House of Numbers Documentary – Directed By Brent Leung

House of Numbers, by newcomer filmmaker, Brent Leung, is a shocking documentary that packs a very powerful punch. So much so that what you have witnessed  stays with you long after you have switched the tv off.
This is a film thats going to make you think……alot.  And so it should. It’s about a very very serious subject.

I don’t think I know of a single other subject that creates so much debate amongst people. And  sometimes, I witness certain people, who really have no clue as to what they are talking about, show utter hatred to other fellow humans simply because they don’t agree, and have not questioned what they know.

And the debates I have witnessed are ugly, really ugly. Sometimes, in extreme cases there are even death threats involved, it gets that bad.  I have received a few threats myself, whenever I write about something similar to this, that goes against the mainstream medical beliefs.

I can also  guarantee that within a short amount of time goes by after posting this review, someone will leave a very one-sided comment about this film and attack me also for having the ‘audacity’ to review it.  There are people who are paid to simply sit and do Google Searches to see if there are any new posts on topics such as this.  So threatening are movies like this…….


House of Numbers is on a subject that most of us think we know alot about or  it’s something we push aside because we simply don’t want to know. Some were perhaps along time ago, scared into thinking a certain way, and have had that ingrained into our minds so much so, that its impossible for some, to think of another, new way.

”To think, ”What if they, are wrong?, ”What if, what I have thought is wrong too?”  ”And if we are wrong, what does that mean?”

House Of Numbers is a groundbreaking documentary about, AIDS.

Have you ever asked yourself, ”What is HIV? What is AIDS? And what is being done to cure it?’?
Do you know the answers?  Do you really know enough of the facts?

You might think you do, but I am telling you, you more than likely don’t know enough to paint the full picture. Ask yourself, what do you know and who told you this information and when? Has anything changed since you were told about AIDS?  Was it like  for me, from the Television through scary Grim Reaper Ads?

"This is the beginning of a war... to reclaim our health"

First time film maker, Brent Leung, asked himself these questions from a young age and didn’t really ever find out enough answers that made sense.
A few years ago, he set out on a world wide journey with a quest to find out these very answers he just had to know.
He set up interviews with prominent Doctors, Scientists, Researchers and Journalists, all who are experts in their fields.  He visits London, the USA, the slums of South Africa where disease and death are so common it has become normal and other countries also, to try and understand, do we all believe the same thing around the world?

He questions why, after 29 years, with so much press, billions of  pounds spent, and massive worldwide media attention, there is still no cure in sight and not much real understanding of AIDS, leaving plenty of misguided people unsure, of what it all even means.



What Brent uncovers in this documentary will leave you with your mouth gaping wide open.
He reveals a massive research establishment in total disarray with a health policy gone right off course.
Brent interviews and easily manages to get completely candid interviews with the most powerful, well known and influential people in the ‘AIDS’ Industry.

Some of these interviews and what is uncovered will be why your mouth is left dragging on the floor.  You can see snippets of them below.
Brent interviews the two Scientists awarded the ‘prize’ for discovering the HIV virus. He also talks in depth with highly acclaimed Nobel Laureates, Presidential Advisors, survivors, activists and the Executive Director of UNAIDS.

The answers they give to the questions that are asked, will at times, make you sit up in shock.
I have been researching AIDS for the last year and by far, this is the most eye opening film I have seen.

Brent’s relaxed interview style and non aggressive approach seems to bring out  shocking revelations and equally as stunning hypocritical contradictions.

This is a movie that is simply brilliant and one that is also extremely threatening because it is blowing the lid off a subject with completely misguided ‘facts’ and fallacies that have been kept in the dark from us for far too long.

House of Numbers has the power to completely change the way we see AIDS.  What is presented in this film is totally undeniable and presented in a way that is surprisingly unbiased and lets the viewer decide for themselves: what is really going on?

Let it be known though, that the documentary never denies the existence of AIDS or HIV.
”The HIV/AIDS story is being rewritten, and 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. If, as South African health advocate Pephsile Maseko remarks, “this is the beginning of a war…a war to reclaim our health,” then House of Numbers could well be the opening salvo in the battle to bring sanity and clarity to an epidemic clearly gone awry.’

