This is my critique of what I found to be one of the most eye opening and objective documentaries I have seen in a long time. And it is also a response to the many people writing about this film... many I have to say have either honestly have not seen the film, or were surprised at the aggression faced when being a supporter of such notions, or at least expressed being enlightened by such information.
The message this movie conveys is one that challenges the intent, motivation, knowledge, and logic of an industry that not only doctors but also patients cling to for their very sustenance. I can see how the message is challenging for some. Some people are sick, some from the drugs, some from the many underlying illnesses that get overlooked at the point that you are diagnosed HIV+. Making the notion even more challenging.
I do not believe this film denied the existence of HIV. Though I think it called into question whether we have suffeciently proven it, and how the methods we use to diagnose and prove it are somewhat questionable.
What I saw in the House of numbers film is the fact that it takes three tests in Africa to make an assumption about diagnosis. Of course in the instances that tests are used at all for diagnosis. I lived in Africa for three years, and the images you see on the tv screen are very different than the bulk of Africa. And when you see those images on the tv screen if you were truly aware of the conditions those people were living in, you would be absolutely appalled that we are doing nothing about those things whilst forcing poor governments into backruptcy or submission for toxic drugs.
The message this movie conveys is one that challenges the intent, motivation, knowledge, and logic of an industry that not only doctors but also patients cling to for their very sustenance. I can see how the message is challenging for some. Some people are sick, some from the drugs, some from the many underlying illnesses that get overlooked at the point that you are diagnosed HIV+. Making the notion even more challenging.
I do not believe this film denied the existence of HIV. Though I think it called into question whether we have suffeciently proven it, and how the methods we use to diagnose and prove it are somewhat questionable.
What I saw in the House of numbers film is the fact that it takes three tests in Africa to make an assumption about diagnosis. Of course in the instances that tests are used at all for diagnosis. I lived in Africa for three years, and the images you see on the tv screen are very different than the bulk of Africa. And when you see those images on the tv screen if you were truly aware of the conditions those people were living in, you would be absolutely appalled that we are doing nothing about those things whilst forcing poor governments into backruptcy or submission for toxic drugs.
I think the way this filmed portrayed the townships that many of the poor urban africans live in was true to form. The water I drank when living in a tribal villiage was so chlorinated after a few hours in the buckets its stench was that of bleach. To speak of infrastructure and basic needs that are unmet is not unjustified. If you were aware of their diet many who sustain on corn meal if lucky to have food at all, you would see the issues that are knowingly caused by such diets, like Pellagra... a common cause of wasting and other AIDS defining issues amongst the corn subsistent.
Those drugs are proven to be dangerous and toxic in hundreds of studies at the NIH... Both to adults, and to unborn children, so I really do not find that theory questionable. The side effects of many of these drugs are death. Liver Failure, Hepatic Failure. Mitochondrial DNA damage is an unavoidable side effect. Look it up and consider those implications and another illness they mirror... And if you look at the statistics more people died of AIDS annually when EVERYONE was being drugged at diagnosis. Isn't it you guys that are always quoting the statistics? Well you obviously read selectively.
I also saw that someone at the WHO, openly admitted that the numbers used for calculating the amount of infections were doctored, and that the calculations were not based on confirmed diagnosis. Not to mention the symptoms which defined diagnposis could fit a myriad of other health issues that have been common in Africa for centuries.
I saw another person from the CDC, openly explain the state of affairs in the early 80's and how the CDC "needed" an epidemic. Go look at History doesn't sound like some far fetched theory, and hell who's wants to argue with a source that was there, and had a title in the organization.
Those drugs are proven to be dangerous and toxic in hundreds of studies at the NIH... Both to adults, and to unborn children, so I really do not find that theory questionable. The side effects of many of these drugs are death. Liver Failure, Hepatic Failure. Mitochondrial DNA damage is an unavoidable side effect. Look it up and consider those implications and another illness they mirror... And if you look at the statistics more people died of AIDS annually when EVERYONE was being drugged at diagnosis. Isn't it you guys that are always quoting the statistics? Well you obviously read selectively.
I also saw that someone at the WHO, openly admitted that the numbers used for calculating the amount of infections were doctored, and that the calculations were not based on confirmed diagnosis. Not to mention the symptoms which defined diagnposis could fit a myriad of other health issues that have been common in Africa for centuries.
I saw another person from the CDC, openly explain the state of affairs in the early 80's and how the CDC "needed" an epidemic. Go look at History doesn't sound like some far fetched theory, and hell who's wants to argue with a source that was there, and had a title in the organization.
The dissidents had minor sound bites in this film compared to the long dialogues with the core people from the HIV/AIDS frontlines. That was one of the things I found most compelling about this film. And one of the things that sets it apart from what is considered "Dissident" Films. It was highly objective.
I have to say the long comments by Luc Montagnier were compelling and mind blowing. I would not say he is not qualified to speak this perspective. I do believe he was given more airtime than any other.
The fact that JP Moore would say he was mis-quoted is absolutely Hilarious, considering he said nothing more than what we have all seen and heard him say for years. And if you are listening to his statements well... he is known to be suspect, and good at spreading rumors.
I did not see a Dissident film. I saw a younger perspective of some very valuable questions and points that can be verified as good plausable requests for validation... If you are a researcher like myself that verifies things in the mainstream before I believe them.
And as for that younger perspective, watch out cause it isn't going anywhere... and that voice is only going to get stronger... until one day... they are the very people in control.
The youth of today are not stupid. They have music bands challenging the likes of flouride.(an entire album dedicated to flouride the poison) They have issues with these authoratative people that keep trying to tell them whats good for them while they stand by and see the harm for themselves. They don't trust pharmacueticals, and they think doctors are aggressive and untrustworthy.
Oh yes... I am loving the younger perspective. Talk to any young people lately. Oh yes there is hope.
7 comments: