Talk:House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic

Christine Maggiore
Is Christine Maggiore really the focus of the interviews, or is it the larger question of alack of consensus among AIDS scientists? Why would the Huffington Post and the Spectator be considered invalid links, but Bay Windows be a legitimate one? The reverts were clearly not done in good faith. Mister Hospodar (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits to the lead
Updated information and references to make the article less biased. Both positive and negative viewpoints are covered, whereas the previous version seemed to be a biased POV against the film only. Neuromancer (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted these edits. I see a couple of problems here:
 * "Most of the scientific community agrees that HIV is the cause of AIDS." No, the scientific community agrees on that, in the same way that the scientific community agrees that hepatitis C virus is the cause of hepatitis C, and that the Earth is roundish. The current AIDS denialist movement is not part of the scientific community, and operates entirely outside of it.
 * There are dozens, if not hundreds, of local film festivals. It is not clear how notable the cited awards are. Is there any independent, third-party coverage describing awards won by the film? The available third-party references don't seem to point to any such awards, but please correct me if I'm wrong on that.
 * Taking Luc Montaignier out of context is a very common pastime on AIDS-denialist websites and propaganda, but it's not one that we need to perpetuate on Wikipedia, which aims to be a serious, respectable reference work.
 * Thoughts? MastCell Talk 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Montagnier's quote is a significant part of the film. It is an accurate quote from a notable individual on the topic of HIV, and he is in the film. As far as the references, they are what they are.
 * The reliability of the film festival web sites should not be in question. The awards were won, and they are published on the respective web sites. I am unaware of any third party web sites which review film festivals... Here is an interesting review of the film however, which I am sure you will disagree with including on the article., and here is a review by the Cambridge Film Festival which was written for the Cambridge Film Festival daily newspaper. Furthermore, I did not post any biased reviews of the film. Whether or not the film festivals are "notable" in and of themselves, is I suppose a matter of personal opinion, but I am not claiming that they are work renowned festivals. I am merely stating that they granted the awards.
 * If you feel that the wording should be revised to remove "Most of," I won't argue. I might just do that myself.
 * Neuromancer (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Who says that Montaignier's quote is a significant part of the film? You? The film's promotional material? Do any independent, third-party sources identify the quote as important or notable? In fact, the available third-party sources simply note that a number of respected scientists complained bitterly about the film's dishonest portrayal of their views. That is what belongs in the article, since the goal is to create a neutral, encyclopedic entry rather than a recapitulation of the film's press packet. Citing an AIDS-denialist blog is a non-starter as far as improving this article. Citing a capsule from a questionably notable film festival isn't a huge improvement, but could at least be discussed. You seem to be confusing "reliability" with relevance and notability. I'm sure that some film festivals screened the film - I'm just not sure how notable or relevant those festivals, and those screenings, are - and the festival websites don't help sort that out. MastCell Talk 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is in the film! Are you denying that he said it? It's plastered all over You Tube. Where are the references to the film's dishonesty? I am stating facts... Not putting a spin on them. The film won the awards. Montagnier said what he said. Why are you deleting that information? Neuromancer (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG, this is reprehensible. I cannot believe what I am reading.  This gang of thugs has deleted Nueromancer's comments to suppress the fact that the movie won any awards, when in fact it won many, on the patently absurd pretense that the film festivals do not exist or cannot be verified, and have determined that Luc Montagnier's quote should be deleted because it was taken 'out of context'.  Really?  This was the quote:  "We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected."  How on God's green earth was that taken out of context?  Do you hold the belief that Montagnier in fact does not believe that one can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected?  You would have to hold that belief in order to think that statement was taken out of context.  Montangnier also believes, and has always believed since the early 80s, in co-factors other than HIV being necessary for AIDS.  MastCell doesn't seem to think that that quote is relevant in any way.  Luc Montagnier is only the officially credited *co-discoverer* of HIV, whose place in the AIDS Establishment is beyond question, who believes that HIV requires cofactors and that one can be repeatedly exposed to HIV without being chronically infected.  No, that is not relevant in the discussion of a movie that questions the the HIV theory, when that very quote was in the movie.  The death of Christine Maggiore on the other hand, now there is something around which the entire discussion of the movie should revolve.  I really am trying not to use language that is too inflammatory.  But can I be truthful for a moment?  What I am about to say is truly motivated by my attempt to describe what is happening here in the most accurate and poignant way I know how, and not to be inflammatory.  This is *disgusting*.  I am truly sickened by this. It reveals the true nadir of human nature. For a group of people to stand puppy-guarding this article, ready to strong-arm any individual who holds a view in alignment with the view espoused by the movie, *in the Wikipedia article about the movie*, on the trumped up basis that any such view is biased or 'fringe', and only does so through sheer force of numbers, in an attempt to suppress the open and rational discussion of the failed theory of AIDS, on which human lives depend, is truly beneath contempt.  Denali8  16 April 2015


 * I agree it is absolutely relevant. Montaignier is an important figure in this area and his comments are obviously an important part of the film. It is so silly, Wikipedia has become increasingly a place for orthodoxy where consenting ideas are silenced. 129.78.233.211 (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Montagnier out of context ?
Here is the uncut footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4