House of Numbers is a must see film, watch these snippets below to find out why……..
I will leave you with my thoughts and a whole bunch of stuff to investigate:
Every day, in the media, we as people,  are reading more and more reports that we are being lied to. The Governments lie to us, the Media controls what they let us know and Big Corporations control both.

The recent BP oil spill should make even the most skeptical of people start to agree with this after seeing the lack of care, concern  and CONTROL and Media block out for the clean up.  We are all seeing that Big Money equals Big Power.  I will say it again, Big Money equals Big Power.
Pharmaceutical companies are being involved in huge scandals, paying people to lie and get them on their side.  Drugs being released deemed as ’safe’ to use, only to cause many deaths and serious problems.  Then we read about the Drug Company ‘conflict of interest’ funded Medical Journals our Doctors are reading and believing. And information being released to the public is either hidden or exaggerated.

With more than 200 Billion dollars spent on AIDS funding, with more being requested, does that mean Big Money to you?

So now I ask you to think, could what we possibly think we know, be possibly, completely wrong?
WATCH FULL LENGTH ON AMAZON  - VIDEO ON DEMAND IN THE USA

To purchase DVD Visit House of Numbers.com

Below: House Of Numbers Trailer

More Clips can be seen here:


by Anna Rodgers on August 7th, 2010

Source: http://blog.missecoglam.com/2010/08/house-of-numbers-documentary-directed-by-brent-leung.html

Chris Nielsen, Shares his Opinion after Watching HoN

Submitted to HouseofNumbers.com 
Date:     August 9, 2010 11:07:56 PM CDT

"I was thoroughly furious after watching this infantile movie. I came out in 1983 when this movie maker was still in diapers. Ironically gay men at this time would soon be in diapers literally sick to death with AIDS. Let's get something straight, AIDS is the most appropriate term for this disorder. It simply describes an acquired syndrome, which is what a person has the second that he or she is infected with the HIV virus. But all of this posturing over whether someone has HIV or AIDS is nothing more than people trying to deny or candy coat the fact a person has an acquired syndrome which is impacting their immune system, i.e. AIDS. Just because a person is not showing symptoms or has a T-cell count of a certain number does not remove the fact that HIV is doing some sort of damage, i.e. a syndrome is in progress. Frankly I think that making a lethal disorder such as AIDS sound prettier or less deadly is criminal. I think a lot of pressure is coming from the gay community, where a huge number of gay men are HIV positive and sexually active. This is why they want the disorder to sound less deadly: so they have a better chance of getting laid. I think this current mindset amongst gay men and supposed health care professionals, who are now lumping "HIV Disease?" with measles or herpes, is downright socio-pathic. I am gay and 49, and am totally proud of the fact that I care enough about myself and humanity to remain HIV negative. It frankly sickens me that so many people, particularly gay men, are so god damned cavalier about this disorder. Back in the 80s and 90s, when so many great people were praying for some way to stay alive, we would have given anything to have the current drug cocktails. And isn't it sickening that so many people are now running around barebacking with no care in the world simply because they can get these drugs. It is a huge slap in the face to all of the gay men who died in the 80s and 90s. I am ashamed to be gay when I think about how badly gay men are acting at this time!"

Good or bad, we want to hear your thoughts.

Thank you for your honest critique Chris.



Visit www.houseofnumbers.com for more information

The state budget and AIDS policy

By Frank Stoppenbach
Red Hook

Published: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:14 AM EDT

Though unable to craft a balanced state budget, New York’s fractious legislature voted unanimously to no longer require written consent for HIV tests.

I would have voted against the bill.  First, because of the life-changing (and permanent) implications of a positive HIV test.  Second, and more important, because there are many unresolved questions about HIV tests that really call for a reexamination of them.

I can actually prove the need for a reexamination.  How can someone who is neither a doctor nor a scientist do so?

The same way business people and legislators who are not technical experts do – by asking reasonable questions (often formulated for them by technical experts).  If reasonable answers do not come back, something is wrong.

