aberusugi 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.

Matt Chung My world has been turned upside down. What an important film. Everyone must watch this documentary. I watched it when I read a review in Watermark. Here is an excerpt: "Leung, who was born in 1980, grew up as part of the "AIDS generation"—he's never known a world without it. Yet with all of its notoriety, he realized the average person did not know much about HIV and AIDS. What began as a 15-minute film project built around the simple question "What is HIV/AIDS?" revealed itself to be a much deeper journey.The journey takes the viewer into some strange territory, where it is possible to receive an AIDS diagnosis in one country and not even test positive for the HIV antibodies in another. Through interviews with experts and with those infected and living with the virus, Leung exposes how some less developed areas of the globe diagnose AIDS by sight of symptoms alone in absence of testing facilities, a process called the "Bangui diagnosis." This can lead to dramatic overstatements on the actual number of AIDS cases.One of the more interesting segments of the film takes viewers to cities across the globe—London, Paris, Sydney, New York, Johannesburg—and asks people on the street if they know the difference between HIV and AIDS. Despite millions of dollars in public education, the answers across the planet were fairly uniform in their lack of understanding of the disease itself or the virus that many say causes it. In fact, the very idea of AIDS being an illness is challenged in the video, rather some would classify it as a "condition" or "set of conditions".Some experts interviewed also express their belief that while HIV may contribute to the development of AIDS there may be other "co-factors" that could play a role as well. The film strongly suggests that the poor sanitation and living conditions found in 90% of the areas of the world most affected by the disease could be a contributing factor as well. The film states this is particularly true in Africa."

diedaily77 As a scientist, I love this film for it's success in showcasing two things: the utter and total lack of any evidence establishing a causal connection between HIV and AIDS, and the presence of plenty of air-tight evidence to the contrary.Hundreds of billions have been poured into a religious-frenzy-like AIDS industry. The priesthood of this industry is intensely passionate and evangelical. Whereas one was burned at the stake for stating the scientifically obvious in times gone by, nowadays the priests call you "denialist", the new word for "heretic", and instead of burning your body, they are now only allowed to burn your funding and reputation. Never mind that every advance in science, without exception, was in some sense "denialist" toward the preceding orthodoxy. We call that Science, or used to. But that's OK, we have excellent documentarians to do what should have been their job, and in this quality film, more than a bit of justice is served.The film gives plenty of time to the HIV/AIDS priestly class and they get to argue their faith. In many instances they get quite irate when they are asked to put up specific proof. Of course no research exists that proves an HIV/AIDS link, and little that suggests even the very existence of HIV, let alone just what it is and does. This is where the blasphemers come in:Countless startling facts emerge throughout the film, but perhaps the coup de grace is when the French 2008 Nobel Laureate who himself "discovered HIV" states unequivocally that HIV is harmless and that it can be removed from the body in a matter of weeks by a normal, healthy immune system. I should mention that I've read all of Peter Deusberg's papers on this subject, and many others, and find them perfectly sound. The fact that they have never have they been cogently rebutted .But, heck, if I were a Doctor or scientist benefiting from billions in free money and who had been a party to the poisoning of hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting victims, I'd never debate Deusberg either. I'd just shout "Denialist! Denialist! Evil Satan!". And every once in while when an HIV+ activist finally died for some commonplace non-HIV related reason, I'd pound my pulpit that it was the evil demon, AIDS that had done it. Of course I would not mentioned the hundreds of thousands of absolutely 100% confirmed kills by AZT and my super-toxic antivirals. Well, this documentary really gives the wrongly killed a voice, while still remaining fair and balanced. All in all, a riveting watch.

eric cho I think that there's a lot of heated emotion related to this movie, which is understandable, since so many people are affected by HIV/AIDS. I, however, am apart of a small group of people who aren't as invested in this topic like many others are. I came into this movie intrigued and curious as to what the director would put out there. After watching it, I came out having a lot of questions myself. Are some of Brent's questions potentially misleading? Sure, you can take it that way, but I think that the point of the film can not be ignored. What is AIDS, and are we really taking our battle against it the right way? That's a fair question to ask, and one that Brent attempted to answer in a fair, respectful way.