Check out these other very interesting documentaries on Health:

The World According To Monsanto
In Lies We Trust – Dr. Len Horowitz
Nutricide – Codex Alimentarius – Dr. Rima Laibow
The Brotherhood of Darkness – Dr. Stanley Monteith
Colloidal Silver – Dr. Robert C. Beck
Suppressed Medical Discovery – Dr. Robert C. Beck
Shots In The Dark – Lina B Moreco
Food Inc.
Eating
We Become Silent – The Last Days of Health Freedom
Vaccination – The Hidden Truth

You can watch all of these full documentaries at: http://www.theopensource.tv/browse-Health-videos-1-date.html

I am a student currently studying clinical laboratory science and minoring in philosophy and with the Q&A session following the film I have learned to really appreciate my philosophical studies.

Following the film Leung faced wave after wave of scientific scrutiny by various members of the scientific community. He fell back repeatedly on the stance that he couldn’t necessarily argue against these indiv on the deeper concepts of science because he was just presenting the information he received from those scientists he interviewed.

It is difficult to argue the adequacy of the film’s concepts unless we were able to see the interviews in their entirety. Yet, after viewing the film and listening to the discussions I think their may be something to what Leung is presenting. I felt that the Scientific community was making valid arguments but lacked the overall insight that the film was portraying.  It is dissatisfying that when scientists are presented with an argument that opposes their own that they automatically feel attacked.  I think that the purpose of the documentary was to present a side of AIDS/HIV that is not traditionally accepted or heard and to take it as only one side of the argument not the absolute truth. Philosophy has taught me to be a critical thinker and have an open mind.  This debate hit me from two stances, both my scientific self and philosophical self. Too often scientist relay on the scientific aspects of an issue and see it narrowly in that way alone. Consider acupuncture.

Twenty to 30 years ago the majority of scientists and medical professionals thought that the use of medication was the only effective way to treat the problems of body and they ridiculed the practice of alternative “medicine.”  Because alternative medicine did not advocate to the concepts of science that was traditionally accepted it was not taken seriously, even if the alternative medicine practices worked in certain cases.  Nowadays, however, it is common to hear a physician advocate for acupuncture.  The importance here is that somewhere all the lines a shift in thought occurred that encompassed the practice of something outside of the traditional scientific boundaries.  The scientific community was able to think critically about the issue, learn to have an open mind, and accept a practice that went against traditionally dominated scientific practice.  This is what I think this film is attempting to portray, not an attack on the traditionally scientific practice and understanding of AIDS/HIV but the establishment of a separate idea that may have an impact on the disease and the need for open mindedness and critical thought about the issue.

I am Caucasian/white. I know fully that I am Caucasian/white. Nothing could convince me otherwise. If anyone asked me a question about my blood-line, my answers would reflect my personal knowledge that I am Caucasian/white, because I KNOW that I am. I am without doubt in the matter.

The impact of the statements of these scientists — top HIV/AIDS scientists and administrators all — is huge, because those statements show an incontrovertible level of DOUBT of what HIV/AIDS is or if it even exists as we think (thought) it exists. I am white. I would never say to anyone, anywhere, that I am not white. These experts, who stand as godheads in the veritable AIDS pantheon, denied their whiteness, so to speak. Which leaves me to question:

If they have such doubts, what should the rest of us believe?

Thanks and take care,

Tom

If you want an example of a really awful/logically absurd/invalid acronym, look no further than the popular “acronym” used to represent Obstetrics & Gynecology:

OBGYN

The letters are pronounced: O B G Y N

What does that stand for, Old Bitches Giving You Nookie?

The proper acronym would be OG, or it could be abbreviated, rendered as slang, as ob-gyn. The OBGYN fallacy is sofa king we Todd it. I laugh at it.