For HIV and AIDS, 38 questions raised by doctors and scientists were put into a presentation and sent, along with a cover letter summarizing ten of the questions, to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

HHS did respond to seven of the questions, and you can see the correspondence back and forth at www.aidspetition.org/Questions.  I think it is evident that HHS was not able to resolve the ten questions, with one exception.

Three of the questions were (1) Why do criteria for a positive HIV test, unlike any other test, differ by geography; (2) Dr. Henry Bauer’s finding that positive HIV tests in the U. S. correlated with race, even in low risk populations, suggesting that the tests indicate general immune system activity, not the presence of a microbe; (3) The fact that most babies who test HIV-positive at 9 months (after maternal antibodies have disappeared) turn negative by 24 months, seemingly curing themselves of incurable HIV.

A few months ago, HIV co-discoverer Dr. Montagnier, seeking to explain the high rates of HIV in Africa, and low rates here, in effect said that a healthy immune system can get rid of HIV[1].

Which raised the question: why are we spending huge sums (nearly 3 percent of New York state’s entire budget, an incredible $3.2 billion), mostly on very costly anti-HIV drugs, if basic nutrition and health measures can solve the problem?

It may come as a surprise that the HIV tests, which form the basis for an AIDS or HIV diagnosis, have unresolved concerns.  Or that the role of HIV in AIDS is unproven.

The latter point was made by Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis, who discovered that there was no scientific reference that could back up the statement, “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS”.

Dr. Robert Gallo, the co-author of the original and widely referenced paper linking HIV with AIDS, acknowledged under oath that it was not sufficient for proof.

In normal science, such questions get resolved by debate and new experiments.  But HIV/AIDS has really transcended science, and is now almost beyond questioning.

This situation is due to HIV/AIDS’ dual role: (1) as an explanation for certain illnesses; (2) as a cautionary tale to promote sexual responsibility.  Questioning the first undermines the second, so we are caught in what might be termed a policy trap, doomed to continue spending outrageous sums that amount to a wealth transfer from taxpayers to the drug industry.

Slowly, though, the questions are getting asked, as in the documentary “House of Numbers”.  And perhaps New York’s budget problems will finally lead to hearings on the questions surrounding AIDS policy and spending.

Questioning AIDS dogma is controversial, but it is not clear why.  All other policies undergo review and audit, and the scientists who have raised questions have only asked for a fair hearing.

The worst that could happen, if the concerns are unfounded, is that a small amount of time and money would have been spent gaining more confidence in the current policy.

On the other hand, if the HIV skeptics are proven correct, it is possible that tens of millions will have stigma lifted, and the chance to be cured, likely saving many billions of dollars annually.

Thoughtful comments are welcome (siteinfo@aidspetition.org).  For critics, do try to include an explanation for the self-curing babies.

Original Source: http://www.thedailymail.net/articles/2010/07/30/opinion/doc4c5267ebb5df2488101532.txt

HIV vaccines cause 50 percent false positive rate in HIV tests

(NaturalNews) It may come as a big surprise to most people, but HIV tests given to people today don't actually test for the presence of the HIV virus. Rather, they test for the presence of HIV antibodies that the immune system creates to defend itself against HIV. And just because you have HIV antibodies doesn't mean you actually carry HIV. In some circumstances, up to 50 percent of HIV positives are false, causing havoc with the lives of those patients who are falsely accused of being "HIV positive."

This startling fact was revealed in a recent study that's being published in the July 21 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. It shows that patients who are recruited for HIV vaccine trials often end up testing positive for HIV even though they were only exposed to the vaccine, not the virus.

"Almost half of HIV-negative people who participate in clinical trials for HIV vaccines end up testing positive on routine HIV tests -- even though they're not actually infected" reports US News & World Report.

Some vaccines caused a false positive rate of over 86 percent.

HIV tests lack credibility

What this new study clearly demonstrates is the complete lack of scientific credibility of common HIV tests. It also demonstrates the dangers of getting vaccinated against HIV, because the mere act of receiving an HIV vaccination may cause you to test positive for HIV which, in turn, can have many serious repercussions in your life:

• You may be denied employment because tests show you are "HIV positive."

