Sadly Over-hyped

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This documentary can be summed up in one word: controversial. Although some justifiable criticisms have been made of it, if the people who made it and those who appear in it - particularly Peter Duesberg - are not being entirely honest, they are far from the only ones.In fact, I interviewed Duesberg last year, and I have to say I found him 100% sincere. That doesn't mean he is right, but the principal contentions of this film have yet to be refuted. Let us for the moment ignore the existence or non-existence of HIV, what can we say for certain?Not everybody is equally at risk. AIDS is not an epidemic, at least not in the West. There are no universal criteria; if you have influenza in London, you have influenza everywhere else. The same cannot be said for AIDS or HIV.The pathology of AIDS is strikingly different in different parts of the world. And, for all the countless billions spent on research, we are no nearer to finding a cure now than we were back in the 1980s.Having said that, AIDS has been and continues to be big business, including for the condom industry; incidentally, condoms do more to spread sexual diseases than to protect against them due to something called risk compensation behaviour, which is never mentioned by either the condom or the AIDS industries.Another big name who appears herein is Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis. It is, or should be clear, whatever else they are, that so-called AIDS denialists are not to be classed with Creationists must less Flat Earthers, though you wouldn't think so if you listened to the AIDS establishment.

It seems that one of Brent Leung's motives for this documentary is to convince us that HIV does not cause AIDS. Ridiculous. Dr. Ronald Swanstrom, retrovirologist, discovered and isolated the glycol Gag proteins of HIV. (Glyco-Gag proteins can be considered as nonstructural retroviral proteins.) This allowed other scientists to create the antiretrovirals that target these HIV proteins and keep the virus from replicating. If there was no HIV virus then these same antiretrovirals would be ineffective. Even a grade schooler could figure this out-if there is no virus then the medicine to treat that virus would be useless. Mr. Leung seems to be proud of the fact that after his documentary was released, some countries cut their HIV funds. Why would any decent human being be proud of that? The drug companies probably love him. They can use this documentary as an excuse to get the pressure off of them to provide the people of Africa with free antiretrovirals. I wonder if Mr Leung didn't have a hinden agenda. Perhaps he is a member of one of those religious groups who believe gays and people who have sex before marriage should be punished.

On the plus side, it's a wonderful demonstration of how compelling blatantly incorrect theories can be, using misquoted experts and ignoring well-known contradictions.In addition to the glaring omissions that JC from the UK pointed out here on 3 March 2010, many more can be found on Wikipedia, which denialists shockingly don't seem to be keen on "correcting": See WikiPedia's "AIDS_denialism" and "Misconceptions_about_HIV_and_AIDS".For example, the film points to the theory that Poppers were the root cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma in the original US gay community, but those Wikipedia pages point to real studies that conclusively disprove that theory. The film does not mention this.Also, two of the interviewed experts (Constantine and Weiss) explain how they were completely misquoted and misrepresented: See google for "constantine and weiss pinpoint misrepresentations"The idea of inaccurate HIV testing seemed to play a large role in the film, even though studies show it is 99.9% accurate. (I'm not sure if this includes PCR tests, which perhaps are 100% conclusive?) The film does not mention this.Also, the film refers to Padian's study on HIV transmission, but completely misrepresents it, as she herself explains: (See: "HIV heterosexual transmission and the Padian paper myth". Basically, she says the study was specifically analyzing safe-sex interventions (condom usage in couples), and simply showed the effectiveness of condoms, not the non-transmissibility of the virus. The film deceptively hides this piece of information.)The film is highly deceptive, and outright false on most of it's critical points. But it was an entertaining and compelling narrative while it lasted.

This outstanding documentary film puts into perspective why untold billions of dollars are spent on a wishy-washy, broadly defined syndrome with admittedly no cures insight, pills that have not saved one person and failure after utter failure to find a vaccine in almost 30 years."I think HIV has totally not turned out to be the cause of AIDS, HIV has turned out not to be." said Neville Hodgkinson, the British journalist in the film. His statement seems the most fitting expression one comes away with.Luckily, after all these years, we have the filmmaker to thank for getting the orthodox mainstay to lay out their words tantamount to the Holy Bible for all those to witness. Remarkable and revealing.However, in today's world, The HIV/AIDS bandwagon keeps marching along. Sad but true, but is there light at the end of the tunnel? I think so.