User Reviews

While I praise this documentary for making us doubt about everything we know about HIV since its earlier cases in 1981, I recognize that despite the various authorities on the issue and their strange contributions with alarming facts, this is a one-sided portrayal perfect to match the opinion of the disease's denialists and their conspiracy theories. The director guides us and acts as if being a curious person like his viewers are to later become the paladin bearer of the ultimate truth. In his first (and as of now only) film he seems to a be dedicated researcher seeking the truth but only looking at one side of the matter (to deny AIDS existence). Doesn't convince for too long and neither does most of the interviewed people here.

I liked it solely because of its good filmmaking, well-put together without making a giant mess with the information gathered (for a moment I almost trusted some of its false items) and above all because it makes us doubt, it raises deep and still unanswered questions and this can be good sometimes. Of course, he's gonna confuse many people and make a lot of disservice but prudent minds know how to see this in other perspective. I'm just worried with people who know little about the disease and will "buy" the theories presented. This is dangerous, offensive and cruel. The Wikipedia page is far more reliable than this movie, really.

Who's here? The CDC team who investigated the first HIV cases (Doctors James Curran, Harold Jaffe and Don Francis); the controversial Robert Gallo, one of its discovers along with Luc Montagnier, another pioneer who is also here among other medical doctors, patients, regular people who know little about AIDS and "miracle" cases (awfully manipulated by making us see crying parents we're led to believe that the infected baby had died years ago when in fact she was alive as a teenager during the making of the film).

Here's the destruction little by little, the best I could remember: according to what was shown HIV is not of easy transmission; there's always co-factors which are important to dictate if you'll get it or not like the use of poppers; reckless or poor lifestyle; heterosexual transmission is put into jeopardy, as inexistent or rare; if acquired it IS the thing that's gonna kill you (even with the use of medication which prevents its growth). The medication side effects, OK we'll give you that because is truth, AZT as villain (sure, back in the day alone and with no other helper it was a main issue); the inadequacy of tests - Western Blot is pointless, confusing. Who do we trust? The rapid method used in some African countries is ridiculous. And the "perks" of being infected - which I'm not sure if it was real, it was too optimistic - I mean, people were secured homes because they have AIDS? But the medicine is still expensive.

One thing truly amazed me: the charts system used to describe the difference between having AIDS or having an occasional low in the immune system. Several diseases besides HIV/AIDS also causes failure in the immune system, low levels of CD-4 count (immune failure due to stress, most of us have and we get sick.) But according to the 1992 chart (still on use) those drops could be classified as having HIV/AIDS. The thin line used in this criterion is quite intriguing.

It lost great potential when it skimmed the most frightening topic: the role of pharmaceutical companies in developing a cure. They don't want to find it. We'll never find a cure because of reasons. Another downer was an unflattering image of Brazil (and I doubt the man filmed those in here cause we have better places than what was shown. 5th economy of the world, we're not a country of just slums) focusing on poor conditions but the director failed to show our medical program widely acknowledged by the United Nations as an example to the world.

It's reported everywhere that some of the doctors interviewed were taken out of context; one of them easily falls in contradiction three times in less than two minutes. As for the doctors who felt misinterpreted, it's your own fault. Educated, highly paid and cultured experts like you can't afford to not knowing how to explain facts and proofs. The worst was an impatient and snob doctor who refuses to create a image of the virus in a way to show how the virus mutates. "I have more important things to do than to teach you things" he says to which the director inter-cuts with dumbfounded reactions of other doctors who simply can't expose a new image of the virus as if to say all doctors in the world are led to believe such disease exists based on a 30 year-old image, and no new studies were made to corroborate that. But Luc Montagnier, tops it all, and managed to cause a significant damage. In no way he should have said that the body system of a healthy person in contact with someone infected has ways to expel the virus from itself.