• You may be denied health insurance coverage or be charged significantly more than others for the same coverage.

• You may be denied residence in other countries, as many countries require HIV tests for prospective new residency.

• You may be falsely accused of having AIDS by health authorities who archive your medical records and use them against you.

• You may be arrested and sent to prison, accused of attempted murder, by sleeping with someone and not telling them you were HIV positive (even though you don't have AIDS).

• You may be denied the opportunity to participate in certain professions or activities (such as sporting events).

• You may be socially stigmatized and thought of as an "AIDS carrier."

• You may be shunned by sex partners or a spouse.

All this could happen to you if you receive an HIV vaccine -- even if you don't carry the HIV virus!

Why HIV and AIDS vaccines are medically unnecessary

We have already established here on NaturalNews that HIV / AIDS vaccines are medically unnecessary. A healthy immune system can fight off HIV in the same way it fights off a cold virus. But don't just take my word for it; listen to the words of Dr Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize-winning virologist credited with the co-discovery of HIV. He says:

"We can be exposed to HIV many times without being ... infected. Our immune system creates [antibodies] within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system."
(http://naturalnews.com/027355_AIDS_...)

Your own body, in other words, can protect itself from HIV exposure with the same technology your body uses to save your life from influenza every year: Your immune system.

HIV vaccines, then, are entirely unnecessary. Vaccines are Big Pharma's way of selling you something you don't need by trying to convince you that you might die without it. And when it comes to AIDS, Big Pharma has done a terrific job of scaring people into pursuing all kinds of unnecessary treatments that only harm their health in the long run.

In this way, the AIDS industry is much like the breast cancer industry... or the prostate cancer industry: Most of what they push onto people is medically unjustified, scientifically unproven and actually harms more people than it helps. But it's great for generating more profits for Big Pharma.

And that's the point of all this. AIDS is just another profit center for the drug industry, and if their vaccines actually cause you to test positive for HIV, that's even better for their profits because some percentage of those people who test positive are probably going to be put on retroviral drugs to treat HIV, and those drugs are massive profit centers for Big Pharma.

Western medicine causes disease instead of curing it

See, what's really fascinating here is that the AIDS industry demonstrates yet again how the medical industry causes the very diseases it claims to be treating. Mammograms -- which claim to "detect" breast cancer -- actually cause breast cancer. So if you get enough mammograms, eventually you'll develop breast cancer and require expensive cancer treatments.

The AIDS industry now works in much the same way: If you get an HIV vaccine, chances are you're then going to test positive for being an HIV carrier, and you'll become an "AIDS patient" who spends your life savings on needless drugs and other expensive treatments for a disease you don't even have!

The psychiatric industry works the same way, too: It actually invents fictitious diseases such as "oppositional defiance disorder" (which means disagreeing with authority) and then tries to put children and adults on mind-altering psychotropic drugs to "treat" that disease.

The more you look into the industries of pharmaceuticals and vaccines, the more you realize the whole business is just full of bunk. Their vaccines don't work, their tests produce false positives and their pharmaceuticals can kill you.

That's why it's so much easier to just take care of your own health, build up a healthy immune system, avoid exposure to toxic chemicals and let your body's miraculous immune system do the job for you.

See this jaw-dropping video clip about the AIDS fraud

Do you still think an AIDS diagnosis is reliable? Did you know that a huge percentage of people who are diagnosed with AIDS were never tested for HIV?

Watch this stunning new video clip from House of Numbers to learn the rest of the story: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=0B547...

See more clips or buy the DVD of this remarkable documentary at www.HouseOfNumbers.com

Sources for this story include:
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...

HIV drug causes liver damage, admits FDA

Monday, July 19, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The HIV drug Videx (sold generically as didanosine) may cause fatal liver problems, the FDA has warned.

