Thursday, September 8, 2011

"Top Documentary Films" Watch "HOUSE OF NUMBERS" now for Free

In House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic, an AIDS film like no other, the HIV/AIDS story is being rewritten.
This is the first film to present the uncensored POVs of virtually all the major players; in their own settings, in their own words.
It rocks the foundation upon which all conventional wisdom regarding HIV/AIDS is based.
House of Numbers could well be the opening volley in a battle to bring sanity and clarity to an epidemic gone awry.
Leung manages to present a barrage of intriguing theories debunking our generally accepted beliefs… There’s no denying, however, the value of exploring such game-changing topics as how HIV-infection numbers are cooked for monetary and political gain;
How the effects of global poverty may have led to so many AIDS-related deaths; how such widely used AIDS drugs as AZT have, themselves, often proved fatal; and whether HIV really exists.


  1. This documentary is a must for for most of us who have had the mantra 'HIV is the cause of AIDS' hardwired into our minds, year in year out. The film blows apart the myth and deconstructs the blatant lies in a very coherent and understandable way.

  2. ashbreaksstuff 
The link for tagtele worked for me. This was interesting. I've never heard of that "popper" stuff. 

Anyone know a proper link for this? Tagtele is constantly buffering.. 


Lisa O 
There is an entire documentary on this website about this topic (at least there was). I cannot remember the name of it, but I think it would be under Health, too. 


stagevu seems to only have the trailer too 


Somehow I think this might actually be a good documentary. Definitely gonna watch it through!

  3. Karri 
This is an absolutely MUST SEE film about all of the problems and inconsistencies surrounding the unproven theory that "HIV=AID$".
    Watch and see for yourself many of the "top" AID$ experts contradict themselves and each other.

    @Lisa O:
    You are correct about websites for this film. Please see:
    They are also on Facebook

    Please see my horrific journey through the AID$ machine here:

    Awesome to see some bright, thinking, questioning people on here. 

It's available for download @ Megupload. In case someone wants it. 

Vlatko, TDF Admin 
You're right @Leonardo Silveira. I've replaced the StageVu link.

  4. coyote03 
like everyone else so far, I was shocked, this really was eye-opening! I used the novamov link, worked great for me :) 

This is one of the best docs I've seen in a while. I learned a lot about a topic that had been spoon fed to me by media the same as the narrator. I hate to admit it but if you had asked me about this topic before viewing this my answers would have been the same as the masses. I usually don't take a documentaries info on its own without my own research into the matter. The amount of information provided from multiple sources on all sides of the topic was refreshing. Too often documentaries have a strong bias to them only providing on side of the topic. Again, very informative and eye opening doc. I feel a lot of people could benefit from watching this. 

Just watched this and it certainly is an eye-opener.
    Absolutely fascinating, filled with facts and opinions which were revelations.
    amust watch.
    Thanks for this Vlatko



the novamov links works fine, just needs to preload cus it is very slow. it is good stuff. 


i am SHOCKED .... after watching.

  5. Samusakis 

    You mean they both died without the use of those nasty high risk medications? (or poison as I like to call it).

    How about that dude with the eye-pach that died after the interview I recall he was using his 'poison', how is his death any less worth mentioning? 

HIV-denialist documentary. Nothing (interesting) to see here.

    HIV denialist Christine Maggiore is interviewed in this film. She and her daughter both died of untreated AIDS. 


I'm also shocked -- ànd very upset.
    In the end it's all about the money again.
    .. ànd big ego's. 

lol.. love the tag tele description

    The truth about aids
    "s#!'s english"

    BTW @ lisa O
    ure talkin about "hiv aids fact or fraud" which u can find by searching on this website. very good doco. eye-openers for sure, maybe even life savers.

  6. princeton 
@ pheldespat
    Analysis of causes that led to Christine Maggiore’s acute renal and cardiac failure, pulmonary edema, and death
    by Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati Ph.D., DABT, DABVT

    Christine Maggiore was diagnosed with pneumonia on December 18, 2008 and was treated with antibiotics (Gentamicin, Rocephin, Azithromycin), Acyclovir, Fluconazole and corticosteroids. She also received Meyer’s cocktail, vitamin C, and calcium IV. She died on December 27,2008. She was 52 years of age.