Watch it at your own risk but don't accept anything from it. It's not objective and it wants to sell a miracle that the disease doesn't exist. So what on Earth were those news images of people with KS? What about the casualties all these years? 6/10

I had the pleasure of catching this ground-breaking documentary at the Riverdance Film Festival in early October. The organiser even called it 'possibly THE most incredible example of documentary film making I have ever seen'. And I have to agree.

Let me get one thing straight up front.

If asking more questions instantly defines a person as a denialist then alarm bells should ring red hot. It is for this simple basis of asking the RIGHT questions, such as 'what is the difference between HIV and AIDS' or 'have the drugs improved the health of patients', that line the Director up for attack.

As a person diagnosed with HIV for over 16 years, and never once taking the drugs, I wholeheartedly applaud this timely film. It moved me to tears, I shook my fist at the screen in disgust, and simultaneously felt an unusual sense of humanitarianism pour from a film about a most tragic world health disaster.

See it with a truly open mind and without prejudice. In years to come you might be able to say you were part of turning of the tide.

Its like one of these "condoms do not prevent AIDS" or "teach the controversy" moments. The most selective reporting you will ever see.. Picking out the least credible and dishonest people out there who want to make a name for themselves and earn some money and cutting out awkward peaces of interviews with those rare experts in ti. Crackpot journalists, pseudo scientists, and most of all conspiracy theorists..

Exploiting poor African countries and its people, poorly qualified medical workers, those rare lucky individuals whose immune system successfully holds the virus at bay, etc.. Selecting out all these and all the possibly imaginable theories that could support his agenda..

Why is there no cure? What is that supposed to mean?... Why is there no cure for Alzheimers, or cancer? If your BS alarm didn't go off at least a hundred times, them I am sorry, but you are naive and gullible.

This Brent Leung is a criminal in my eyes.. I have seen references to this documentary on many sites now, which means people are actually believing this nonsense and it certainly means that there will indirectly be many lives lost because of this.

This guy didn't even spare the poor guy that went with his agenda in desperation... "This guy is taking HIV medicine" and a few seconds later "He died shortly after recording this video", therefore don't take your medicine or you will die...

Either homophobia is behind this, or some "christian family values", but certainly that deadly sort of inhumane capitalism and greed. Just because one is allowed to make money by selling lies and dangerous speculations, some lowlife will inevitably grab the opportunity..

Its the most dishonest thing you will see, and all because this virus is really complicated and resilient, more than anything we previously encountered. It mutates so quickly that there are virtually millions of different strains out there.. Of course we had a lot of problems detecting and fighting it and of course scientists want as much money as they can get for fighting it. Of course you will find people that were misdiagnosed, etc, etc.

Eh, it just makes me angry. This Brent Leung made a career and a lot of money out of this, while those crackpot wannabe "scientists" and "journalists" in it got a little attention and opened doors into conspiracy theory world..They will never see or hear about those ones that will die as a result of this documentary.

This entertaining, fascinating and shocking journey is clearly upsetting to many people that like to present a nice, simple, easy-to-understand perspective of HIV/AIDS without complications. The opinions expressed in it are often contradictory and the evidence from authoritative sources is often deeply shocking to people that they've only been presented with a very cut-down picture of what's really going on. Sitting between two people diagnosed HIV+ at one screening, there were moments when they gasped at some of the views expressed and evidence presented. When one acknowledged orthodox expert said in the film, "a person with a healthy immune system can clear the virus", one of them gasped and said, "That's not what we've been told".

This film raises serious and fundamental questions not just about HIV/AIDS but by implication about the robustness of the way medical science works in reality, the appropriateness of having unquestioning faith in experts and the effectiveness of the media as a watchdog on wrongdoing on fields of endeavour that most people don't have time to analyse themselves.

This film can save your life. This film can save you relationships. This film can educate you. This film can make you laugh. This film will make you cry. The best documentary I have ever seen.

I went into this film thinking the notion it investigates were crazy. Now I understand why people are angry about the film. It is not the message, but the danger of the message to the the scientists who have staked their entire career, awards, and grants on an unproved theory.