Since the drug's initial approval, the agency has received 42 adverse event reports linking Videx and its delayed release version Videx EC to a rare liver disorder known as non-cirrotic portal hypertension. In four of these cases, patients died from liver failure or severe bleeding. Only three patients were able to fully recover from the condition, and all of those needed a liver transplant. Patients had been undergoing treatment with the drug for anywhere from months to years.

Although it has not yet been proven that the drugs caused the liver disorder, the FDA noted that there is definitely an association between the two.

In non-cirrotic portal hypertension, blood flow through a major vein in the liver becomes constricted, causing blood to back up into the esophagus. Veins in the throat can become so enlarged that they rupture, leading to serious and potentially fatal bleeding.

Although the FDA stated that the benefits for HIV patients still outweigh the risks, it warned that Videx patients should be closely monitored for any signs of portal hypertension. Furthermore, it noted that "the decision to use this drug ... must be made on an individual basis between the treating physician and the patient."

Videx was first approved in 1991, and the delayed release version was approved in 2000. The drug is a type of antiretroviral drug known as a nucleoside analogue, and slows the proliferation of HIV to prolong the onset of AIDS and extend the life of patients.

It has previously been linked to other forms of liver damage, especially in combination with other antiretroviral drugs including hydroxyurea and ribavirin.

According to a spokesperson for manufacturer Bristol-Myers Squib, worldwide sales of the drug amounted to $71 million in 2009.

Sources for this story include: www.aboutlawsuits.com/hiv-drug-vide... online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100129-714703.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines; www.medscape.com/viewarticle/716198.

Watch House of Numbers to learn more about HIV, AIDS and AIDS Drugs. 

Nobel laureate gives homeopathy a boost

The Australian July 05, 2010 12:00AM

A NOBEL laureate who discovered the link between HIV and AIDS has suggested there could be a firm scientific foundation for homeopathy.


French virologist Luc Montagnier stunned his colleagues at a prestigious international conference when he presented a new method for detecting viral infections that bore close parallels to the basic tenets of homeopathy.

Although fellow Nobel prize winners -- who view homeopathy as quackery -- were left openly shaking their heads, Montagnier's comments were rapidly embraced by homeopaths eager for greater credibility.

Montagnier told the conference last week that solutions containing the DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses, including HIV, "could emit low frequency radio waves" that induced surrounding water molecules to become arranged into "nanostructures". These water molecules, he said, could also emit radio waves.

He suggested water could retain such properties even after the original solutions were massively diluted, to the point where the original DNA had effectively vanished. In this way, he suggested, water could retain the "memory" of substances with which it had been in contact -- and doctors could use the emissions to detect disease.

To a lay person this may sound tenuous. For a scientist it is highly provocative in its similarity to the principles said to underpin homeopathy.

Homeopathic medicines work on the principle that a toxic substance taken in minute amounts will cure the same symptoms that it would cause if it were taken in large amounts.

Scientists completely reject this, claiming there is no evidence to show that water can retain or transmit information and that homeopathic treatments have never been proven in full clinical trials.

Montagnier's claims come at a particularly sensitive time, with the British Medical Association last week calling for the National Health Service to stop spending pound stg. 4 million ($7.2m) a year on homeopathy.

The growing concern of doctors is linked to homeopathy's rising popularity. Users of homeopathy include the Queen and David Beckham.

Montagnier was awarded the Nobel prize in 2008 for research carried out in the 1980s that confirmed the link between HIV and AIDS. The breakthrough opened the way to new treatments that have extended the lives of millions of people.

Last week, he was speaking at the Lindau Nobel laureate meeting in Germany where 60 Nobel prize winners had gathered, along with 700 other scientists, to discuss the latest breakthroughs in medicine, chemistry and physics.

Cristal Sumner, of the British Homeopathic Association, said Montagnier's work gave homeopathy "a true scientific ethos".

The Sunday Times

Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/nobel-laureate-gives-homeopathy-a-boost/story-e6frg8y6-1225887772305

Study reveals promise for HIV test

Early detection hope of S.D. researchers

By Keith Darcé, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 12:05 a.m.

