House of Numbers is quietly explosive

1. steve nagel Says:
   September 6th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

   Thanks for your honest review. As for Mr. Moore and his cronies from Cornell, the question they still need to answer is, “When exactly were they misrepresented or misquoted in the film?” If they continue to dodge this fundamental request, the next question that must be asked is, “When were they lying… now or when they were interviewed?”

2. Alan Smith Says:
   September 7th, 2009 at 5:46 am

   Yes its a great review and points out some very valid arguments.

   People like Moore and others they know who they are, are heading for a fall and they damn well know it.

   The Numbers of people questioning HIV = AIDS is growing, people have a right to question what they are told, history has shown that things are not always as they seem. Time and time again things are turned on their head. They now say AZT was a mistake, those who took it and died awful deaths. Back in the day people were saying AZT was dangerous and yet their voices were silenced just like today. Censorship is rife, but the ones who didn’t take it are living healthy lives and are called denialists just because they tell their story.

   Its comical that if you never took the poison and lived they question whether you were even HIV pos, yet you took their tests, and the tests are meant to be so accurate. Western blot is supposed to be the final nail in the coffin. Weird that the United Kingdom don’t use this test kit. I wonder why?

   The stuff these people come out with makes me laugh, time and time again. These people are exposed for what they really are.

   Luc Montagnier doesn’t know his backside from his elbow, he cracks me up. I shouldn’t laugh but here his statement you can get rid of HIV is as mad as it sounds. So we don’t need to give Africans drugs, we need to feed and water them. The basics for life. in the west we get that so there MUST be people who defeated HIV. So where are the people that got infected with HIV and defeated it? They wouldn’t know would they, so what happens when these people are tested for antibodies? Robert Gallo must be in agreement with Luc? never heard him say what Luc said.

   There WILL come a time when HIV & AIDS is regarded as the biggest medical scandal. Those that rode on HIV & AIDS’ back will have trouble coming back from the things they have written and can’t wait for that day, its coming they know it, I know it. people will look back and think how did we ever let this happen.

   One thing the film didn’t document and is very important is the fact that the Original Research papers are being questioned and have been asked to be withdrawn.

3. Truthseeker Says:
   September 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

   Alan, in your welcome comment you seem to agree with John Moore’s panicky fear that the game is up for the HIV/AIDS defenders if what this film reveals gains wide circulation, but the avalanche of self-debunking and contradictory statements made by them in this movie seems to have left you somewhat confused in regard to Luc Montagnier, newly minted Nobelist, which is very understandable unless you have been familiar with them all for years as we have, since there are so many huge holes in their theoretical web.

   Luc Montagnier is a Frenchman and it is he that first discovered evidence of a retrovirus in AIDS patients. But he didn’t go so far as to claim it was the cause of AIDS. Gallo subsequently claimed in four papers in Science that he had found it in about one third of samples from AIDS patients, and therefore it was a “probable” cause of AIDS, a marvel of Alice in Wonderland reasoning that didn’t need the subsequent official inquiry into his lab work to be questioned by anyone in possession of the basic rules of logic.

   What turned it from the “probable” cause of AIDS into “the cause of AIDS”, the seal of approval of the New York Times repeated in every story they run, was the major media, following the lead of politicians. As the film briefly showed, Margaret Heckler the Secretary of Health at the time (1984) announced in a press conference that the NIH in the person of Gallo ie American science had triumphed in finding the “probable” cause of AIDS, which suited President Reagan fine since it took the gays off his back for not doing enough to fight GRID, as it was known at first (Gay Related Immune Deficit). Soon afterward the Times and every other major medium took to leaving out the “probable”.

   In other words, kite flying by Robert Gallo attempting to save his expensive million dollar a year lab at NIH after it failed to find that cancer was caused by retroviruses was swiftly taken up by politicians and the media. Three years later in the top journals the best scientist in the field, Peter Duesberg, rejected the whole notion that HIV was involved, but it was too late. Scientists and the public were stuck with a scientific theory confirmed by Margaret Heckler, Ronald Reagan, Anthony Fauci, David Baltimore, Robert Gallo and Larry Altman of the New York Times.

   Gays that had destroyed their immune systems with poppers and other designer drugs had added their pr and highly activist support to a theory that took them off the hook and by threatening the heterosexual public ensured copious funding ever afterward for research into treatment, and access to treatment with AZT, a lethal drug which never was proved efficacious, indeed has been convincingly blamed for the dead memorialized in the great quilt. Subsequent drug treatment has been less damaging but still contains AZT and the rate of death in the US is maintained, so a brief improvement during the changeover when lives were extended was taken as proof that the drugs worked and the theory was correct. As Clinton told me, “the drugs work, don’t they?”

   Meanwhile Montagnier seems to be too decent a man to abandon common sense science for funding purposes and has always said in effect that HIV by itself is not enough to damage the immune system let alone overcome it, and that cofactors must be sought. Gallo et al, knowing the obvious corollary would be – so what shows HIV is needed? – have fought this adamantly from leaking too far out into the media. Censorship is the name of the game and has been for 25 years. Anthony Fauci of NIAID explicitly banned reporters from raising the topic of Duesberg’s reviews early on, and no one else dares to raise the topic in established HIV/AIDS circles. They have seen what happened to Duesberg, whose perfect record of grants at the NIH was immediately cut to zero then and ever since, once his colleagues were unwilling to back them.

   All this is the unhappy record of what happens in science now that it is exposed to huge political, media and financial influences. It is the high shame of the great newspaper, the New York Times, that it has been taken in by this fantasy and used it as a premise for 25 years, covering the objections of Peter Duesberg as if that brilliant scientist was less credentialed than even Fauci, and calling questioners “denialists” as if they were denying something as clear as the Holocaust or gravity.

   All this is clear to all who have taken an objective interest in the field , but the minor miracle is that House of Numbers, which doesn’t have time to describe much if anything of this background, manages to encapsulate so perfectly why we shouldn’t be taken in – simply by exposing the conflicting, unrealistic and medically unsuccessful views and claims of the establishment experts themselves.

   Duesberg and other lethal questioners are included but their few contributions are hardly necessary. The self condemnation is visible to any passer by except those emotionally committed to what is undoubtedly the Worldcom of science, the grandest scam in medical history, founded on an unproven, incredible and thoroughly debunked paradigm, shot down and professionally eviscerated in the leading journals before it had rounded the first bend, and never rehabilitated by all the King’s men since, as they now reveal.

4. DavidRCrowe Says:
   September 7th, 2009 at 11:22 pm

   When I saw “House of Numbers” at the premiere in May at the Nashville film festival I was blown away. I was expecting a lot, but felt that the technical quality was far beyond anything I could have conceived. It was surprisingly emotional for me, particularly the presence of the Nagels on stage after the screening. As the father of a 19 year old daughter the averted tragedy of Lynsie Nagel hit me right in the heart. Like my daughter she is beautifully ordinary, but in Lynsie’s case her mere presence is a beautiful antidote to the death cult of AIDS.

   The use of mainstream scientists to contradict each other and show the flaws in the logic is absolutely brilliant. It reminds me of the “Name of the Rose” (although the movie wasn’t that great) with the library of books too secret for the common people to have access too. Every dictatorship has knowledge like that. AIDS researchers deal with this all the time but all understand it must be kept from the plebians or there might be a revolution.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.