What is the unproven theory? the existence of HIV. The notion that drugs help when they kill or keep you sick.

WATCH THIS FILM. GET EDUCATED. CHANGE THE WORLD

I'm a journalist who has spent some time investigating AIDS denialism and those who have been affected by it. This film is very dangerous, and will likely lead to many lost lives.

Since it would take too long here to debunk the various outrageous claims made in the film, let me address just two points it conveniently glosses over:

First, Christine Maggiore, the HIV+ activist who has avoided antiretroviral drugs with supposedly no ill consequences, is dead. She died of AIDS-related pneumonia, aged 52. Her daughter Eliza Jane, whose contraction of HIV was undoubtedly helped by Maggiore's refusal of antiretrovirals and breast feeding, also died of AIDS-related pneumonia, aged 3.

Second, Kim Marie Bannon, another of the film's HIV+ activists who have avoided antiretroviral drugs with supposedly no ill consequences, is presently residing in a care home with HIV encephalitis. She is dying of AIDS.

Why are these fairly important facts pushed to one side? Perhaps they got in the way of creating such an "objective" film.

On the plus side, it's a wonderful demonstration of how compelling blatantly incorrect theories can be, using misquoted experts and ignoring well-known contradictions.

In addition to the glaring omissions that JC from the UK pointed out here on 3 March 2010, many more can be found on Wikipedia, which denialists shockingly don't seem to be keen on "correcting": See WikiPedia's "AIDS_denialism" and "Misconceptions_about_HIV_and_AIDS".

For example, the film points to the theory that Poppers were the root cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma in the original US gay community, but those Wikipedia pages point to real studies that conclusively disprove that theory. The film does not mention this.

Also, two of the interviewed experts (Constantine and Weiss) explain how they were completely misquoted and misrepresented: See google for "constantine and weiss pinpoint misrepresentations"

The idea of inaccurate HIV testing seemed to play a large role in the film, even though studies show it is 99.9% accurate. (I'm not sure if this includes PCR tests, which perhaps are 100% conclusive?) The film does not mention this.

Also, the film refers to Padian's study on HIV transmission, but completely misrepresents it, as she herself explains: (See: "HIV heterosexual transmission and the Padian paper myth". Basically, she says the study was specifically analyzing safe-sex interventions (condom usage in couples), and simply showed the effectiveness of condoms, not the non-transmissibility of the virus. The film deceptively hides this piece of information.)

The film is highly deceptive, and outright false on most of it's critical points. But it was an entertaining and compelling narrative while it lasted.

H.L. Mencken wrote: "What begins as a guess--or, perhaps, not infrequently, as a downright and deliberate lie--ends as a fact and is embalmed in the history books." Interviewing all the major players in the HIV-AIDS debate over the past 25 years--orthodox and dissidents alike--and filmed and edited with superb production values, this first documentary by Brent Leung explores the genesis of a bad guess, and quite possibly a deliberate lie. It reveals anomalies from the single pathogen theory of AIDS, which look more and more like evidence against a rush-to-judgment in 1984 (appropriate year), when the Reagan Administration embraced and politicized junk science in an effort to quiet criticism of its "insensitivity" to gay men. Of course, we gay men immediately embraced the single pathogen theory also, because it made AIDS "everybody's disease," and shoved under the carpet all the questions about the immuno-suppressive nature of: (1) unprecedented exchange of old pathogens in incestuous urban gay enclaves; (2) unprecedented ingestion of toxins in the form of both legal and illegal drugs, which fueled the party lifestyle of the sexual revolution; and (3) the condition in which gay men found ourselves as a hated minority as the religious right reared its ugly head. What Brent Leung's film really does is to scream: "Let's take another look at this junk science theory!" Yes, the orthodox get some of their quotes taken slightly out of context--the limitations of a 90-minute film covering a huge amount of ground--but when you put them in context, they present an even worse case for their conclusion that a mysterious little retroviral bug is the single cause of multi-factorial immune deficiency. (Just take a look at the YouTube full interview with Montagnier, in which he says our own natural immune systems can rid us of the mysterious HIV within just a few weeks--completely undermining the "once-you-get-it-you-always-have-it orthodoxy.) Many of us have researched and written on this subject (my own writing can be found at www.terrymichael.net, "Special Report on HIV-AIDS" linked at my home page), but our words have been confined to the internet. Leung's film brings to a theater near you the serious debate the HIV-AIDS Industrial Complex has denied us for 25 years. See it, and be amazed that most of what you thought about HIV-AIDS is, as Mencken would say, a downright and deliberate lie, by an establishment that increasingly resembles a religious cult, more than it practices rational science.