I can't see how that can be taken out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.138.229 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This might answer your question. Of course, since talk pages aren't for general debate, none of this really belongs here, but since you brought it up... MastCell Talk 00:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * MC, that's an interesting source. Bob Gallo also has a statement there. I'm wondering if the website would be a reliable source for Gallo's opinion... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see Montagnier cited or mentioned at all in the article. __meco (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is clearly not taken out of context - and in the uncut footage on youtube, Montagnier also mentions that the information is "a little different" from what the interviewer might have heard elsewhere. This discussion here is not a general debate as MastCell tried to imply, but a specific discussion relating to the article and subject in question - precisely the purpose of this page. The only thing out of place on this page is applying patterns like guilt by association with "deniers" instead of looking at the subject matter. Also not sure how the interview can be seen as not being a key part of the film when it is one of the closing quotes and the central part of it repeated again as the first interjection during the credits. My recommendation would be to watch the entire film before entering the discussion here to keep it on point and productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.109.160 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tags
I removed POV tags that were placed with little explanation and no apparent justification. I emphasise that Wikipedia articles can be "positive" or "negative" only to the extent they properly accord weight to reliable sources. We can't expect to balance "negative" reviews by the New York Times, The Guardian, and Lancet with blog comments, etc. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Award winning
Is there third-party indication this film has won prominent awards? Without third-party coverage, it's difficult to justify inclusion of these claims in the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss where and how the awards should be covered. Every mid-sized town in the US has a film festival, and without third-party coverage, awards won at these festivals are not notable. I would not oppose mention of awards in the article, but putting this in the lead is misleading and distracts from why the film is notable: the controversy it's started. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ok once I provide third party links for the awards will this be ok? how much proof do you want? its clear HON won these awards, it would seen nothing is good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcher70 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Provide the links and everyone can evaluate them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

http://theindiegathering.com/2009winners.htm http://www.docuwestfest.com/2009festivalawards.html

I tried to use this link but my edit was removed. http://www.houseofnumbers.com/about-house-of-numbers/laurels

TO be honest the article is very biased houseofnumbers.org and aidstruth are hardly neutral, yet these are used for references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcher70 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * These are not third-party sources. (Zdrasti, Boris.) Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not heard of these film festivals, are there reliable third-party sources to show that they are notable? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So where did The Spectator article go? Sarcher70 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not a Spectator article. It was a blog comment. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

will you accept www.rethinkingaids.com or http://www.aras.ab.ca/ if I ref articles there or is this fringe? Sarcher70 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They're fringe. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry you didnt say, are AIDSTRUTH fringe? is a simple question.Sarcher70 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sarcher70, you seem to be having trouble understanding some of Wikipedias basic rules for including material in an article, instead of having to ask about each source you want to include I suggest that you please review the following Wikipedia policies and guidlines: WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:SOURCES. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was asking because every source I add gets removed, so maybe the question is what can I add? negative comments about House of Numbers would make the grade I suspect. Clark Baker hit the nail right on the head when he wrote about wiki, i'll suppy a ref for you or isnt it Noble enough http://exlibhollywood.blogspot.com/2010/01/wikipedia-doesnt-like-me.html Sarcher70 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * epic troll(Clark Baker), also not relevent. The reason many of the sources you have submitted have been removed is that they fail to meet wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Further complicating the issue you seem to be trying to push an agenda of AIDS denial, since Aids denial is a fringe theory consideration that might be given to less controversial claims and allow less rigorous sourcing are not given to your claims; extraordinary claims must be back by strong sources, which you have failed to provide. A careful reading of the relevent policies should make this clear. As always the primary goal here is to build an encyclopedia, telling us how much you (or clark baker) hates wikipedia is not helping and is unlikely to win you any friends here. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, look at this everyone. Sarcher70 has been trying to include the awards that House of Numbers won.  But his edits keep getting deleted. Over and over. Gee, why is that?  What is happening?  I guess poor Sarcher70 just couldn't find a source that legitimized the film festivals in a way that that satisfied the requirements of the authors that support the HIV theory of AIDS.  They called his references 'fringe'.  Do you want to know if the Las Vegas Film Festival is real?  You could always go to their own website:  http://www.lvff.com/.   Perhaps that reference, the official website of the Las Vegas Film Festival, is too 'fringe'.  No wait, Voiceofreason01 has articulated another issue that he says 'further complicates' Sarcher70's failed attempts to post anything that doesn't get deleted.  Sarcher70 seems to be 'trying to push' the view that HIV does not cause AIDS.  And that view is 'fringe' and therefore anything supporting it, or even suspected of being related to a person motivated by it, must meet an especially high burden, which unfortunately voiceofreason01 and his cronies have unilaterally decided he has not met.  What a shame.  Better luck next time Sarcher70.  Of course we need not be bothered by the fact that the view that HIV does not cause AIDS is precisely the *view of the movie that this article is about*.  No, a point of view in alignment with the movie that *this article is about*, *in the article that talks about the movie*, is by definition unacceptable as fringe.  That is HIV science and HIV reasoning - a loathsome conglomerate of bigotry, bias, fear, bullying by numbers and a detest for reason.  This user's handle - voiceofreason01, reminds me of the sign on the Auschwitz entrance - 'Arbeit Macht Frei'.