    Christine suffered fatal renal failure caused by antibiotics, antiviral, and calcium received during the 9 days prior to her death. The microscopic examination of the H & E stained sections of her kidneys revealed the presence of changes consistent with acute tubular necrosis. There were also changes consistent with mild nephrosclerosis.

    Christine’s acute renal failure led to development of acute left ventricular heart failure, pulmonary congestion, and pulmonary edema. Christine’s pericardial sac and left chest cavity contained 100 mL and 200 mL of clear light brown serious fluid, respectively. Christine’s right and left lungs weighted 1319 and 1307 g, respectively. Her total lung weight was 2626 g, which is 750% of the average normal lung weight. The autopsy, pathology, and the clinical data and observation described in this report show clearly that Christine did not suffer from any AIDS indicator illness during the 2 years prior to her death or at the time of her death.

    Dr. David M. Posey performed the autopsy in Christine’s case and his gross autopsy examination was completed on January 12, 2009. He stated that Christine was a well-developed and well-nourished Caucasian woman who appeared younger than her age of 52 years. She measured 66 inches in length and weighed 145 pounds.
    his conclusion:
    Christine did not suffer from any AIDS indicator illness during the 2 years prior to her death and at the time of her death. It has been reported that Christine’s serum was tested positive for HIV with subsequent testing indeterminate in the 1990s. The clinical findings in Christine clearly challenge the clinical and the scientific validity of her HIV test.

    look up the rest if you feel like it.

    @ also, to say the child died of "hiv/aids complications" is synonymous with saying nothing or better yet "we don't know"! considering no autopsy was done or released (to my knowledge).

    aids is a syndrome (many different diseases, loosely tied together) which covers many natural reasons for death, but can somehow be classified as AIDS. (acquired immune deficiency syndrome could mean anything, many things wear out the human immune system)

  7. Guest 
I give up, I would love to see this but it will not buffer correctly. It goes to 100% then starts over at about 90% and does it again- over and over and over. I try and download it but they want money to join the site, on Novamov. Maybe one day it will be available on youtube or google or one of the others normally linked to from this site.

    I find the fact that aids isn't real a little far fetched but I can not comment as I have no way to see the exact claims made by this doc. Maybe I will try and do some google research. 

This documentary is misleading and dangerouse for people that might make the wrong health decisions based on this misinformation.

    It should be taken off this site... Vlatko ? really ? 

anne V 
to the ones who comment here and say all this doc is bull. Please specify.

    I found this doc very interesting, had plenty of food for thought. It's the second doc I've seen on this subject and they're arguments are quite convincing to someone like myself that has never done any research on the subject. So if you have something to refute, please specify in some detail. It would be more appreciated than to read some arrogant snicker. Has there been any docs that refute this? 

Now let me as you guys, the same guys who so value the scientific method.

    What do you think about David Baltimores response when asked "how would he isolate and photograp the HIV virus?"
    His response ~01:07:40

    Wasn't there a bunch of scientist eager to replicated the experiment to prove or disprove its initial findings?!

  8. Charles B. 
I can't believe I took the time to read all these comments! If this is just a classic AIDS is not caused from HIV doc I don't have time or the mindlessness for such posh!

    Yes, poverty plays a part, but it's HIV that is the main disease producer for AIDS 

@ ez
    well said.

    uh oh.. you're starting to sound like an AIDS denier.. lol.. 

Finally, I got it to work. Wow, this was a real eye opener. After reading several of the comments here though I can not help but to feel that many have missed the point of this documentary. No one on this program tried to deny the existance of AIDS. They simply said that the science that surrounds it is flawed and confusing as well as manipulated for personal fame and monetary gain. Whatever it is causing these immune deficiencies may or may not be connected to the HIV virus, if that virus even exists. But clearly something is causing this deficiency and it is not the usual suspects or they would be identified as there are tests to confirm other deseases causing immune deficiencies.

    Regardless of what they find out about the cause we must do something to get these people living in poverty into better living conditions. AIDS or no AIDS no one could live for long in that kind of unsanitary environment and be healthy. Of course there will never be the kind of money sent to alleviate poverty as there has been to eradicate AIDS. Why, because trying to alleviate poverty doesn't employ doctors and lab techs, nor does it pave the way for some scientist to feel superior because he has discovered the new bug in town. Once again it is about the money and satisfying egos, not about helping the less fortunate.