Brent Leung has produced a masterful film. In just 85 minutes,House of Numbers reveals the double-talk, inept science, fabricated statistics, heinously poisonous drugs, meaningless "HIV" tests, and lurid insinuations about African sexuality that are staples of the HIV-causes- AIDS orthodoxy.

It is an infuriating expose of the well-coiffed, lavishly paid, arrogant but ever-defensive clowns whose careers and bank accounts have benefited so handsomely from promoting a flawed and deceptive set of theories about what is making people sick, especially in Africa.

The edginess and sarcasm we see from such leading AIDS "luminaries" as Robert Gallo, David Baltimore, Anthony Fauci, John P. Moore, and Nancy Padian confirms anew that their vaunted "house of numbers" is a shabby, squalid edifice of ill-repute.

Be sure to watch the calm, careful, and accurate comments by Liam Scheff, Rian Malan, Neville Hodgkinson and Christian Fiala in the film.

You will then quickly realize why the dogmatists of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy are trembling with righteous rage and indignation at the film. And with good reason - it shows that those faux emperors of the HIV/AIDS establishment have no clothes!

Congrats to Brent Leung for producing a superb piece of icon-smashing and truth-telling cinema that has already garnered numerous awards at film festivals.

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.

Compare the comments here pro and con, particularly with the way those angered by the film resort to politics instead of reason in saying that it is "dangerous" to expose the evident falsehoods of AIDS beliefs, and you have the best tip off to the stupendous quality of this movie and its relevance to saving people from false claims in HIV/AIDS.

It is quite clear by the end of this astonishing first feature by a young film maker that HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS and its deadly immune collapse, otherwise known as "HIV/AIDS", a label that implicitly makes an unproven claim that has appeared more hollow with every passing year. Nor is it infectious.

The universe of absurdities exposed by Leung's Socratic questioning of all the key HIV scientists leaves the viewer gasping at the effrontery with which the generals of HIV research claim that all their ridiculous assertions are true and good Western science.

In fact by the end of the film it is clear that HIV very probably does not cause anything at all, and the immune problems they label AIDS are simply common ailments such as drug poisoning, lack of adequate food and fresh water, extending to starvation, and all the usual tropical diseases in Africa, particularly a strong form of TB. They are rewriting common illness and calling it AIDS and saying it is caused by HIV, thereby justifying patients taking deadly drugs for no good reason whatsoever.

What the film makes especially clear is not only that the scientists who get so much funding for their AIDS research, and enjoy so much prestige, are making so many contrary statements that they are either fools or charlatans or both, but that they are willing to sacrifice patients lives rather than allow any review of their work.

The counter attack on this film from commentators who blindly support the reigning doctrine only goes to highlight the sorry state of affairs exposed by the film. They have no good reasons to say why we should not conclude from what the HIV scientists say that they don't know what they are doing, that the top scientists in HIV/AIDS agree more with their critics than they do with each other, and that all their obfuscation is based on assuming what is being questioned, ie that HIV causes infectious AIDS.

