MovieChat Forums > House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic (2009) Discussion > Question!

Question!

posted 12 years ago by Leaborb192
8 replies | jump to latest

Forgive me if they answered this in the film but what do these people, Duesberg, say to people who have AIDS and are HIV+?

"Sorry it's not actually HIV, but rather -- recreational/pharmaceutical drug use; malnutrition; tainted drinking water; and various infections are actually killing you?"

Doesn't the assertion that HIV does NOT cause AIDS diminish all the work/suffering that many people in the scientific community, along with those who are infected with the virus, have done and endured?

And I hate to say it but did they address the "window period" at all? Or the fact that if you're sick w/ something else it can throw the HIV test results, which is why you can test either positive/negative and need another test. Also: did they account for human error? I don't mean to question the qualifications of the people that tested him in Africa, but it's possible they didn't do it properly, right?

Don't you always have to account for these factors?

I watched the film- with an open mind- but to me it leaves a lot of questions unanswered, than answered.

But then again, I'm not a scientist or medical professional.

[–] stanleyhetz 12 years ago

Forgive me if they answered this in the film but what do these people, Duesberg, say to people who have AIDS and are HIV+?

"Sorry it's not actually HIV, but rather -- recreational/pharmaceutical drug use; malnutrition; tainted drinking water; and various infections are actually killing you?"

Doesn't the assertion that HIV does NOT cause AIDS diminish all the work/suffering that many people in the scientific community, along with those who are infected with the virus, have done and endured?

And I hate to say it but did they address the "window period" at all? Or the fact that if you're sick w/ something else it can throw the HIV test results, which is why you can test either positive/negative and need another test. Also: did they account for human error? I don't mean to question the qualifications of the people that tested him in Africa, but it's possible they didn't do it properly, right?

Don't you always have to account for these factors?

I watched the film- with an open mind- but to me it leaves a lot of questions unanswered, than answered.

But then again, I'm not a scientist or medical professional.

I think the point of the documentary was to get you to thinking to ask questions. Not to give all the answers.

[–] black_dodo_b 10 years ago

I think the point of the documentary was to get you to thinking to ask questions. Not to give all the answers.

This film outright lies to its viewers on many occasions.

It deliberatly ommits facts that do not suit it's message.

It edits interviews mid-sentence to twist the meaning of a sentence.

It gives a platform to some seriously dangerous nutjobs.

All these things together lead me to the conclusion that this film does not want to "get you to think" but is clearly made to push a certain agenda or to get money/fame.

Eitherway it is despicable to endanger even one life with this drivel!

[–] Youwillhateme 10 years ago

"This film outright lies to its viewers on many occasions. "

Give us some examples and then back it up, rather than just making these broad statements that provide nothing of value.

[–] black_dodo_b 9 years ago

I would cite Myles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-XFeClWlWY&index=16&list=PLFAD199A4CCAE6D10) and his six part series about debunking the science in this movie as a secondary source because I for one lack the scientific background and the will to invest the necessary amount of time to read all the primary sources cited by Myles.

But you already issued a blanket statment against his videos in another thread here. "Miles didn't "debunk" anything. His videos are a joke.". And may I remark, this is just as much a broad statment that you never back up.

So the ball is in your park again. Show me where Myles makes his mistakes and we can pick it up from there.

[–] Youwillhateme 9 years ago

Give me something SPECIFIC related to AIDS that debunks the factual assertions by the AIDS skeptics. Let me say it again. Myles episodes are a joke. They don't debunk anything. He doesn't debunk anything. Unless of course you can show me ONE SINGLE thing that he debunks related to AIDS. Not personality issues, film making issues, etc.

Like HIV causes AIDS, the drugs don't do harm etc. Those are what is in main contention here.

Let me get you in on a little secret. It is the responsibility of the people that CLAIM something to prove it. Not people that deny the claim to be true. Do you think it is the defense in a court room to prove not guilty, or the prosecution to prove guilty?

