Watch House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic For Free

Simply Perfect

Absolutely Fantastic

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

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.

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.

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