Neville Hodgkinson on a new film that challenges the tenets of the Aids religion and exposes the dangerous confusion at the heart of the industry Seiko is collaborating with leaders and innovators in a variety of fields to celebrate the release of the Ananta Collection
It is against this backdrop that Brent Leung, a young filmmaker, has released House of Numbers, a 90-minute documentary that presents such a strong and clear challenge to the orthodoxy that it demands our attention. It has picked up awards at five American film festivals, yet this acclaim followed a comprehensive trashing in sections of the mainstream media once the charge of ‘denialist’ was raised. It deserves to find a place in a wider scientific debate about Aids, rather than being lazily dismissed as a contribution to so-called ‘denialism’.
Part of its power lies in the fact that it shows the lack of consensus about Aids and HIV. The founding fathers of the Aids-HIV link are interviewed, and shown to be dramatically at odds with one another, even over basic questions such as how to validate a diagnosis of HIV infection. Many of these leading figures tell us that infection with HIV means certain death: that once someone is infected through a single act of intercourse or a dirty needle, their immune cells are gradually killed off until they become defenceless against a wide range of conditions, eventually dying of full-blown Aids.
But this is dramatically challenged by Professor Luc Montagnier, awarded the Nobel Prize last year for discovering what came to be known as HIV. Attempting to counter years of doom-laden interpretations of his team’s findings, he tells Leung that a healthy immune system can quickly overcome the virus. His exchange with his interviewer is worth repeating here.
‘We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system,’ the scientist says. Leung responds: ‘If you take a poor African who’s been infected and you build up their immune system, is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?’ Nodding, Montagnier replies, ‘I would think so.’ Then: ‘It’s important knowledge which is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccine.’ Leung remarks that there is no money in nutrition. ‘There’s no profit, yes,’ replies Montagnier.
More articles from: Neville Hodgkinson | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
It’s time to tackle student Islamists
Michael BurleighConfessions of a middle-class anarchist
Harry MountFor Pakistan, America is the enemy
Christina Lamb1 The phosphorus cloud over Ha'aretz - Melanie Phillips
2 Another blow for the climate change lobby: Prince Charles
3 By the waters of denial they sit and weep... - Melanie Phillips
4 Amnesty International, Moazzam Begg and the Bravery of Gita Sahgal - Martin Bright
5 American tea-party dishes hopey-changey thing - Melanie Phillips
1 Another blow for the climate change lobby: Prince Charles (62)
2 American tea-party dishes hopey-changey thing - Melanie Phillips (58)
3 Why give money to charity when they shaft what they purport to defend? - Rod Liddle (42)
4 Dying for new roads? - Melanie Phillips (26)
5 More news from the un-level playing field - Susan Hill (21)
WELCOME TO LOVE GENERATIONS Online dating for the over 50s An online dating site for single men and women in
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2010 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
JTD
October 25th, 2009 12:48am Report this commentCan you explain why the movie House of Numbers features Christine Maggiore so prominently but only mentions her death at the end as if trying to sneak this fact by the audience? Also, why does the film not delve into her death? This is one major flaw (of many) in this film. It is a glaring reason to question other supposed "facts" in this film.
JTD
Back to top