    I have also seen the scientific method attacked, how ridiculus. Just because some doctor did not apply it correctly doesn't mean the process is flawed at all. I had a wreck when younger because i did not know how to use a manual clutch, does this mean that a manual clutch is some how flawed. The scientific method is just that, a method. The evidence this method uncovers has to then be interpreted by humans that have their own biases and agendas. This is were the failure takes place, not in the method. The method is simple common sense and is the absolute best way available to get at truth, period. If we do not use this method of observing and testing data, what will we use? I suppose we could pray about it, or ask some magic pendulum- does this seem more dependable? (LOL)

  9. Guest 
@ Charles B.

    I find your dismissal of this question very shocking. Lets face it, the resaon you view HIV as the cause for AIDS is because the scientific cumunity said it was. Well that same community is now saying this has to be examined more closely. As far as I know you are no scientist or doctor, so you have no solid ground to stand on when dismissing a valid question- Did the scientific cummunity get it wrong? You have no issues questioning their correctness on physics that blows religiouse beliefs out of the water, but totally dismiss any questions about their correctness about this issue. Does that not help you see that you are simply accepting what supports your beliefs as gospel truth and questioning and denying anything that speaks against your own beliefs?

    I would venture a guess that you do not want to entertain this question because the missionary group you constantly talk about being part of has been dedicated to AIDS relief in Africa. Accept it man, there is a chance that the AIDS epidemic in Africa has been overblown. In fact certain organizations have admitted publicly to exagerating the problem.

    No one is denying the existance of the syndrome and very few question the existance of the HIV virus, they are saying that the science has been once again polluted by human agendas and flaws. They are simply suggesting we reassess our methods to make sure the help that groups like the one you are involved with do the most possible good. In the end we may find out that you guys are doing exactly what you should and are already make the largest possible difference, or we may find out that we could save many more lives by providing running water and more sanitary conditions. Don't let ego get in the way of helping the people, that is your aim right?

    Let me stress that I think the services the missinoary groups provide the people in need are wondeful and that it is commedable that you are envolved. I only think you should not just dismiss something that runs counter to your present beliefs. If you do you may find out you could have done much more good but let ego and refusal to accept change get in the way. 

anne V 

    thanks for the links.

    I find that documentaries should make full raw footage of peoples interviews to be available to the public. If they are going to do chop up editing to change someone's views, that's pretty sad!

    for the argument about AZT? does anyone have anything to share in making their claim wrong or right? 


    I didn't attack the scientific method! All I said was that this ignorant doctor talks *** and asked for an opinion on his comment.

    Scientific method as it is does not bother me, however for the scientific comunity to turn a bind eye on a matter such as this beggs the question, how much can we really trust it?

  10. Guest 
@ pheldespat

    Are you seriouse, did you really get that lost in the conversation. No one is saying that it definetly doesn't cause AIDS. We are saying that the science around the virus, how to detect it, whether it absoluteldy and for certain is the lone cause of the syndrome or has co-factors, whether it was ever really isolated- is in question. Of course I would not want to take the chance that it is the cause, does this make for a good scientific standard. If i am scared then it must be the single root cause of the syndrome. That is a pathetic arguement man, if we did science like this nothing would be certain would it?

    All we want is one test that tells us whther or not we have the virus, with 100% certainty. Even if they have to do three tests, thats fine. People that have this virus are told they are going to die, this means we have to be 100% sure they have it before we shock them and ruin their life, before we put them on the admitted toxic drugs that are suppose to help.

    We want the doctor in Africa and a doctor here in the states to define the desease and its symptoms the same, define its risks of infection the same, define AIDS the same in fact. Right now they all have something different to say about how you get it, whether it will kill you, if your immune system is able to fend it off, right down to whether you have it or not- I mean when you get a positive and then test a week later and get a negative then test again and its positive etc. etc. something is wrong. When we have people that have the virus but do not develope the syndrome, does this not make you wonder at least.