I am not here to make friends here, but I will pass on the comments you made about Clark Baker, thank you Sarcher70 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This: "I will pass on the comments you made about Clark Baker" sounds a lot like a very thinly veiled legal threat; per Wikipedia policy I have to ask whether that is how you intended this comment. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post
Leung's response to criticism in the Huffington Post has been removed. The Huff is hardly fringe, but Badscience is in which Ben Goldacre comments. The link offered up goes to Badscience. So please re-instate my additions or I will do so. The LA Times is hardly fringe either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R4sky (talk • contribs) 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is biased and not objective
The pseudo terms 'denilaism' or 'denialist' are preconceived assumptions designed to smear the underlying topic as discredited or not worthy of investigation.

In this case and article particularly the so called 'denialists' don't actually believe AIDS does not exist but conclude there are other reasons for the affliction. Therefore the term AIDS 'denialism' should itself be discredited.

The correct term is HIV theory 'dissidence' in that a large scientific consensus has come to the conclusion that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

This article should be flagged accordingly.


 * This description meets the definition. From the article AIDS denialism


 * "AIDS denialism is the view held by a loosely connected group of persons and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Some denialists reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but say that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS. Insofar as denialists acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of recreational drug use, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and side effects of antiretroviral medication, rather than infection with HIV."


 * Your objections would be better addressed there first. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. Did you really just answer that objection by referencing a Wikipedia article on 'AIDS Denialism'?  Are you going to tell us next that God exists because it says so in the Bible?  The HIV Theory is like a mollusk.  It tries to cling on desperately to its underwater rock and cannot survive the open air or light of day.  It needs the moist atmosphere of mysticism, repression of free thought, name-calling and above all, the suspension of reason in order to breathe and live.  I would think that perhaps it might occur to you that the attempt to justify name-calling in Wikipedia of those that disagree with the HIV theory by referencing an article written in Wikipedia by those who invented the name is not exactly a rational argument based on an objective secondary source.  I would think it would be reasonable to expect you to understand that.  But it is not about reason is it?  The HIV Theory recoils at the sight of reason.  Where HIV goes, idiocy follows as its bodyguards, flanking it on either side, ensuring that the scientific method, critical thought, Koch's postulates, traditional scientific determiners of infectious disease and human intelligence do not get too close, lest it wither and die.  Denali8  16 April 2015

Whoa, this article just bashes the film! Seems to be just a bunch of negative quotes. I would appreciate some actual research, because following the secondary sources just leads to movie reviews that dismiss everything. Were there ANY positive receptions?! Everything is negative! This is totally biased!96.253.119.205 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The film has been praised by almost everyone I know who has seen it, won numerous awards at film festivals and received at least one positive review from a mainstream newspaper. It is interesting how none of this is mentioned in the article though. Ponzi Nemesis (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Another obvious bias: the paragraph "Scientific community" includes the bashing from a journalist! (Ben Goldacre, writing in The Guardian). Since when are journalists considered medical scientists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.245 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 June 2012
 * When they are also physicians, like Goldacre very obviously is. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, this whole article is unacceptably biased and unbalanced. 129.78.233.211 (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not false balance, so when the vast majority of coverage is negative, the article will reflect that. This is not the same as "bias". Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Funding from AIDS-denialist organization
In this edit, I removed information describing funding for the documentary from Rethinking AIDS, an AIDS-denialist organization. Obviously, this information is interesting, since it makes the film's claims of objectivity and independence look rather ridiculous. However, my concern is that at present it's sourced only to the organization's tax returns. I'm not sure that tax returns are appropriate sourcing for our articles - if the information were discussed in an independent, secondary source, that would be different, but mining tax returns alone might be going a bit far. On the other hand, primary sources are allowed, so long as they make purely descriptive and easily verified claims. I'm open to thoughts and discussion on the topic... anyone? MastCell Talk 17:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea I've got some thoughts on this topic. I've blown the lid off of this case for you.  I know who it is that has funded the creation of this documentary.  Are you ready for it?  Here it is:  people that disagree with the HIV theory of AIDS.  There you go.  Your suspicions have been confirmed.  Is that what you were seeking to prove?    Denali8


 * I am concerned that that source appears to be an unauthorized and unverified copy of material from Rethinking AIDS. RA states that donations are tax-deductible in the United States, which I think means that a record of their activities is on file somewhere, but even with a full copy then I would like to see a source establishing relevance here. It might be covered by the obvious clause, though, I am not sure. Better would be a source describing all of the funding for this film. Unfortunately, all I managed to find were a few statements that Leung does not disclose his funding . Do you think that this is sufficient to support a sentence along those lines? - 2/0 (cont.) 11:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fair to say that Leung declined to name the film's sponsors, citing the Bay Windows and Nashville Scene articles. If a third-party source commented on the apparent financial link to AIDS-denialist organizations, then it might be worth including, but I'm not aware of any such sources and I'm skeptical that any major news outlet cares enough to do the legwork at this point. So we should leave it out; it's not our place to look through Rethinking AIDS' tax records to establish a link. MastCell Talk 20:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This Article Is Preposterously Biased
The propaganda in this article puts Joseph Goebbels to shame. Are you kidding me with this? Who is responsible for this mockery of objectivity and neutrality? Is it MastCell? How is this article allowed to remain on Wikipedia? It is a an absolute stain on its mission statement. This article is the epitome of bias and baseless opinion.