With utter plain speaking, Montagnier, the man who won the Nobel for discovering HIV, even says authoritatively that anyone with a healthy immune system will throw off HIV in two or three weeks. Africans given clean water and good food will do the same, and do not need deadly drugs delivered to them.

Once they are disbelieved, and HIV is recognized as in fact harmless, everything clears up, and makes sense. There are no paradoxes left if the audience simply follows along with Brent Leung's travels and comes to their own conclusions. This film makes no assertions of its own, yet shows us more clearly what the truth is than any movie which might have tried to tell us what to think.

As expose documentary this is a remarkable feat, and the first time it has been done in this tortured field in its 25 year history.

Every member of Congress and their staff should see this film, and so should every member of the New York Times who has gone along with that paper's 25 years of suppressing this obvious scandal by insulting the skeptics as crackpots, including Peter Duesberg, the chief critic, a scientist better credentialed than any who maintain he is wrong.

Yet Leung does the job of showing who is almost certainly right without depending even on Duesberg, whom he only shows briefly. An incredible feat! He simply provides a platform for these rascals to condemn themselves out of their own mouths!

This documentary is a waste of time for those who watch it and those who made it. All the "evidence" in this movie is either outdated, twisted out of context, or false.

The most hysterical part is the beginning where the director says he has lots of questions about aids and is going on a journey to uncover the truth. It's obvious he is already a hardcore AIDS denier and only intends to present this point of view, no matter how illogical.

I have a very open mind, and am an admitted conspiracy theorist. However, disproven conspiracies, such as this one, with no factual basis, are not worth learning about.

Dear Mr. Director, if you really don't think the AIDS virus exists then why not just infect yourself and document your life for a few years? If it's as harmless as you say then you have nothing to worry about.

As someone who has followed the scientific debates regarding the cause of AIDS since the early 1990's, I have reported on many of the controversies and inconsistencies with the existing causation hypotheses. Yes, that is right, there are multiple perspectives as to what causes the syndrome labeled as AIDS, even from within the well funded scientific orthodoxy. This, the film reveals.

Young filmmaker Brent Leung has done a remarkable job of allowing the scientists on all sides of this debate to describe their viewpoints in their own words so that the viewer can decide for himself the credibility or lack thereof of the information presented. How refreshing it is for a documentary film to treat its audience as if it is intelligent and capable of drawing reasonable conclusions, rather than being preached at as if we are all little children.

The calls for censorship of this film are outrageous. Beware those with conflicts of interest who appear offended for the mere suggestion that "they should wash their hands after cutting on cadavers before going into the next room to deliver babies." Have we learned nothing since the time of Ignaz Semmelweis, much less Galileo?

House of Numbers is an important film at a time where we are rapidly running out of resources to chase a disease that may not actually be a disease at all. Yes, billions of dollars of potentially misallocated research funds are at stake, but so are the lives of potentially millions of immunocompromised inhabitants of planet earth.

If it is possible that conflicts of interest have covered up and prevented other avenues of research into immune dysfunction be explored, wouldn't you want to know it?

In my opinion, a good documentary film reveals many facets of its subject matter in ways that elevate interest throughout. A great documentary film allows its audience to draw its own conclusions. I sat riveted by House of Numbers. Three times. Dare I be so bold to posit that this may be the film to ignite a renaissance of scientific freedom and inquiry devoid of politics and economics? I dare.

This is urgent, if you have HIV/AIDS go to the doctor quick and get treated!

Still don't believe me and want to brush my review off, then listen. In this documentary a girl named Christine Maggiore is interviewed and used as a talking point. She made her and her child not go any treatment of HIV, and unfortunately they both died. Of HIV related diseases.

If you still don't believe me, then fine in the documentary they talk about the South African leader Thabo Mbeki who worked with HIV denialists and then started working to stop HIV treatment in South Africa, and when all treatment stopped things happened. Of course in the documentary they don't tell you what happened, but what happened was over 300,000 people died of HIV related deaths.