    Besides, even if we are totally right about AIDS already and all these people on this documentary are just odd cases, what could it possibly hurt to do more research on the virus and its connection to the syndrome? Maybe we will find a cure along the way. Maybe at the least we could put these legitimate questions to rest. In a case like this all that matters is the peoples attitudes toward the situation. If people have questions or concerns and are not satisfied with the science then it should be worked on until they are, period. 

    it seems that you appeal to fear and panic when you run out of arguments.

  11. Karri 
Mr Brent Leung has provided a deluxe edition of this film with more hours than you will be able to view in just a couple of sessions. If anyone would like to see the full, unedited version of this film and all of the contradictory, outrageous comments the AID$ orthodoxy makes, you may order it here: 


    I don't know what you're talking about.

    I'm still waiting for some refutation of the claims stated in the links I provided. I have seen none. You guys keep attacking me, but the claims remain unchallenged.

    Can you write properly? What does "seriouse" mean? I tell you the same I said above: Still waiting for some refutation of the arguments exposed in my links.

    I say you don't understand: The. Whole. Documentary. Is. Bogus. It was edited to Hell and back and to Hell again. At least 2 of the scientists have complained about the editing of their answers and bad faith of the director.

    "what could it possibly hurt to do more research on the virus and its connection to the syndrome?"

    What the heck more do you want to f@#$%^& investigate, for God's sake?! Well, if you follow this bogus FUDmentary, it may seem to you that the link HIV-AIDS is not set in stone. Then, this FUDmentary was successful.

    The link HIV-AIDS is well-established and the evidence overwhelming. If you don't know enough to understand the science involved, or if you mistrust the science involved for non-scientific reasons, that's a different story. If you have evidence contrary to HIV-AIDS, show it.

    Also, still waiting for answers to my question about getting a jab of HIV. There's only one so far, so maybe the other conspiranoics don't share your views, ez2b12.

  12. Alabaster 
It saddens me greatly thinking that the entire world could be dupped by the lack of integrity and scientific responsibility over the question and prevalence of HIV and AIDs. We're taught as young children (at least here in the west) that we are to trust authorities and not to question them because we are given solid truth and facts. This documentary demonstrates that we can no longer and should never take anything at face value. As I grow into the person I am becoming, I'm realzing that I've the wool pull over my eyes too many times by authoritive figures.

    A dammning documentary that saddens my heart and hardens my views. 

A. T. Heist 
tagtele has a much better playback. 


@ pheldespat

    Think what you want angry little man. Your question was pop culture science not relevant to the question at hand. Just because we don't want to get jabbbed with a needle containing the virus doesn't mean it is definetly the cause of the syndrome. No one ever said for sure that it wasn't anyway, you can read right?

    Oh, and by the way if my writing bothers you so badly, in my opinion you simply wanted to attack something and that was the best you could come up with, too bad. I dont have the need to prove anything to tiny insignificant you. Attacking someones intelligence because you disagree with their point is childish and shows you have a very weak case. Luckily you have absolutedly nothing to do with the science or what steps will be taken next. I restate what I said before, if the public is not happy with the science surrounding this desease it should be addressed.

    After all isn't it one function of the CDC to keep the public informed and satisfied that desease is under control? Isn't one primary function of the medical cummunity in general to keep public fear of a desease or the chance of an outbreak down to a minimum? Well sounds to me like they failed. If they have the answers they need to put out a documentary explaining them, if they don't they need to re-work the science until they do. Not worry about whether people like you get offended or want to strut around insulting people. PERIOD. 

  13. Guest 
@ Alabaster

    Fortunately that is starting to change, the don't question authority thing I mean. I am 38 years old and my parents taught me to be respectful but to always question things, maybe not people in all situations but always question the things they tell you. In other words, it may not be prudent to question a teacher in front of the whole class for instance, but you should definetly question the validity of the facts they give you in private. Certain institutions depend on the authority of certain figures, this is why in my opinion you shouldn't question certain people in certain situations. Besides questioning say a judge at your own trial, well that may defeat the purpose of questioning him in the first place- see what I mean.

    Heres one thing I didn't question when growing up that I should have. I was told over and over growing up that I could be whatever I chose to be- this insinuates we are all equal. In reality we are not all equal, especially here in the southeast where I live. What they should say is that you can try and be whatever you like but it may be harder for you than others depending on who you are, where you live, and what you want to become. But I guess that doesn't have that American bull sh*t ring to it.