How does this work exactly? Whoever has the tenacity to keep overwriting previous posts with their own wins? I would have hoped that Wikipedia worked out a better system than that. I would remind the author of this article that when they go to edit it, under Article Policies, Neutral Point of View is one of the requirements. Whoever you are, do you believe that referring to the very large group of people that question the HIV theory, including many award-winning scientists, among them the scientist that first mapped the genome of retroviruses, as 'AIDS Denialists' is neutral? What it is is juvenile. It is a tactic reminiscent of a second grader that doesn't have an argument to stand on and has, in desperation, reverted to name-calling. The author/s of this article know perfectly well that none of the people that reject the HIV theory deny the existence of AIDS. They question the absolutely failed theory that HIV is the cause. This is a very serious matter where lives are at stake. And the authors of this article have decided that name-calling is the most appropriate way to talk about this issue in a public forum. The essence of science is the practice of allowing a theory to take shape in a neutral forum in which critical thinking is encouraged and conclusions are not reached prematurely. If we believe a theory to be correct, we throw it into the Lion's Den of scrutiny and see if it survives. We do not coddle it, protecting its many failures from view, masking them with propaganda as these authors have done. This article is a disgrace to the science it purports to represent.

Let's examine the first section::

"House of Numbers is a 2009 film by Brent Leung espousing AIDS denialism (the view that human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] is harmless and does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS])."

The very first sentence implements name-calling to espouse the biased and absolutely untrue claim that those who question HIV's role in AIDS deny AIDS.

"[1] Leung describes the film as an objective examination of the idea that HIV causes AIDS,[1] whereas the film's claims of impartiality have been widely rejected by scientists and dismissed as pseudo-science and conspiracy theory masquerading as even-handed examination.[2][3][4]"

This is a ridiculous characterization of the response to the film. There are two major groups that have formed that disagree with each other on this topic. One group applauds the film and the others reject it. Only one side is represented here.

"In the film, Leung interviews a range of scientists and AIDS denialists, most notably Christine Maggiore."

The interviewees in this film were not under any possibly conceivable interpretation 'most notably' Christine Maggiore.

"At the time of filming...[].. her death was unrelated to HIV"

To focus the entire second and third paragraphs of this article on the death of Christine Maggiore is absurdly biased. The deaths of Christine Maggiore, her daughter, and much later Kim Brannon, is a topic that certainly merits discussion, and might arguably deserve a place in this article, but not as the centerpiece of it, and would have to acknowledge the essential fact that their profiles looked absolutely nothing like AIDS. Do we all remember in the early 80s when the initial cases of AIDS came in where patients were emaciated and hospitalized for months? The deaths of these people looked nothing like that. Christine Maggiore's daughter in fact had an unusually high Leukocyte count when she suddenly stopped breathing, most likely from a severely acute allergy to medicine she had taken. AIDS has been defined away into an amorphous amalgam of a host of different diseases. But do we not, at the very least, respect the fact that there must be a low T Cell count in order to make a diagnosis of AIDS? If we drop that requirement, then surely we can all agree that there is nothing meaningful left to an AIDS diagnosis.

"A group of scientists interviewed for the film later complained that their comments had been misrepresented and taken out of context, and that the film promotes pseudoscience.[2]"

What group of scientists exactly? The scientists whose reputation and income rely completely on the acceptance of the HIV theory? What about the other group of scientists, Nobel-prize winners, and those who essentially grandfathered the science of retroviruses who do not believe in the HIV theory? Why are they not being represented here?

The article goes on and on like this. It is absolutely unacceptable to post an article like this on Wikipedia. It violates the principles of Wikipedia, which it shares with that of science - neutrality and lack of a politically-driven agenda. To blindly fly in the face of these principles when we are dealing with a conversation we need to have about the success or failure of the HIV theory, on whose objective treatment human lives hang in the balance, is inexcusable. For something like this to exist on Wikipedia, I can only imagine with the enormous money at stake that someone is being paid to continuously overwrite the edits of others, and has probably done so numerous times. Is that what 'knowledge', 'truth' and 'objectivity' have come down to? That opinion which childishly overwrites the others most frequently, by the same author, is the opinion that is the 'objective' one? If Wikipedia isn't better than that, than surely we can be as human beings. Don't allow the truth to be bullied to death. Please speak up against the shameless bias of this article.


