made to corroborate that. But Luc Montagnier, tops it all, and managed to cause a significant damage. In no way he should have said that the body system of a healthy person in contact with someone infected has ways to expel the virus from itself.

Watch it at your own risk but don't accept anything from it. It's not objective and it wants to sell a miracle that the disease doesn't exist. So what on Earth were those news images of people with KS? What about the casualties all these years? 6/10

On the plus side, it's a wonderful demonstration of how compelling blatantly incorrect theories can be, using misquoted experts and ignoring well-known contradictions.

In addition to the glaring omissions that JC from the UK pointed out here on 3 March 2010, many more can be found on Wikipedia, which denialists shockingly don't seem to be keen on "correcting": See WikiPedia's "AIDS_denialism" and "Misconceptions_about_HIV_and_AIDS".

For example, the film points to the theory that Poppers were the root cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma in the original US gay community, but those Wikipedia pages point to real studies that conclusively disprove that theory. The film does not mention this.

Also, two of the interviewed experts (Constantine and Weiss) explain how they were completely misquoted and misrepresented: See google for "constantine and weiss pinpoint misrepresentations"

The idea of inaccurate HIV testing seemed to play a large role in the film, even though studies show it is 99.9% accurate. (I'm not sure if this includes PCR tests, which perhaps are 100% conclusive?) The film does not mention this.

Also, the film refers to Padian's study on HIV transmission, but completely misrepresents it, as she herself explains: (See: "HIV heterosexual transmission and the Padian paper myth". Basically, she says the study was specifically analyzing safe-sex interventions (condom usage in couples), and simply showed the effectiveness of condoms, not the non-transmissibility of the virus. The film deceptively hides this piece of information.)

The film is highly deceptive, and outright false on most of it's critical points. But it was an entertaining and compelling narrative while it lasted.

This entertaining, fascinating and shocking journey is clearly upsetting to many people that like to present a nice, simple, easy-to-understand perspective of HIV/AIDS without complications. The opinions expressed in it are often contradictory and the evidence from authoritative sources is often deeply shocking to people that they've only been presented with a very cut-down picture of what's really going on. Sitting between two people diagnosed HIV+ at one screening, there were moments when they gasped at some of the views expressed and evidence presented. When one acknowledged orthodox expert said in the film, "a person with a healthy immune system can clear the virus", one of them gasped and said, "That's not what we've been told".

This film raises serious and fundamental questions not just about HIV/AIDS but by implication about the robustness of the way medical science works in reality, the appropriateness of having unquestioning faith in experts and the effectiveness of the media as a watchdog on wrongdoing on fields of endeavour that most people don't have time to analyse themselves.

Its like one of these "condoms do not prevent AIDS" or "teach the controversy" moments. The most selective reporting you will ever see.. Picking out the least credible and dishonest people out there who want to make a name for themselves and earn some money and cutting out awkward peaces of interviews with those rare experts in ti. Crackpot journalists, pseudo scientists, and most of all conspiracy theorists..

Exploiting poor African countries and its people, poorly qualified medical workers, those rare lucky individuals whose immune system successfully holds the virus at bay, etc.. Selecting out all these and all the possibly imaginable theories that could support his agenda..

Why is there no cure? What is that supposed to mean?... Why is there no cure for Alzheimers, or cancer? If your BS alarm didn't go off at least a hundred times, them I am sorry, but you are naive and gullible.

This Brent Leung is a criminal in my eyes.. I have seen references to this documentary on many sites now, which means people are actually believing this nonsense and it certainly means that there will indirectly be many lives lost because of this.

This guy didn't even spare the poor guy that went with his agenda in desperation... "This guy is taking HIV medicine" and a few seconds later "He died shortly after recording this video", therefore don't take your medicine or you will die...

Either homophobia is behind this, or some "christian family values", but certainly that deadly sort of inhumane capitalism and greed. Just because one is allowed to make money by selling lies and dangerous speculations, some lowlife will inevitably grab the opportunity..

Its the most dishonest thing you will see, and all because this virus is really complicated and resilient, more than anything we previously encountered. It mutates so quickly that there are virtually millions of different strains out there.. Of course we had a lot of problems detecting and fighting it and of course scientists want as much money as they can get for fighting it. Of course you will find people that were misdiagnosed, etc, etc.

Eh, it just makes me angry. This Brent Leung made a career and a lot of money out of this, while those crackpot wannabe "scientists" and "journalists" in it got a little attention and opened doors into conspiracy theory world..They will never see or hear about those ones that will die as a result of this documentary.

House of Numbers is a documentary that claims to have been made for the purpose of "searching for truth" so to speak. This seems to be a common trope among modern alarmist documentaries. We have ushered in the age of anti-science documentaries being big business, and there seems to be no shortage of people willing to make one to get a whole lot of money, for not a lot of research.

There are many points in the movie where the directing is just awful. Constantly using the same shot to show the "investigator" at the same angle, slow motion moving in. From a cinematographic point of view this movie is vapid. The music was boring, obvious ripoffs of various improvised dramatic keyboard music from reality shows.

Now on to the meat of the subject. Where to begin...

Brent tries to push the point that you can't take a picture of HIV and no one ever has. Pretty sure simple google search could have solved this. Not only that, he dishonestly edited the interview with the man involved in this sequence to push his point. As of the time of my writing, you can watch the full unedited interview on the House of Numbers channel, and find out for yourself it was heavily edited to convey a different message.

His claims about the Padian paper are false, and Dr. Padian herself has said that. Maggie, on camera, falsified the dates in her HIV tests and misinterpreted the results (either on purpose or because she was in denial), and there were obvious graphical manipulations with one of the tests shown to be deceitful, then died before the movie was released, of PNEUMONIA as caused by AIDS. The ending credits make a small note to her passing, and try to say it wasn't AIDS related. But honestly, the official story is she died from Pneumonia as a result of AIDS compromising her immune system.

See it for yourself. I gave it a 2 instead of a one, because I would like to thank Brent for bringing this insidious cult-like AIDS denialism into the internet's skeptical eye. Now we can see that people who think like this do exist, and maybe change their minds. Oh and the film's creators don't find it fit to let anyone criticize what they have created. They have filed false DMCA's against a youtuber that made a 5 part video series over the past couple of months debunking many of the movies insinuations and claims. His videos were not for profit, no ads, and fell under Fair Use guidelines. They used the automatic takedown bot to try and silence someone who disagreed with them.

If your opinions are that backed by the evidence, they should stand up to any and all criticism on their own merits, or you could present an official response. This kind of fascistic takedown tactic disgusts me and many on the internet. Like I said, check it out for yourself, and prepare to yell out loud in disbelief that people could actually be this stupid.