    I know what you mean about this upsetting you though. I grew up in the AIDS scare, early to mid eighties, and I bought the whole thing hook line and sinker. Now I do not know what to think. It may be that HIV does cause the AIDsyndrome, but the science and all around it really makes you wonder. If they isolated the virus, which they claimed to have done, why do they not have a test that can tell you one hundred percent sure that you are infected? From my knowledge of virus detection, which is limited i will admit, if you isolate the virus a valid test is easy to design. And how can we have different definitions for the same desease if they know all that they claim to know about it. Like I said earlier, they have to keep working the science until the public is well informed and satisfied, otherwise they have failed. 

What's all this b@##$%^& about HIV not existing? This documentary looks ridiculous, I only watched the trailer but I felt the need to comment, having went to a biology lecture on the HIV virus recently.

    Anyone who has AIDS has it because the HIV virus has destroyed their t cells, via the viruses process of replication. That's all the virus does, destroy t cells. When enough t cells are destroyed, your immune system cannot function properly and the patient is said to have AIDS, and will then fall prey to a variety of opportunistic infections and diseases that would not affect a healthy individual with a normally operating immune system. Thinking that the virus doesnt exist is crazy, considering the AIDS patients blood is saturated with the virus.

    The amount can be measured, they can be viewed using electron microscopes such. We know a lot its life cycle, and is part of a family of well-known viruses that includes the common cold. The reason it is hard to treat is due to the fact that the virus has an outer coat with constantly changing proteins attached to it, meaning by the time our body has produced an immune response, the virus has changed it's outer coat and is therefore unrecognisable to our immune system.

  14. Aequitas 
I love how everyone is suddenly an expert on viruses and diseases.

    One Example:

    "Charles B. I can’t believe I took the time to read all these comments! If this is just a classic AIDS is not caused from HIV doc I don’t have time or the mindlessness for such posh!

    Yes, poverty plays a part, but it’s HIV that is the main disease producer for AIDS"

    @Charles B. - You proved this or what? Nevermind just don't answer that please.

    As for me, I couldn't care less I'm just tired of reading comments and seeing that no matter the topic everyone is an expert. News flash... none of us know anything other than what we have been told (hence using hyperlinks as "proof").

    Have a nice day! 

WOW this documentary was really interesting and compelling. I had never thought about this alternative truth.I am speechless. This demolishes everything I have ever been thought about HIV-AIDS. And the best thing about it it is it was made by a person my age, of my generation. This kind of documentary makes me lose faith in mankind, especially in politics, in the scientific community, and in lobby groups (especially pharmaceutical companies). After seeing this, I think that if I were ever diagnosed with HIV I would refuse any treatment! But if HIV does not lead to AIDS, what is it, and what does it do? And where does AIDS come from? Is it true that it happens to people who are unhealthy for other reasons to begin with? 

I think it is a good documentary. It is informative and entertaining, otherwise they don't sell. I think it also fulfills the objective of raising debate and sheds a new light on the issue. I don't like the editing of just sentences as they could mean diferent things in a different context. I know this gives rythm to the film. It calls for more investigation on our part, the viewers. And again, one more warning on the pharmaceutical industry.

  15. Adam 
As a microbiology and immunology student, I find the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS completely ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence and a lot of people studying it. My virology class consisted of several lectures which included photos of SEM and TEM of the virus, gene sequences and a detailed explanation of its life cycle, INCLUDING the records of the experiments that elucidated this information. Saying that people only know about something because they're told it is even more ridiculous, how else do you acquire information without redoing the experiment yourself, and every experiment that allowed you to perform that experiment? Good luck with that.

    The scientists in this film are strategically misquoted, and the definitions of many diseases are changed periodically. To top it off, even when the scientists are right, the narrator chimes in and says something that makes them look wrong.

    What annoys me the most is the way this information is manipulated. The information about Africa is frustrating and stupid. They don't have the materials to test for AIDS, so a series of factors were outlined to define AIDS in Africa. Are they perfect? Of course not! To be perfect you would need proper medical equipment which is unavailable in Africa. Nevertheless, the factors attempt to create a diagnosis for patients coming into hospitals with a series of symptoms which are representative of an AIDS infection.