The evolution of AIDS from a deadly disease shrouded in fear to a largely manageable condition took another step forward Monday, when San Diego researchers unveiled results of a study looking at an early-detection method for the virus that causes the illness.

The report’s authors said a rarely used blood test can spot HIV weeks before the body recognizes the infection. They recommended that it be offered along with the more common screening method to people at high risk of contracting the virus, including gay men, intravenous drug users and people with multiple sex partners.

Among the 3,151 participants in a two-year study, the blood test identified HIV in 15 individuals who had falsely tested negative with the traditional saliva swab procedure.

False negative results occur in as much as 1 percent of those who take the swab test, which pinpoints antibodies produced by the immune system in response to infection. It can take as long as three months for the body to begin producing enough antibodies to trigger a positive reading.

During that lag time, people can unknowingly spread HIV through unsafe sex and miss early treatments that could improve their health in the long run, said Dr. Sheldon Morris, an AIDS researcher at the University of California San Diego’s Antiviral Research Center in Hillcrest.

Morris was lead author of the HIV-testing report, which appeared Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. His colleagues included other researchers from UCSD and San Diego County’s HIV, STD and Hepatitis Branch.

“If people got an antibody test alone and were told they weren’t infected when they were, they could be a strong infection risk until they get tested again, which according to guidelines could be six to 12 months later,” Morris said.

The latest findings reinforce similar conclusions from a 2005 study led by scientists at the University of North Carolina. Those researchers administered the early-detection blood test to a much larger sampling of people.

Participants in the San Diego study whose blood tested negative could get their results in person, through an automated telephone system or by logging on to a secured website. About 65 percent of those who sought their results used the automated options.

Morris said the pattern demonstrates a shift in attitudes about AIDS. The illness once was viewed as a death sentence that needed in-person counseling to deal with issues such as shame and secrecy. But advances in detection and treatment have turned it into a chronic, controllable condition for most patients — not unlike diabetes.

“HIV is not as mysterious as it once was,” Morris said.

The early-detection blood test, which homes in on nucleic acid RNA molecules produced by the virus, has been used to screen most of the nation’s blood donation supply since 2002, according to its maker, Gen-Probe of San Diego.

The FDA approved the test for use as an HIV diagnostic tool in late 2006, but its cost — as high as $100 — and more complicated administration have helped discourage widespread use, said Rowena Johnston, vice president and research director of the New York-based international HIV/AIDS research foundation known as AMFAR.

Samples for the blood test are obtained through finger pricks and must be sent to a laboratory, which can take up to two weeks to return results.

“The reason the antibody test is (widely) used is because of low cost and convenience,” Johnston said. The saliva swab method can produce a reading within a few minutes.

But identifying people with HIV within a few days or weeks of infection has become a public health imperative, in part because the virus level tends to be highest during the early infection stage — making transmission to others more likely, she said.

“This really is a key to preventing HIV transmission,” Johnston said.

Because of the blood test’s cost, health experts said, it probably isn’t practical to offer the higher-level screening to the general population. It makes more sense to focus on high-risk HIV groups because they record larger numbers of false-negative antibody test results.

In the San Diego study, participants were recruited from several HIV testing sites in the region, including those run by UCSD, the county and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center.

Each participant was given the saliva swab test, and then blood samples were taken from those who tested negative. The samples were sent to labs in San Diego and Emeryville in the Bay Area, where they were analyzed for HIV nucleic acid. Patients who tested positive for HIV after the blood analysis received the results from clinic staffers within a week.

Morris said the blood test is sensitive enough to detect the virus components within 10 days of infection.

“I think the time is coming where we will have to adopt a strategy for earlier (HIV) detection,” he said. “If you have a testing site with a high-risk prevalence, then you probably should be running this test on all of their samples” that tested negative for virus antibodies.

Keith Darcé: (619) 293-1020; keith.darce@uniontrib.com

See House of Numbers to learn more about HIV and AIDS.

Watch HIV scientists Dr. Niel Constantine and Robin Weiss talk about the accuracy of HIV Testing.

Watch Prof. Luc Montagnier, discoverer of HIV talk about clearing the virus naturally.