youaresquishy This is absolutely a must-see. Stop reading comments and go see it. When you're done, come back and read, if you are still able to. More likely your mouth will be stuck in an open position, your body in a state of near-paralysis on the couch. This is mind-bending stuff. The film is very well-executed and the presentation is objective. But it does not carefully examine every theory as to the origin of AIDS--only the most interesting one. It makes no claim to comprehensiveness however, and I doubt that it's fair to criticize it on that ground.By "interesting," I mean "horrible" and "shocking." If this theory is correct, the AIDS epidemic could easily have been prevented. It boggles the mind and sickens the stomach to think of the millions who have died possibly because of an event that could have easily been prevented. Could the AIDS epidemic be the result of the negligence or recklessness of the greediness, or laziness, of two scientists testing a new polio vaccine in the Belgian Congo? Did they use the wrong kind of monkey? And did they know of the severity of the risk involved in doing so? Should they have known? The film attempts to answer these questions.In 2005, I tried to locate a copy for purchase, but so far the only way I know of in which to see this film is on its rare airings on the Sundance Channel.Response to the Reviewer Who Claims This Film Is Flawed:He is clearly missing something and needs to re-view the film. He's completely misunderstood the theory that is the subject of this film, and the film presents the theory so clearly and precisely that it is difficult to understand how his misunderstanding could have possibly taken place if this reviewer had actually seen the entire film. The film never claims that the batch of virus used for tests in the Belgian Congo was the same as the batches used by Americans, or anyone else for that matter. This reviewer's objection makes absolutely no sense.In response to the same reviewer who suggests that we should not care about the origins of AIDS, and we should focus only on what we should do about AIDS now--this is almost too ridiculous to respond to. History is important, for many really obvious reasons. Obviously, the question of what to do about the AIDS epidemic is also an interesting one, but it is not what this film is about. It is not fair to criticize a film for not delving into a subject you're interested in. It's like claiming the Wizard of Oz is flawed because there aren't enough sex scenes or gunfights. The Origins of AIDS is about the origins of AIDS. It is not about what to do about AIDS now, and it does not, at any point, make any inkling of a claim to have tackled that issue. I believe the reviewer who claims this is flawed really did not actually watch the entire film. This may not be a perfect film, but the particular criticisms in that review are seriously flawed, and that review can safely be ignored.

Ken Hodnett I have seen this documentary several times and have studied the question of the origin of the AIDS epidemic for many years. I thought it was actually being conservative for what it could have presented as relevant or in support of Hoopers' theory. It was riveting to actually see and hear members of the team that made the vaccine in question speak about their experiences and reveal little known evidence about its production. I was shocked at the statement of one famous vaccinologist when asked about its production.I found myself saying 'Oh my God' at other evidence shown but only briefly touched upon. I think that if you know enough about the subject before seeing this documentary you will likely not view the pandemic and those affected as you did before. Especially, when you ponder the many implications of the evidence presented in the political climate of the times.

Kubrick7-2 Well, honestly, leaving the evidence aside for a moment (even though I tend to agree with the premise of of the film) they intimate / imply several times that Kaprowski isn't being forthright or honest. I have to say that if someone was accusing me of creating HIV I probably wouldn't be so forthcoming with them either.Otherwise I think the film did a great job of making a good case that the vaccine in question was the vector by which SIV made its jump to HIV. The other interviews with forthcoming lab techs from that era are compelling evidence that Kaprowski isn't being 100% truthful, or at least wasn't 100% aware of what was going on.One deficency that I would have liked to have cleared up was the bit about when the first documented case of HIV / AIDS was reported. The documentary claims that it was after the start of the use of the oral vaccine, then it says that the academy reviewing the hypothesis said the first case was in the 20s or 30s. Finally they just dismiss this claim. I think it would have been much more...convincing had they been able to present more credible evidence regarding the origin of AIDS, perhaps a follow-up documentary can present a fuller image of the history before delving into the events in the Congo in the late 50s.

geraldicus To my mind, an additionally disturbing aspect of this deeply enthralling 'theoretical' documentary was that I just caught it by chance at an obscure hour on one of the more obscure, pseudo fringe channels, namely Sundance. Why this documentary is not considered worthy of prime-time airing, allowing a far greater number of the population to see it and draw their own conclusions escapes me. But then again, maybe not.In essence, was the HIV pandemic created by a fluke accident of tribal rituals or the 'cut hunter' theory, i.e. tribal hunters in central Africa (the Belgian Congo, now Zaire) becoming exposed to contaminated monkey blood containing SIV (Simian Imunodefficency Virus) through cuts or abrasions on themselves, or was this tragedy 'man made' through mass inoculations in Africa of Polio vaccine which had been cultured from monkey tissue contaminated with SIV which, when entering humans turns to HIV.I could go on and on, but my simple advice would be, make this the next documentary you watch, I was hooked from beginning to end. One of its strengths is the way it puts across all the evidence supporting its key theories in a very matter-of-fact, understated way, hence avoiding slipping into the dangerous arena of 'sensationalist journalism'. It's enthralling, intelligent and, as one may imagine, deeply disturbing. It's a film, I believe, that should be seen by as many people as possible. So why haven't the more mainstream channels picked this up?. Maybe 'who's wearing what' on the Oscars red carpet is still deemed far more important.