    What the epidemiologist is saying, when he is largely misquoted, is that a patient could present with TB, but would be diagnosed with AIDS because they don't perform a test. There are no resources to perform a test! If you looked at it the other way and said that they were diagnosed with TB but they actually had AIDS, we would not be debating whether TB exists. (Although something tells me we might, looking at the comments on this website)

    This whole documentary is sensationalistic and slightly revolting. And yet I can't look away. 

All i can say is "WOW" Must see this guys, this is kind of mind blowing! I have only watched a short YouTube vid about HIV before this, and never had any clue about the facts. Absolutely, undoubtedly MUST SEE FILM!!! 

Elliot Rosewater 

    Thanks you for summing it up for me. It started out kinda believable, by the last half I could hardly believe what i was hearing/seeing.

    Many of the people in this film feel misquoted, a warning sign.

    The idea that aids cases are overstated and big pharma doesn't have the right incentive to find a cure seems logical enough.

    On HIV tests; unlike, the narrator I understand how test have to balance type 1 and 2 errors. But he may have a point...

    The rest was illogical. On the whole it seems this doc borders on dangerous. While treatment may have its long run costs they have to be balanced with, to be blunt, not dieing on the common cold. Not taking meds because of this doc would almost certainly be very foolish, given what has happens to that woman and her child.

    I would urge the webmaster to put some links to criticisms of this doc, for a more balanced view.

  16. ricci1003 
Adam, ''don't have the materials to test for "AIDS"'? Do you mean "HIV". In Uganda at least "HIV testing" is everywhere. The old mantra used to be "Do you know your sero status?" Today it is "Do you know your recent status?" The epidemic of testing is so great that there is hardly any funds available for real epidemics of malaria and TB. Yet malaria and TB are the main diseases relabeled "AIDS".
    Lambs to the slaughter - Propaganda - America's Gift to Uganda 

Oh for g-d's sake!

    The manufacturers do not state categorically that their test is 100% accurate for a couple of reasons. You don't have to be a microbiology student to figure this out.

    #1) No test for any disease like this is 100% accurate. They just aren't. There are always limitations
    #2) If the person is negative and it shows that they're positive, they can sue that company for damages, and so the companies are covering their butts so that they don't get sued. Every test on the planet will probably say that additional testing is recommended.

    The woman at the Robert Koch institute is completely right, the diagnosis should be determined based on the test that is most sensitive, but because she had to translate the sentence and make sure what she was saying wasn't misconstrued or misinterpreted, she sounds uncertain.

    To top it off, the questions that they ask are relevant to the diagnosis, because you can only contract AIDS in certain ways.

    That's like asking me if I've ever been to Africa/parts of Asia when doing a test for malaria. Obviously if I've never been to a place where I could contract malaria, I couldn't get malaria!

  17. Sadys 
Im a med student and eventhough I understant the point of view of some of this scientist that maybe some diseases such as the p carinnii may have been attributited to the HIV virus prematurely, you cannot deny the correlation between HIV and AIDS. Unfortunately someone very close to my family passed away from HIV AIDS. He did not consumed any drugs, was healthy and acquired the disease from his stable sexual partner. Unfortunetly he didn't told anyone he had the disease and never sought treatment. He recently died after 13 years of being diagnose with the disease, he was immunodeficient. Is sad to think, that people that are HIV positive and don't engage in drug use and have a healthy lifestyle may watch this documentary and don't seek treatment thinking that there is no correlation between HIV and AIDS. Good documentary overall.

    Yve Star 
Misquoted? Thanks to the wonder that is youtube extended uncut 40min to 1hr interviews of all the interviewed persons are now available free 

Modern medicine has made bigger and longer blunders that "HIV" as cause of "AIDS". Think scurvy, beri beri, pelllagra, SARS, SMON , cancer, heart disease, H1N1, H5N1 etc. Look a bit further and notice what "AIDS" is: A syndrome; collection of old diseases with recognised cuases and treatments. Being told one is "HIV pos" destroys the immune system too.