In conclusion, this documentary promotes people killing themselves and has proven deadly. And if you don't believe it, then don't believe it, but I have a few questions and this will close out my argument:

If someone made a movie denying cancer, saying that it had nothing to do with the deaths and was all made up. Then how would you feel? Would you believe it? Would you tell others or force others to follow this cancer denying documentary? And last of all, Would you follow it if you got told you had cancer?

Thank you good night.

The only people that DON'T want to to see this film are the ones making a lot of money in the HIV industry. Watch it, think about it with your own brain, and judge for yourself. Do not fall under the spell of "mind control", oh, sorry I meant to say "the AIDS industry". See the top players in HIV "science" over the past 25 yrs. consistently contradict themselves and each other. No wonder they're working over-time to try and get "House Of Numbers" banned! Don't be a lemming. This film has now screened in a number of countries all over the world and has thus far collected 10 awards. See the question surrounding actual isolation and purification of the virus, as well as the sexual transmission theory that was proved not to exist either.

I don't really give movies 1 star unless for extreme circumstances. When it comes to documentaries, honesty is the most important aspect. When a documentary skirts its responsibilities it becomes propaganda at least and utterly dangerous at the worst. House of Numbers is both. It is filled with numerous inaccuracies, holds an infantile view of science, and is deceitfully edited to make these experts appear to say things that they are not. Many of the experts in the film have released statements condemning the film for these tactics.

This should be shocking and rage-inducing to anyone that has seen this movie or is considering it. Not only is the movie dishonest in its editing, it has now developed another facet of dishonesty: filing false DMCA claims against those who wish to critique it. The creators of the film, Knowledge Matters, has become incredibly dedicated to ensure criticism of the film is not to be heard although seem perfectly fine with having the ENTIRE film uploaded by dozens of different users. However, when someone wishes to cite the film or use footage of it under the Fair Use Doctrine it is quickly taken down. I find this quite interesting considering that throughout the entirety of the film there is the accusation that their movement is being censored.

This film deserves no respect as art or as academia for its bastardization of what medical science has taught us over the last 35 years. Questions concerning HIV/AIDS should always be answered and investigated, but this religious drivel is being used to sell a preconceived idea - and a dangerous one at that.

Tread carefully with films such as these and always fact check things for yourself.

Brent Leung is genuine in his own search for truth and understanding. He also chose to share his discoveries with us. Having been in academics and clinical research myself, I have often been annoyed with colleagues who seem to forget what the scientific method is. A few times I have witnessed such overt bias in work performed, my level of exasperation has shifted to anger. I have been presenting information on the H1N1 Influenza A issue since it arose in January of 2009. This is a parallel situation to the HIV / AIDS pathway. Now, the European Parliament (Council of Europe member states) have launched an inquiry on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on the extent of big pharma's influence on the World Health Organization. Thanks to the initiative of Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, the Health Committee of the EU Parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling for the inquiry. This step is a long-overdue move toward public transparency of the relationship of drug corruption between the WHO, the pharmaceutical industry and academic scientists. The EU member Greece, mandated via legislation that all of its citizens had to be vaccinated. Such moves were made in other countries, including the US. How many lives have been devastated or destroyed? From January to October, out of 305+ million people, there were less than 500 deaths in the US from H1N1. Then vaccinations began in October. The death rate rapidly climbed to 1,000; President Obama declared a "health emergency". By the end of November, the death rate was 2,000 in the US and increasing. What changed over these 2 months compared to the prior 9 months? Vaccinations began. The incidence of new H1N1 cases had already declined worldwide, including Mexico BEFORE the vaccinations began. Aside from those who have died, how many now have permanent neurologic damage? Prior to release of the vaccinations, big pharma made certain they could not be held legally accountable. This premise is false too. If injury was expected with as little testing as was done on this new vaccination format, then these "legal protections" were put in place to cover pre-meditated assault and murder. Is this acceptable? Only time will reveal the real answer; will enough of the citizens of the world awaken to what is being done to them by international corporations that lack accountability and lack fundamental ethics. A corporate entity has no conscience or feelings. It is seemingly too easy for a CEO and board of directors to become indifferent toward their fellow human beings. They must be held accountable individually and collectively. If the Federal Government wants to create a separation, then the government should purchase vaccinations and make them available through government sponsored outlets. This does not mean it is acceptable under the US Constitution for government to force vaccinations upon US citizens and it never means the government has the authority to ignore informed consent or intentionally hide potential adverse events.