 * Godwin's Law right out of the gate, huh? If you start calling other people Nazis, you're going to have a hard time getting those same people to listen to you. This article has dozens of editors, are all of us Nazis, or just the ones you don't agree with? Don't answer that. It looks like you've added a lot of claims and comments, but no reliable sources. Read the sources used in the article, and then address specific points. If you cannot provide reliable, secondary sources commenting on this documentary, please look elsewhere for an outlet for your frustration. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Article pushes a very WP:FRINGE theory not accepted by the relevant scientific experts. As such, it's no shock that the reliable sources are largely negative of it. We should not engage in giving fringe views undue weight. See:


 * WP: FRINGE
 * WP:UNDUE

However, the article is not that good and needs improvements. The content section needs expansion. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of 'AIDS Denialist' and Maggiore's Daughter Edits
I see that the first paragraph was reworded a little bit. The overall impact on the bias of the article was minimal, but I must say it feels good to see that someone made a little bit of an effort. Maybe it is possible that some kind of reasonable middle ground can be reached. As far as fixing this article to get it to the point that it has a neutral point of view, that is a long slog. At any rate, I'm starting here: I removed 'a position known as AIDS Denialism' from the second sentence. I see that someone moved it from the first sentence to the end of the second sentence. I honestly do appreciate the effort guys. But we have to go one small step further with this. You can't name-call in a supposedly objective article about a movie that rejects the HIV Theory of AIDS, and do it in the second sentence. Didn't Grayfell above ask me if I thought he was a Nazi, and then immediately caution me not to answer him, as such an answer would constitute name-calling and therefore be in violation Wikipedia policy? But you want to call those who disagree with the HIV theory of AIDS 'AIDS Denialists' when describing their own movie when you know they don't deny AIDS? Come on, guys. That's intentionally misleading, lying really, name-calling, personally attacking, and let's be honest, just downright immature. If you're interested in furthering your cause of bolstering the credibility of the HIV Theory, you really aren't doing it any favors to engage in that kind of argument. It smells of desperation, honestly. It will help your cause to keep it out. This article is so biased I really don't know where to start, but we need to keep the name-calling, at an absolute minimum, out of it.

The second thing I edited was that I took out the claim that Maggiore's daughter was HIV positive. That is not true. She was never tested while she was alive. The coroner claimed to have found an 'HIV protein' in her brain, and was being sued for that claim later, and was embroiled in a bitter feud with those that believe that HIV does not cause AIDS. If we want to talk about Maggiore's daughter's HIV status, all of that really needs to be dealt with. Thanks. Denali8


 * Thank you for engaging in this discussion in a more civil tone. For the first part, Wikipedia should go by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Many, many reliable sources link the film to AIDS denialism. While that might not be a popular descriptor among some followers of the film, it's widely supported be reliable, secondary sources. According to such sources, the film promotes this WP:FRINGE idea. AIDS denialism refers to a specific set of opinions and beliefs that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, which is also a major point of the film, according to sources. For that reason, the label is appropriate.


 * Obviously, editors are not usually the subject of articles, so the comparison is flawed.


 * Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I found plenty of sources at Christine Maggiore and Eliza Jane Scovill. I've expanded the description of their deaths with some of those sources. As Harizotoh9 pointed out above, however, the actual content section of the film still needs to be expanded, though. MOS:FILM may be useful for this. Grayfell (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking out the inaccuracies with respect to Maggiore's daughter. I think you should remove the name, though.  If you want to keep the link to the Wikipedia page that's fine.  I don't think her father would appreciate another Google result on his daughter's name written by someone that is hostile towards their cause.  I'm not accusing you of being insensitive to that - I understand they are public figures at this point, at least Christine, but I just think it would be a good idea.  For the record, and it's in that Wikipedia link you added, she had a runny nose, was prescribed amoxicillin, and the next day suddenly stopped breathing, and died with an elevated Leukocyte count.  Does that sound like AIDS to you?  AIDS is so amorphous it means almost nothing now, but if we even allow cases with *high* white blood cell counts to be diagnosed as AIDS, than we are truly lost.   The coroner took an HIV test and refused, to this day, to release the results, saying instead that an 'HIV protein', was found in her brain.  All of that is in that Wikipedia link.


 * I removed the name-calling of 'AIDS Denialism'. It's not OK to name-call if you want to pretend to maintain a neutral tone.  Your statement that 'many reliable sources link the film to AIDS Denialism' is non-sensical.  'AIDS Denialism' is not a thing.  It is a name that has been given to those that do not believe that HIV causes AIDS by the people that oppose that view.  It is like calling someone an 'AIDS-Nazi'.  There is absolutely no sense in pretending that something like that can have a 'source' or a 'reference'.  You are literally saying that other people in the past have called a group of people a name, so you want to also.  No one that believes HIV is not the cause of AIDS refers to themselves by that name.  And those of the  public who have yet to make up their mind about the issue, do not either refer to them or think of them as 'AIDS Denialists'.  Even most of those of the public that have made up their mind and disagree with those people do not think of them by that name.  It is a tool of propaganda, dreamed up by somebody that is opposed to those who believe HIV does not cause AIDS, and it is employed solely by those people.  This whole article is still ridiculously biased, and that needs be dealt with another day.  But at an absolute minimum you can't go around name-calling while claiming to be neutral.  It's indefensible.  I'll tell you what - if you can tell me that you truly believe that those that do no believe HIV is the cause of AIDS 'deny' AIDS, then I will let you keep it.  You don't even have to prove that it is true.  You just have to tell me honestly that you believe that.  Fair enough?  If you can't do that, then I can't let you keep it.  If this goes back and forth forever, then I need to flag this article as biased, and to the degree that any independent Wikipedia arbitrators exist in this system, I need to get them involved in this article.