  18. Elizabeth Ely 
I'd like not to reply, but I was a friend of Christine Maggiore. We all know that Wikipedia can be manipulated, and this is one more example. Christine did indeed die in December 2008, and the complete autopsy cited renal (kidney) failure as the cause of death, apparently from the interaction of several prescription drugs. I talked to her in those months leading up to her death and she was clearly not well. I almost want to thank someone for noticing how sick she looked in the film -- except that the remark is made with vicious disregard for her. I, too, was shocked (but concerned) to see just how tired and drained she looked. I asked when this interview was done, and it seems to have been in the summer of 2007. I knew her all that time, and while she told me she was ill, I never saw her in person looking like that. I would have been more concerned than I already was. However, to then claim that she "died of AIDS" is a very large leap of logic. Christine was the aggrieved mother of a three-year-old daughter who died after taking the antibiotic amoxicillin, and she sought and published an autopsy that ruled out, through scientifically verifiable evidence from a licensed pathologist, that it was not "AIDS." No one claimed her little girl died of "AIDS" until they knew that the mother was a very effective activist against the AIDS mythologies. Christine was as much if not more confused about how this could happen so suddenly as anyone else was. But instead of being left to deal with her grief, she was confronted by numerous people, both publicly and privately, who tried to blame her for that death and even sent her hate mail. She even watched a character based on her die in an episode of "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit." Think on this for a moment, if you are at all a compassionate and rational human being. What would that do to you if it happened to you? Christine often said that she wasn't allowed to get sick like other people, because then it would "mean" something to her detractors. In actual fact, as documented in her book and on her Web sites, she tested positive once, then re-tested and found a mixture of confusing results including negative and inconclusive. This is the truth of the "HIV test," that it is subject to interpretation. The fact that she got such confusing test results is the very reason she got involved in this. And yet, when it proves someone else's point, they are happy to claim that she "had HIV." And no, she wasn't perfectly healthy. Apparently not. Is every person who is not perfectly healthy "dying of AIDS"? And is every mother under attack for the sudden death of a child expected to be happy and healthy? For how many years? I hope that people visiting here will look further into Christine's history as she herself told it. She put up a Web site called "Justice for EJ." Her organization was called "Alive and Well," and it is a treasure trove of information. Christine strove always to help others. She was a mother not only to her two healthy children; she acted in the true spirit of motherhood and gave herself generously to all who came to her. I only regret that she didn't receive in the same fashion. 

Sieben Stern, Snatch back your brain, zombie - snatch it back and hold it! 
poverty and malnutrition? gay men and poppers? really? I figured I'd watch to see what they had to say, but this was just laughable. 

Why are you hysterical about this? Irrespective of all that has been said, the fact that HIV exists has not been denied only what causes AIDS is being disputed. Therefore there is HIV, there is AIDS and AIDS kills. How HIV causes AIDS is the issue. The fact that you have seen/studied the virus does not explain how the virus causes AIDS. If not you should stop the debate by explaining this to those who have doubts.

  19. Elizabeth Ely 

You can look at a particle in an electron microscope, but nothing in that image can tell you whether that particle is endogenous or exogenous. 

Elizabeth Ely 
You are right that "if you isolate the virus a valid test is easy to design." Not even necessarily to look for that virus, by the way. You can look for a "surrogate marker" -- something, like a concentration of proteins, that is as good as the virus test because it's been validated to one. Unfortunately for the theory, though, no such validation has occurred. If anyone claims this, they need to come forth with the evidence of that validation. I have never even heard that the makers of the tests themselves claim this, and you can sure bet they would have told the FDA about it. Interesting, huh? In other words, they're not lying, because the FDA won't allow them to do that. What happens is a chain of mass communication that the government health authorities have encouraged or at least let go unchecked. The information we are led to believe about "the test" is simply media hype that few have questioned. Why? That was always the more interesting issue, to me. Sure, there's money to be made. But it's a lie people were only too ready to accept in the early '80s, given its connotations of sexual contamination, dangerous gay men, diseases invading from Africa, salvation through genetic technology, and other such ideas. When a lie fits prejudices already alive in people, it gets accepted pretty fast. The next time someone tries to sell the "HIV" story to you by trying to convince you that it's somehow bigoted not to be concerned about the "stigma of HIV," think back to this, please: What prejudices does the story itself reinforce?