HIV Real? Documentary

Hey guys,

I found this documentary about HIV/AIDS. I think it's worth a watch.

Some claim that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS or that HIV doesn't even exist.


www.youtube.com...

Synopsis
What is HIV? What is AIDS? What is being done to cure it? These questions sent Canadian filmmaker Brent Leung on a worldwide journey, from the highest echelons of the medical research establishment to the slums of South Africa, where death and disease are the order of the day. In this up-to-the-minute documentary, he observes that although AIDS has been front-page news for over 28 years, it is barely understood. Despite the great effort, time, and money spent, no cure is in sight. Born in 1980 (on the cusp of the epidemic), Leung reveals a research establishment in disarray, and health policy gone tragically off course. Gaining access to a remarkable array of the most prominent and influential figures in the field — among them the co-discoverers of HIV, presidential advisors, Nobel laureates, and the Executive Director of UNAIDS, as well as survivors and activists — his restrained approach yields surprising revelations and stunning contradictions. The HIV/AIDS story is being rewritten, and this is the first film to present the uncensored POVs of virtually all the major players — in their own settings, in their own words. It rocks the foundation upon which all conventional wisdom regarding HIV/AIDS is based. If, as South African health advocate Pephsile Maseko remarks, “this is the beginning of a war…a war to reclaim our health,” then House of Numbers could well be the opening salvo in the battle to bring sanity and clarity to an epidemic clearly gone awry.

EDIT* Fixed the link



[edit on 30-1-2010 by Hellas]

Reading some of the comments on this video about made me sick. I have no doubt of the existence of HIV. The only thing that I question is the origination of the virus.

There are people that are posting comments basically stating that there is no proof that HIV can be spread. It's that logic that allows such a travesty as we see in Africa go on. Even if you did not believe that it could be passed, would you not want to err on the side of caution?

One of the things that bothers me the most is the cost of the medication. Some pills at least in the US can range upwards of $2,000 a month. However the same medication in another country would cost $500 a year or less. Sickens me that they try and take advantage of people this way.

More then 70% of deaths are caused by the drugs . It's easy to say if one infected stay away from the prescription drugs the chances of surviving are great.

reply to post by Hellas


Brent Leung is full of rubbish. His "arguments" have been debunked. You can read a thorough dissection of his offensive, ignorant tripe here.

reply to post by CTBAPRBR


Absolute rubbish. If what you say is true, then the survival rate for AIDS & HIV would be far greater in the poorer countries where the drugs are not available, than in the rich countries where they are. Clearly that's not true.

reply to post by davesidious


I don't know who that guy is @davesidious who writes in this blog nor do I know how credible his blog is.

On the other hand I'm not very familiar with Virology either. I just saw the Trailer and found it very interesting

reply to post by Hellas


He cites the sources for the criticism, so it's not actually just him railing against it, but other scientists as well. The guy who made the documentary, Brent Leung, is not a scientist, by the way. You can read even more cited criticism of the "documentary" here.

The guy's a crackpot fruitcake spouting dangerous nonsense. He's a charlatan, and a rather pernicious one at that.

reply to post by davesidious


But I think that this is the whole purpose of this documentary. The existence of HIV is not proven just because a scientist says so.

EDIT* spelling

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Hellas]

reply to post by Hellas


No, the existence of HIV is proven because they've proven the existence of HIV. The documentary is bogus, disgusting, and full of rubbish. There is so much evidence for the existence of HIV.

So, who do you trust - the scores upon scores of scientists who actually study diseases all their careers, or some idiot documentary maker who doesn't even know what a retrovirus is? If you choose the latter, you are not being rational.

I hope you don't get the rest of your medical advice from shoddy documentary makers!

reply to post by davesidious


I don't see how typing that they have proven it's existence in bold proves anything.

Does HIV Exist?

Proving the Existence of HIV

[edit on 2-2-2010 by haplo]

Hellas, nice find.