Medical Doctors are held to the highest standards of accountability via the lengthy, detailed and involved malpractice laws, at least in the US. Why are geneticists, molecular biologists or other scientists involved in the arena of health, or the environment, held to lesser standards of conduct and ethics?

What about the law-makers? The legislators are our direct representatives within the government. They spontaneously retain the greatest responsibility to protect the public they were elected to serve. Why are legislators who knowingly participate in these actions, by passing laws which protect a few from legal redress of the harm they have caused, any less guilty of the murder and destruction which occurs in the lives of those who now suffer the outcome of legislative mandates? What happened to the legal concept of "informed consent"?

Legislative proposals included gag order provisions which would have prevented physicians from discussing the potential adverse outcomes to their patients. What kind of invasive, dictatorial thought process is this? This proposal did not pass in the final legislation, yet, why are the citizens of these State jurisdictions failing to hold those same legislators, who attempted to inflict this upon them, accountable? Will this mindset and hostile activity be forgotten by the time such nefarious characters are up for re-election? Will citizens vote them back into office?

Accountability is woefully lacking.

I shall hope that Mr. Leung continues to pursue a career in documentary films. I would be thrilled to see him do a follow-up inquiry into the H1N1 fiasco as a comparative film to "House of Numbers".

Wow... just wow. This film is so boldfaced in is lies it is the first film I have ever cried at. Here is why, if you believe this film to be honest it can kill you, no I am not saying that like "Transformer 3 was so bad it will kill you!" no i honestly mean that literally like do not stand in a pit of fire or you will die. You may see this in jest or as sarcasm... no people in this film LITERALLY DIED OF AIDS... CHILDREN LITERALLY DIED OF AIDS. There had been real people real as you and I that could be alive that this film and it's cause literally in my mind murdered them. Horrifically twisted, untruthful,harmful, venomous, deceitful bile. Worst film of all time, Spielberg and Ed wood agree. 0/10, vile garbage.

Don't believe the propagandists, this is a great documentary. Interviews with all the major players (and dissenting voices) in the world of HIV/AIDS reveal that most of what we have been told for nearly 30 years has been exaggerations and lies. The UN AIDS statistics are admittedly "cooked," the CDC threw out all non-infectious theories when the "virus theory" was presented to the world (in a press conference, not a scientific paper, no less) and the drug treatments can cause AIDS. What a mess. This film should be required viewing in all schools. Congratulations to the filmmakers for pulling off the seemingly impossible task of piercing this corrupt industry.

As a criminal investigator with thirty years of experience, I was extremely impressed by House of Numbers.

In under 90 minutes, the director allowed the subjects tell their stories without getting in the way, allowing his audience to make up their own minds without putting them to sleep.

What results is a breathtaking and heart-wrenching expose of scientific corruption not seen since Pope Urban's condemnation of Galileo. Like a slow moving train wreck, House of Numbers allows the grand dragons of HIV to indict themselves for profit-driven crimes directed at young mothers, homosexuals, minorities and third world victims throughout the world with the same detachment that made Eli Weisel's NIGHT so powerful.

In short, Mr. Leung does for AIDS what Jeffrey Wigand did for Tobacco - the difference being that Wigand was an insider and Leung a thoughtful bystander.

By any investigative standard, Mr. Leung's film is a remarkable and important achievement – a MUST-SEE for anyone who cares about scientific integrity and healthcare.

Clark Baker LAPD retired