As for claims that the AIDS scientists’ comments were pulled out of context, well, I don’t know how you can read anything else into their statements than that which they said. Were they drugged when they said those anti-AIDS-status-quo comments? Was Leung holding a gun to their heads? If not, why shouldn’t we take their statements at face value?

As for why 18 of them are now wishing to retract their freely given testimony, it’s easy enough to surmise why:

They’re feeling the heat from their bosses or (if their actions are no longer answerable to the AIDS Establishment) maybe they’re being threatened by other tactics. Maybe their families have been threatened. Who knows? But I can tell you this:

When someone says “I like chicken” on camera, and weeks later revises — refuted — that statement, there are two possibilities:

A) The person lied… he really doesn’t like chicken

or

B) The person was ordered/coerced to take back the statement.

I’m guessing that in the cases of the 18 interviewees, the likely scenario is the latter.

When they make statements which logically shake the foundation of HIV/AIDS knowledge as we previously knew it, that’s powerful. And I know Brent wasn’t holding a gun to their heads. They blew the lid off this themselves with what… they… willfully and in right mind… said. Give them all lie-detector tests.

As for your assertion that preventive strategies have been repeatedly downplayed or rejected, primarily about HIV/AIDS. Presumably you didn’t notice the vast global campaign, over 25 years, for the use of condoms (and in some places, abstinence). A massive preventive strategy happily supported by the scientific establishment for the very simple reason that it can be proved to be effective. It’s noticeable that those who have undermined this preventive strategy have been the very people you are seeking to defend – those who deny a link between HIV and AIDS.

“Deny this film all you want, but the fact is, is that the med-taking poz people are all sick, and the non-med taking hiv+ population are well. If you are hiv negative, you likely haven’t studied either side of the issue, let alone one of the sides, so stop acting like you are in a position of knowledge.”

So you, I take it, are in a “position of knowledge” to make such certain statements about whole groups of people? I’d be grateful if you could point us all to the source of this knowledge – presumably a large-scale controlled trial proving that HIV+ individuals live longer on average if not taking the meds than if they do. No? Can’t provide that? Is that because, perhaps, you’re not talking from a position of knowledge at all, but of ignorant presumption?

I am not an expert in this subject myself – I have to rely on the research of others and evidence to form my opinions. I am open-minded about the possibility that the scientific establishment could ultimately be proved wrong in certain ways over this issue. But if they are proved wrong, it will be through science.

In the meantime, heavens (above) has pointed to a very plausible reason why people who are HIV+ might be fooled into believing that they are better off without meds – in effect, they get none of the short-term side-effects, but that means they get none of the long-term benefits either. The emotional advantages of not accepting the link just add to the attractiveness of taking such a position (and you don’t need to believe that this is about giving people a licence to behave irresponsibly).

Does this possibility not even make you pause to think?

A film like this is not the main danger to society. The danger is to believe the medical and pharma media unquestioningly. A tragic amount of damage has been done by this, as future history books (or websites) will reveal.

A medical system that has an unholy relationship with commercial interests has been a recipe for disaster: the cancer and AIDS industries are prime examples of this relationship taken to extremes.

No real solutions have been put forward by orthodoxy, while preventive strategies and non-toxic treatments have been repeatedly downplayed or rejected.This is the issue you should be using your intelligence to address.

On average, those that refuse the meds die sooner. They may *look* healthy for up to about ten years — HIV takes a long time to destroy your immune system — but they don’t live normal lifespans, or anything even close to it. I’ve talked to a lot of HIV+ people on both sides of the fence, and I’ve spoken with exactly zero “dissidents” that have a confirmed infection dating back more than 20 years. They do exist, but they’re very, very rare. By contrast, I can name offhand quite a number of meds-taking HIV+ people that have exceeded the 20-year mark. They may not be perfectly healthy, and they frequently have firm opinions about specific side effects from the drugs — but they’re alive, and that’s more than the vast majority of committed dissidents can say.