To the dissenters in this thread:

Why is not acceptable to ask questions about HIV/AIDS?

Aren't we all here to ask questions & discover truth?

Do you know how much money big pharma makes off of HIV/AIDS "treatment drugs"?

Far more than they could make off of a cure or vaccine....

Originally posted by Signals
Hellas, nice find.

To the dissenters in this thread:

Why is not acceptable to ask questions about HIV/AIDS?

Aren't we all here to ask questions & discover truth?

Do you know how much money big pharma makes off of HIV/AIDS "treatment drugs"?

Far more than they could make off of a cure or vaccine....

Exactly what I had in mind with this Thread!

Thank you Signals!

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Hellas]

1. Safe Sex/abstinence rules
2. I've looked at this stuff and the crackpot in me wants to believe. I think the heart of it is whether or not HIV causes AIDS and some of the "evidence" seems compelling. At the end of the day though it seems wise to accept the official story. Though the origin of AIDS, the incentive to not cure it, and the possibility of undisclosed cures all make for excellent conspiracy theories all of which I'll readily entertain with corroborative evidence.


maybe this will help:
www.avert.org...

reply to post by haplo


No, but the endless research into it does prove it exists, which is my point. People saying it doesn't is like people saying gravity doesn't exist. It gets very frustrating when people make such ridiculous statements, then expect to be taken seriously.

reply to post by Signals


Because the questions being asked have already been answered a million times before, and there is no rational reason behind asking, only some ridiculous paranoiac conspiracy reasons, the likes of which give conspiracy theorists really bad names. It's like if someone started a thread asking if 2 + 2 really equals 4, then blaming aliens. Asking insane questions like this isn't helping anyone, as it gives some impressionable members the idea that maybe HIV and AIDS don't actually exist, or that the former isn't responsible for the latter, which is doing a great disservice.

Most research into HIV and AIDS is performed by scientists funded by charities. Any scientist that discovers a cure will win an instant Nobel prize, and have their choice of laboratories, assistants, equipment, and tenure. It will be a massive success story for them. Big Pharma are not the only players in town, and are not even the largest. Suggesting that everyone involved in researching a cure is somehow benefiting from not finding it is horribly inaccurate.

reply to post by Moonsouljah


Abstinence doesn't work. It's a nice idea, but condoms are a much better idea.

and there is no rational reason behind asking, only some ridiculous paranoiac conspiracy reasons

reply to post by davesidious


hmmmm. If I didn't know you better I would take this time to claim "disinfo agent"

Asking questions can be counterproductive, yes?

reply to post by Signals


Yes. Of course they can. If there is no reason to ask the question, asking the question can indeed be counter-productive. It wastes time and people assume that as someone is asking the question, that the answer hasn't already been given a million times before.

HIV has been proven to exist. AIDS has been proven to exist. Asking if either exists is, well, retarded.

Well, I do believe that HIV is a very real disease. However, in a recent nursing class we were studying HIV/AIDS and our teacher began to touch on something similar to this. What she had said was that the previous thinking (which we all know) is that a person contracts HIV, some will develop the disease some will not, the disease as in the HIV part of it. Now, not everyone that is HIV positive will develop AIDS, this was counter to the previous belief on the disease progression, as it was thought to be only a matter of time until it changed from HIV to AIDS. Since the disease does not consistently make this progression, it can not be thought of to be the natural course of the illness. She also said that there was a vaccine (I don't believe that it has been released anywhere as yet) but that it was very touchy, the shot would give you HIV but it would never develop into AIDS nor would you need treatment for HIV it would just hang out in your body. Now, no one and I mean no one in a room of nursing students believed this to be a good idea, nor would any of us take the vaccine in the event it is offered in this current state. I believe this uh, little glitch (or whatever you want to call it) is why it has not been released, can you imagine the potential lawsuits associated with that?

