Very disappointing...

Very best movie i ever watch

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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 have been researching blood tests, treatments and disease statistics for years due to close family members and friends falling ill. Just 'looking into it', but pretty deep. I came across PDF's for blood tests of various viruses and among them, HIV, and if you look at the test literature, you will find exactly what the film states about the tests (you can download the literature from the FDA website and Health Canada website).THEN, I saw this film. There are others as well (AIDS, Inc, & The Other Side of AIDS and more). As far as some scientists being 'misquoted', that is not exactly the case; they rebutted saying that their interviews were taken out of context, after they saw it (read their rebuttals for yourself, they are available, and decide for yourself if they were actually 'taken out of context').But, whatever you do, watch this film with an open mind. Check all the 'facts' stated by whatever means possible (do further research). I knew some of this stuff already, so I can only say that the Brent Leung did a fabulous job at 'discovering' what the general public is not being told about HIV. This should be required viewing for doctors, researchers and everyone who is living in fear of the mysterious 'retro-virus', which can supposedly 'hide out' for years in your body, but that nobody can actually find directly in a person. Hmmmmm. Well done Mr. Leung!!

The two women that are featured in this film that are "healthy" have both died. Both died of AIDS related illnesses. Despite what the deniers are telling you, AIDS is real. Just about everything in this film has been reputed in some form or another. The director got a bunch of footage to support a denialist agenda and edited it together to make it seem like there is this some sort of debate in the scientific community. There isn't. Both of the two major researchers that he got interviews with have gone on record saying that their comments were taken out of context, or that the footage was edited in such a fashion to make it seem that they disagreed when in fact the opposite is true. The director wants to claim he's neutral yet he's done denialist films before. Most of the theories he's mentioning have been disproved for years but denialists claim them to support their position. Sure, there was debate twenty years ago, but not now. Medicine evolves over time. This film is just sad, and it's going to get people killed.

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