 * The other thing I took out was your statement that:

Rather, she believed that the medication itself caused AIDS.
 * That is simply untrue. None of the people that do not believe HIV causes AIDS think that the sole cause of AIDS is the drugs given for AIDS.  How would that have explained the initial AIDS cases?  Did you think that they thought that?  No one thinks that.  Having said that, AZT definitely kills people.  It is chemotherapy that stops all cells from dividing.  You can't stop all your cells from dividing and expect to live very long.  If you don't believe that, see if you can find a single person that has taken AZT every day for 10 years and is still alive. And unlike traditional chemotherapy, which would kill you if you were always on it, AZT was prescribed to take forever.  The story with the new cocktails is more complex.


 * Finally, you're big on references. But you should understand their limitations in justifying an article.  It isn't really impressive that there is a reference for the fact that Anthony Fauci, Director of the CDC who in the movie laughably flubbed his opportunity to convince the public that he could competently articulate how we know HIV causes AIDS, felt like his statements were 'taken out of context'.  He is the Director of the CDC.  I don't think any of us should feel sorry for him for blowing his opportunity on camera to convince us that he knew what he was talking about.  What about your choice to talk about how those scientists were whining about that, and not to show the point of view of the other scientists?  What about your choice to make Christine Maggiore the centerpiece of your article?  What about your choice to delete Nueromancer's And Shyman70's additions to this article which cited the many awards won by this show and that included Montangier's very relevant comments?  What about your choice to include the reactions of the scientists that believe in the HIV theory that very predictably had bad things to say about the film, as their livelihood revolves around the acceptance of the HIV theory, but to exclude the way the movie was applauded by the other camp, which has references, and the way that it was very favorably accepted by the general public as evidenced by the many film festivals that is won, a fact that not only did you not include but actively deleted when Nueromancer and Shyman70 tried to add?  *Where are the references for those things?*  It is the content, the structure and the framing of this article that is so objectionable, which cannot be judged or justified by references.  This article finds people entrenched on one side of the debate, references articles where they talk about their side, and completely omits those opinions, receptions, etc on the other side of the debate.  What is even worse is that you are engaging in the dark-ages anti-science practice of removing the statements with references that come from the other side of the debate on the basis that, because they are not the current majority view, that they are therefore 'fringe' and not reliable.  True science detests such a practice.  Science is the opposite of that.  It is the practice of *embracing the minority/new theory's candidacy* and giving it a neutral, unbiased shake, evaluating it on the merits and *not* on a headcount of what people currently believe.  You earlier make a reference to the fact that the 'earth is roundish' as an example of a truth that we now know.  But had you been in charge of the proverbial Wikipedia articles of that day, we may never have discovered that.  You would have been working day and night deleting any references to that possibility, denouncing all of them as 'fringe' because they represented a minority viewpoint.  Whether you are aware of this now, you are acting as a sort of Sentinel of the Old Order, trying to assure that the incumbent view not change, literally on no other basis than the claim that any new view is not the incumbent view and is therefore 'fringe'.  That was the state of the world in the dark ages.  The rejection of that practice, or at least the intended rejection of it, was the beginning of science.  What you are promoting is not only psuedo-science, it is anti-science.  It is a return to the days of science-by-numbers, science-by-politics.  I would like you to consider dropping the headcount behind deciding whether a reference is 'reliable' or not, and evaluate it on the merits, and disengage in the anti-science concept of rejecting all minority viewpoints on the sole basis of their minority position, for which you employ the term 'fringe'.


 * If you truly believe in in the practice of sorting out the truth by relying on references that prove their points on the merits, which I also believe in, then I have a challenge for you. I would like to ask you, in front of whomever is reading this, to provide the reference for the assertion that HIV causes AIDS.  That is your entire basis after all, for your objection to this movie, is it not?  You know that HIV causes AIDS and the people in the other camp don't understand what you understand, correct?  And you engage in the practice of using 'reliable sources' for your claims and to distinguish what is false from what is true on that basis, right?  So let's hear it.  What is your reference for the claim that HIV causes AIDS?  I don't expect to be giving you a homework assignment that takes weeks to complete.  This should be an easy one for you.  On the other hand, I would expect that you not blow this and give a reference that is based on headcount, or an anecdotal story, or a tautological definition of AIDS which includes HIV.  I would ask for some semblance of scientific evidence.  It really should not be hard to find.. you find a study that employs a solid definition of AIDS, and takes 100 subjects in the same risk group/behaviors with HIV and 100 subjects without and shows that no one in the without group has AIDS.  Pretty basic.  Something like that.  Can you do that?  If you can't do that, then I really don't respect your purported commitment to references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.176.15 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015


 * It might be helpful to be more concise. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. This article should not be turned into a coat-rack to discuss the greater topic of HIV/AIDs denialism. There are hundreds of sources linking HIV to AIDS, and if you are looking for a specific one, there are 261 used for HIV/AIDS and 122 at HIV, so that might be a good place to start. You're also confused about who I am, and the editing history of this article. I don't know who those other editors are, neither of those are registered user names, and I have not edited this article until recently, anyway. Grayfell (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no original research in my comments. Where are you purporting that that exists?