"because I for one lack the scientific background and the will to invest the necessary amount of time to read all the primary sources cited by Myles. ."

You are right about that. And BTW Myles doesn't cite any scientific studies.

Here is a comment from the first episode that sums it up:

"1. first :"debunking" was just a criticism of Brent's quality of his film. Instead this idiot (Myles) tells people to go steal the movie.
2. Second "debunking." was just a criticism of what Christine's credentials she lacks. However, the statement that "No one would tell people to stop taking the drugs" is simply false. Duesberg regularly tells people to stop using the drugs and he is a scientist.
3. Third "debunking." Christine's daughter died from a allergic reaction. You don't know whether that is true or not. You do know that 30K people die a year from pneumonia each year, ALL unrelated to "AIDS." How do you know she didn't just die of pneumonia?

I am still befuddle what exactly you tried to debunk? I was hoping you were gonna "debunk" the science instead of trying attack Christine. This was 16 minutes of personal attacks and baseless statements.

If you would have started on the SCIENCE, I would have continued to watch part 2 etc. This was a waste of time and complete nonsense... All you did was say that "AIDS denialists" promote garbage. That is not an argument, because you base it on NOTHING other than your own general conclusions you were fed by the established medical industry. "

It's right there. Someone pointed out how ridiculous the "debunking" is.

Your turn.

[–] black_dodo_b 9 years ago

To summerize the discussion so far:

- I claim that:

This film outright lies to its viewers on many occasions.

It deliberatly ommits facts that do not suit it's message.

It edits interviews mid-sentence to twist the meaning of a sentence.

It gives a platform to some seriously dangerous nutjobs.

- You claim this isn't true and demand evidence.

- I cite the videos made by miles

- You make the claims that:

Myles does not cite any scientific studies

Duesburg is a good example of someone who knows his stuff that says you not take the drugs

Myles is attacking Christine and the inclusion of Christine in his documentary

There is no evidence that Christine's daughter died of AIDS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So yeah first of all let me address your critizism of the videos:

- Myles does cite a lot of studies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHlztErPVKk
starting at 10min for example, in part six they are even talking soley about all the scientifc evidence there is for the existence of HIV.

- Duesburg is a poor example, because his theory of what AIDS is (not caused by the HIV virus) was appearently refuted by the scientifc community ages ago. I quote one of the papers I found from Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v345/n6277/pdf/345659a0.pdf and from EMBO http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897118/ and by the Lancet http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014067369390421C

- Myles is attacking the fact that Christine was included in this video based on the lack of her scientific background. That is a valid point. If you try to get the point accross that you should not take some drugs, you should have at least a scientist on film telling this. Not just any person.

- The corenor report states that parts of HIV virus was discovered in her brain tissue, that she was underweight and underheight (consistent with cronic illness) and concluded that she died of pneumonia in the setting of advanced AIDS. There was also an independent report that concluded that it was an AIDS related illness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let me defend my initial statments:

I will use Myles as a source and link you to the relevant section. I will just give one example for each claim I made.

"The film outright lies" - One guy interviewed in this film talks about a study und sais noone contracted HIV in this study. This was an outright lie ... you yourself can read this here http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/4/350.full.pdf. If you someone you interview is making such an easy to check claim, you ought to check it before including in your movie. Or even easier, just talk to the scientist who made this study when you are already interviewing her as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHlztErPVKk5:00

"It deliberatly omitted facts" - The film never sais one word about the death of her Christines daughter. The corenor and an independant medical examiner conclude both that her daughter died of AIDS, yet the film does not mention this. This should be a important fact to include when you interview someone who tells you not to take meds.

"edits interviews mid sentence" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqnBM0i7_yQ starting from 05:06

"dangerous nutjobs" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHlztErPVKk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

your turn.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

Whoops, I suggested Myles Powers to YouWillHateMe, but I see he is happy staying delusional, so what a waste of time.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]