Then of course there's always the case of Magic Johnson where the disease in undetectable in his body now, they won't clear him of the disease because of his previous positives results, but they can't find it. hmmmmmm. I believe South Park solved that mystery, inject straight cash into the body. lol

edit: I think what needs to be proven it the direct link between HIV and AIDS or if having HIV makes a person more likely to contract the separate and not directly related disease of AIDS (more like a secondary infection type of situation.) I think that for those who do not believe in the disease, come spend time in an AIDS clinic or go to a hospital HIV/AIDS patients are easy to spot they have big stickers on everything that says HIV/AIDS these people are extremely ill and it is a horrible life of them, extremely difficult.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by searching4truth]

reply to post by searching4truth


AIDS is not actually a disease but a syndrome (ie a collection of symptoms/signs). It is caused by HIV, but you are right - not everyone with HIV gets AIDS (but nearly everyone does). Each and every person's immune system is different. Some folks have a natural immunity to HIV, and so can be HIV positive without developing AIDS. Some people, provided they can get decent medical attention, can keep it well under control. Others have no hope.

Magic Johnson still has HIV. He's on a daily prescription of antiretroviral drugs.

You might want to read this summary on AIDS denialism which should answer some of your questions, including whether the link between HIV and AIDS has been scientifically proven (spoiler: it has).

Ah, yes, wikipedia. The great voice of truth, eh?

Anyhow, from what i understand, Dr. Duesberg, the head of microbiology at Berkely, and some several thousand other doctors and scientist refute the "work" on AIDS due to serious research flaws. First of all, its never been isolated. Secondly, it breaks all of Kosch's postulates which define a pathogen. One of which is that you can isolate it, another is that it presents the same in people infected with it, another of which is it can be cultured, and so on. Thirdly, as to africans being ravaged by HIV. In much of africa they do NOT do HIV tests. They go by something called the "bangui definition" which means that if you present with vomiting, diarhea, weight loss, and fever, then you have aids. Keeping in mind that these lands are rife with yellow fever, malaria, starvation, etc. And then when any of these people die, it is attributed to AIDS.

Now personally I have worked in hospitals for over a decade now, and can speak from my personal experience, that the vast majority of the many patients i had with HIV were IV drug users and homosexual males. Interestingly, HIV has failed to spread far beyond its original at risk groups of the 1980's, homosexuals, IV drug users, and african americans.

Interestingly as well, while other STD's continue to expand and infect at a massive rate, AIDS has still stayed at near the same population % as when it was back then. Further more, as it has never been isolated, HIV has not been found concentrated in sperm any more than in saliva, AND several years ago while researching it, i found the CDC's OWN statistics claim that if two heterosexual people were having unprotected sex and one was HIV positive, the risk of infection was 1 in 1000. They have since removed this info and now refuse to post statistical risk percentage, even though they post it for all other STD's.

Even one of the team, a man given a nobel prize for the discovery of HIV, has lately stated that AIDS can be managed or cured through proper nutrition, and probiotics.

Duesberg leads a group that is not in denial about the fact that people are sick, but rather wants a study done into HIV that is NOT RUN by pharmeceutical corporations with conflicts of interest and billions to gain, as every single study so far has been funded and run by industry groups looking to make a profit, and studies have shown with certitude that anytime a financial interest is involved it skews the results.

Now I believe that AIDS is a terrible disease....but i recognize that our idealogical approach to it is flawed and also recognize that independent research is necessary in ALL medicine, much more so in one for a disease so compelling and dangerous.

reply to post by davesidious


Yes, as I said that had been thinking, and largely still is. If you read the post I stated that this had been a topic in a nursing class among the students and teacher, in our larger topic of HIV. This is what we were being taught. That's the great thing about science, it changes as more information becomes available.

reply to post by pexx421

i found the CDC's OWN statistics claim that if two heterosexual people were having unprotected sex and one was HIV positive, the risk of infection was 1 in 1000.

How accurate is this?