Review of House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic

Widely rejected by mainstream scientists, this film's claims on how human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is harmless and does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), is mostly BS. Often dismissed as pseudoscience and conspiracy theory masquerading as even-handed examination. This film by director Brent Leung, is a hard sell. Even the group of scientists that the film interview, later stated out, that their comments had been misrepresented and taken out of context, and that the film misused them to promote the filmmaker's belief of pseudoscience. They also state out that the editing of film footage, made them look like fools. Even some of the AIDS-deniers being interview looks like idiots, as they really have no clue, what, they're trying to say. A good example of this, was an HIV-positive activist and anti AIDS promoter, Christine Maggiore. Her influence on South African president, Thabo Mbeki's decision to block medical treatment of HIV-positive pregnant women was often criticized, with medical researchers noting that an estimated "330,000 lives were lost to new AIDS infections during the time Mbeki blocked government funding of AZT treatment to mothers." Another reason why her testify has always been a bit controversial, is because the fact that her 3-year-old daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, died of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, which consider to be an AIDS-defining illness. Not only, was she in the wrong idea that HIV was harmless, but Maggiore had not taken medication to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to her daughter during pregnancy, nor try to have Eliza Jane tested for HIV during her daughter's lifetime. No matter, how she wanted to spin it. This sounds like medical neglect and child endangerment to me. Worst off, most of her claims about the Padian paper, were later, proved to be false, because Christine Maggiore falsified the dates in her HIV tests and misinterpreted the results. To top it off, she later died before the movie was released, from HIV related illnesses such, as Pneumonia. The ending credits make a small note to her passing, and try to say it wasn't AIDS related, but clearly, the official story is she died from Pneumonia as a result of AIDS compromising her immune system. It's hard to debate against facts like that. Despite all that, I do have to play Devil's advocate for a bit, and give the director, some credit. It was very well shot documentary, for the most part, with its low budget. Also, some of their statements are somewhat correct. Things like how Center of Disease Control (CDC), budget was increase in the 1980s, due to AIDS reserve, are factual. However, the film got some of the information that belong with that statement, wrong. The mission of CDC expanded beyond its original focus on smallpox to include sexually transmitted diseases was transferred to the CDC in 1957. Long before AIDS was created. Nor was the CDC in endanger of budget cuts. Still, I have to give some credit, in showing that CDC hasn't always been relatively free of political manipulation. I like how the movie show CDC's response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s has been criticized for promoting some public health policies that harmed HIV+ people and for providing ineffective public education. I also like the film show that HIV testing could be inaccurate in third world countries, in poorly run tent hospitals. It's something, I could believe in. However, I doubt, the movie can run with the idea that all HIV testing are inaccurate, because the reality is very different. HIV antibody tests are extremely accurate. When, used by a skill doctor, the studies can show, nearly a 99.9% accurate. The film does not mention, this. Still, I can somewhat believe that a small bit of immune problems that people face, when dying, could be common ailments such as drug poisoning, lack of adequate food and fresh water, extending to starvation, and or common form of Tuberculosis (TB), malaria or Flu influenza, rather than AIDS. After all, AIDS is very broad term. However, that statement is nowhere near close to a scientist fact. So, I can't say, I'm for AIDS denialism. At all, hundreds of textbooks, scientific journals, and medical studies, within the last 40 years, that proved, otherwise. I just know, you should be, open to a small window of doubt, when talking about subjects like this. Overall: House of numbers is more like House of Cards. Its structure and argument is built on a shaky foundation. Not only does the science element seem removed from the film, but most of its core argument. It will quickly collapse on its own weight. With that, I'm not saying, you should be, for, or against the movie. Just simply be watch it and judge for yourself with an open mind.