Please realize, that dissidents to the flawed hiv=aidsd theories have no hidden agenda. They are not trying to sell vitamins. They are not making money off of this. They simply want the truth to come out.

The majority of dissidents are people who are actually hiv+ (as determined by the hiv antibody test).

Consider this… the main people trying to quash this film are Big Pharma, doctors who thrive on hiv business, and med-taking hiv+ people who were swindled into the whole dogma.

The dissidents, on the other hand, are random doctors, viralogoists, mathematicians from random fields of study, and hiv+ people who do NOT take meds.

Deny this film all you want, but the fact is, is that the med-taking poz people are all sick, and the non-med taking hiv+ population are well.

If you are hiv negative, you likely haven’t studied either side of the issue, let alone one of the sides, so stop acting like you are in a position of knowledge.

All dissidents have studied the current hiv=aids dogma, and guess what… they found it to be flawed. there is a reason for that. its not about money or fame…. Its about the needless suffering of millions who have been hoodwinked.

hiv=aids is the bad science. don’t argue… study the topic for yourself.

As a film maker and Bad Science fan, I’m seriously considering putting together a documentary set in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) – a naïve journey by one young film maker to discover WHERE THE HELL EVERYONE OVER THE AGE OF FORTY HAS GONE.

Seriously.

This is no joke. The life expectancy in Zimbabwe has dropped from 60 to 40 in just a few years. A third of the population of Lesotho is living with HIV. There are now more people in SSA under the age of 18 than over. The sheer number of people dying here is just astronomical. Almost everyone I speak to has lost a friend or family member to AIDS.

I would never lobby for a film to be banned. But I would welcome the makers of the film being taken to court and forced to defend what they are supporting by making this disgusting kind of propaganda: the death of a continent.

Graham Hughes
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Spectator Series Debate ‘A world without Aids?’, which features the UK premiere and sole screening of House of Numbers Cards on Wednesday 28th October. This exclusive screening of the controversial new award-winning documentary House of Numbers will be followed by a panel discussion from leading authorities in their field:

Professor Beverly Griffin, Imperial College London
Dr Joe Sonnabend, founding editor of Aids Research
Rt. Hon. Lord Norman Fowler, Former UK Secretary of State for Health
Professor Charles Geshekter, The California State University
Brent Leung, Director/Producer of House of Numbers

The theme of the debate is that a generation had its attitudes towards sex coloured by the theory that HIV, a lethal new virus sweeping the world. The award-winning documentary argues that a world without HIV/Aids may be closer than we think. Many of the documentary conclusions are controversial, for example a research community in disarray, 90% of global HIV infection corresponding to areas of great poverty and squalor which may be the real enemy.
For more background information visit http://www.spectator.co.uk/AidsDebate

Tickets to this are £35. I suspect the Spectator think it’s all a jolly jape for poking liberals with, or at least making a few bob off us all turning up to complain. But I’m horrified they’re giving it credibility.

I hardly think the distinction is valid in this case, considering that AIDS is interchangeably expanded to Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, the second style being identical to the expansion of HIV (initial letters).

Are there any scientific or medical publications which spell it “Aids”?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/shop/events/5402473/spectator-debate-a-world-without-aids.thtml

It entails a screening of “House of Numbers” followed by a panel discussion involving the film’s director alongside 3 scientists associated with the denialist movement. The panel does not include a scientist to refute the denialist message. Perhaps Ben should attend?

“It’s that emotional reaction that makes for bad science.”

No, it’s an emotional reaction in the absence of any worthwhile evidence that makes for poor arguments. It’s a common theme amongst gay rights deniers, anti-vaxers, etc. Luckily for Ben, he has this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=HIV

10166 articles and counting. Is it any wonder that with the thousands of hours that have gone into producing such great science – which is summarily dismissed in minutes by a surly crowd of closed-minded idiots hell-bent on some ridiculous “anti-conspiracy/establishment” presupposition – that people sometimes get a little upset?