 * So let me understand this correctly. You delete various users' attempts to show that House of Numbers won many awards, on the basis that the official website of the Las Vegas Film Festival is not a 'reliable source' of the existence of the Las Vegas Film Festival but you CANNOT GIVE A REFERENCE for the assertion that HIV causes AIDS?  The Wikipedia link you give has only three references (1,2 and 3) for the assertion that HIV causes AIDS:

"AIDS—the first 20 years" (2010) Modern infectious disease epidemiology concepts, methods, mathematical models, and public health (Online-Ausg. ed.). New York: Springer. p. 88. ISBN 9780387938356. Encyclopedia of public health. New York: Springer. pp. 676–677. ISBN 9781402056130.


 * History books, general summary books of medicine, wow. Restatements of the establishment's position.  Not a single study or anything remotely scientific.  The rest of the links on that page are all about various other topics. All of this work you're doing deleting everyone's attempts to add other points of view to this article and you don't even have a REFERENCE, or a BASIS for your believe that HIV causes AIDS? And you're trying to bolster the reliability of your edits based on your disciplined practice of using references and reliable sources? The best you can do is point to a Wikipedia page that does not itself have references for that assertion?  Looks like the foundation of your entire position has just disappeared.  Did you have a reason why you believed that HIV causes AIDS other than the fact that other people believe it?  If not, what are you doing here?  Why are you spending time deleting everyone's attempts to fix this broken article if you yourself have no independent basis for your own beliefs?  If you haven't edited the article until recently, and you don't have an opinion on the matter based on any evidence, you should really to go back now to your former lack of involvement with it.
 * Denali8


 * Still have no idea what you're talking about regarding the awards. I didn't remove any such comments about awards. Yes, I am restating the establishment's position, because that's exactly what Wikipedia is for. It's an encyclopedia that summarizes the positions held by reliable sources. See Scientific consensus. You're asking me to provide a source for something that is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific mainstream for an article about a documentary film. This is not the place to have that debate. Please refrain from edit warring about this or any other issue. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was MastCell that deleted Nueromancer's attempt and KeepCalmAndCarryOn that deleted Sarcher70s attempts to include the awards. Do you disagree with those actions?  Read through the history and you can see the ridiculous justifications that were given for that.  Don't respond arguing with everything I say, defending your indefensible positions, and then tell me not to 'edit war' with you.  If you don't want to be involved in an edit war, and you have, by your own admission, absolutely no independent source for your own beliefs on the topic you are writing about, then pack it up and move on to something that you know something about.  You had a chance to put up or shut up regarding whether you have any basis at all to hold a belief that is the absolute foundation of your opinion - whether or not HIV causes AIDS, and you failed.  What's more you have just recoiled into the position that you go with whatever the majority thinks on the topic, and that is all that Wikipedia should ever represent because it is an encyclopedia designed only to represent the majority opinion and not give neutral treatment to both sides of an ongoing debated topic.  How truly lame.  You should really just stop your involvement with this article if that is your position.
 * Please stop the battleground attitude. Wikipedia gives due weight as accorded by reliable sources, and in the case of AIDS denialism, reliable sources and the scientific/medical community has come to the conclusion there is no merit to that position, and that is how we will neutrally present it. Asking others to leave this page is not civil and further disruptive behavior can lead to sanctions.  This talk page is for improvement of this article, it is not a forum to discuss AIDS denialism in general, and is most certainly not a venue to promote it.  Further attempts to promote this viewpoint should be removed per our talk page guidelines. Yobol (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Who are you Yobol? Have you made contributions to this article?  Why do you use the term 'we' and 'our' as if you worked for Wikipedia or were part of an organized group working on this article together?  Your statement that the 'medical community has come to the conclusion that there is no merit to the position' is absolutely false.  Thousands of scientists and medical doctors denounce the theory.  Perhaps you do not then, by definition, consider them as part of the 'scientific/medical community' because of that fact?  Are you doubting my motivation in this talk page for improving the article?  I try to improve it, my edits get deleted, I explain my edits, they get deleted, and then you question that I am trying to improve the article?  That's why I'm here.  You say you want to stop a 'battleground attitude', but you want to threaten me with 'sanctions', whatever that means, if you detect an anti-HIV Theory sentiment in the talk section of an article about a movie that opposed the HIV Theory of AIDS.  Are you kidding me?  If there is an actual enforceable mechanism of 'sanctions' here then I need to employ them myself.  Please do not name-call on a supposedly neutral wikipedia page.  Please do not delete references to the film's awards on the film's wikipedia page because you, in bad faith, claim to doubt the existence of the film festivals.  Please do not in bad faith make Christine Maggiore the centerpiece of an article about a movie in which she is one small part.  Do not delete users' entries relating to Luc Montangier, the co-discover of HIV who was featured in the movie because it does not make your position look good.  If there is an actual 3rd party wikipedia arbitrator that can involve themselves in this mockery of an article, and impose sanctions and revert edits made in bad faith, then please by all means I would love nothing more than for them to show up.  Certainly if anyone tries to delete my comments in the talk section, I will impose sanctions for that if such a process actually exists and can be enforced.  Again, you like Greyfill, quoted due weight based on reliable sources.  You claim to hinge everything on that.  So do you have a reliable source for your position that HIV causes AIDS?  In an effort to improve this article, I think it needs to be added if you have such a reference.  It is the foundation for your entire position.   Denali8
 * You're just as capable of looking at the medical literature as anyone else. If you don't believe that there are any reliable sources demonstrating that HIV causes AIDS, then there's nothing I or anyone is going to be able to say that will convince you. You're not the first person to try to use Wikipedia to promote AIDS denialism, but this isn't the right venue and I don't think you'll be successful. MastCell Talk 05:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Mastcell, you said:

You're just as capable of looking at the medical literature as anyone else.

So are you deferring to my opinion on the matter then? In my opinion it doesn't exist.

If you don't believe that there are any reliable sources demonstrating that HIV causes AIDS, then there's nothing I or anyone is going to be able to say that will convince you.

You know what? That is really not true. TRY ME. Honestly. I'll take anything *remotely reasonable*. REALLY. So far neither you, Greyfill or Yobol - or any of your pro-HIV gang has been able to find a reference for this. And your guys' pro-HIV PR article really needs it. You want to convince the world that HON isn't deserving of the MANY film festival awards it won and praise it got in many newspapers, all of which you have *actively suppressed and deleted in bad faith* when others tried to add those facts? You want to somehow excuse the irreversable blunders that the leaders of the AIDS establishment made on camera in the movie when given open-ended simple questions about the HIV theory, with the excuses that their statements were taken 'out of context', and you want to not be criticized for deleting those references as well? Then at the very least make the statement somewhere in the article that HIV does in fact cause AIDS and back it up with a reliable source. If HIV causes AIDS, how hard would that be? Of course, I'll assume that you understand a reliable source is not an anecdotal story, evidence which relied on a definition of AIDS which included HIV, or restatements of establishment opinion. Seriously - a simple study that took 50 people from similar risk groups with HIV and 50 without and looked at whether AIDS was contracted only in one group would do. A study where the disease was transferred to an animal host. How about the age-old medical community's established criteria for microbial disease of Koch's Postulates? ANYTHING REASONABLE that might prove HIV causes AIDS.

You're not the first person to try to use Wikipedia to promote AIDS denialism

Who are you calling an 'AIDS denialist'? I hope you're not referring to me. Don't ever call me that, seriously. It's offensive and absolutely untrue. I fully recognize AIDS. If there is anyone in this conversation that denies AIDS, it's you. I'm not the one that endorses an AIDS diagnosis with complete disregard to T Cell count or immune system function as you have done in the case of Maggiore's daughter. Or believes that it is a heterosexual disease on one continent and a 90% male one on another. I'm not the one that believes that it is sometimes cancer (KS and Lymphoma) and sometimes immune system failure and sometimes dementia, depending largely on what risk group you come from, and that the 'latency period' is likely to be 5 years or 75 years depending on your risk group. To believe all of that, as you do, you need to deny the reality of AIDS. I have respect and understanding for the disease's real boundaries and symptoms. I understand that it is an immune system failure.

but this isn't the right venue

You guys keep saying that. Making comments that demonstrate a disbelief in the HIV Theory in an attempt to improve this article do not belong here.. in a Wikipedia article *about a movie that questions the HIV Theory*? No.. I would say YOUR comments, and certainly your wholesale bashing of film, and squeezing out every voice that agrees with the premise of the film by deleting their edits in bad faith.. that behavior and that sentiment does not belong here. Denali8 21 April 2015. — Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Seriously - a simple study that took 50 people from similar risk groups with HIV and 50 without and looked at whether AIDS was contracted only in one group would do."


 * How about a cohort of gay men - 365 with HIV and 350 without, followed for a median of 8.6 years? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8095571 On A Leash (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821045350/http://www.aidstruth.org/news/2009/christine-maggiore-died-aids to http://www.aidstruth.org/news/2009/christine-maggiore-died-aids
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103172503/http://www.aidstruth.org/new/sites/default/files/maggiore-death-certificate.pdf to http://www.aidstruth.org/new/sites/default/files/maggiore-death-certificate.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821045350/http://www.aidstruth.org/news/2009/christine-maggiore-died-aids to http://www.aidstruth.org/news/2009/christine-maggiore-died-aids

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)