11

The film House of Numbers has had some quite mainstream backers including (for a brief time) an journalist at the New Humanist magazine.

In House of Numbers, an AIDS film like no other, the HIV/AIDS story is being rewritten. This is the first film to present the uncensored POVs of virtually all the major players[...]

What is the evidence agains House of Numbers, and AIDS denialists in general?

Mad Scientist
  • 43,669
  • 20
  • 174
  • 192
Richard Stelling
  • 5,694
  • 8
  • 49
  • 93
  • To moderators here using name calling such as 'denalist' is ok. You don't agree with us, you're in denial. But if you for some reason try to label the group, using a word to accurately describe their behavior (conformism), your comments gets censored. –  Aug 12 '12 at 17:45
  • 1
    @dan, the word “denialist” is used uniformly to describe somebody who denies something against better wisdom; in this case: against an overwhelming amount of high-quality scientific evidence which has led to a consensus in a field. That is not the same as name-calling. Neither is “conformist”, when used appropriately: which does not mean somebody who follows a consensus of said evidence, but someone who follows a consensus without regarding, or looking for, contradicting evidence. – Konrad Rudolph Aug 13 '12 at 09:18
  • What's roughly the case of "House of Numbers"? – Christian Aug 16 '12 at 20:18
  • 1
    The title of this question doesn't match the body. Are you asking "Does this film deny that HIV causes AIDS?" or "Is there evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, as posed in this film?" – Oddthinking Jul 19 '13 at 15:30
  • Very related: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/10435/is-hiv-the-cause-of-aids – nico Jul 19 '13 at 16:12

2 Answers2

20

The evidence against the belief that HIV doesn't cause AIDS (claimed by AIDS denialists and the film) is the evidence for HIV as a cause for AIDS. There is strong evidence for this, including:

  • In all parts of the world, people with AIDS also have HIV.

  • If people who have HIV (which can be determined as reliably as any viral infection) are not treated, they show signs of AIDS within 5-10 years.

  • People who have HIV infected blood transfusions develop AIDS and people who have blood transfusions not infected by HIV don't.

  • Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV-infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected

  • In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell that becomes depleted in people with AIDS.

  • Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%.

sources

pyvi
  • 105
  • 5
david4dev
  • 3,227
  • 3
  • 22
  • 15
  • In all parts of the world, people with HIV do not have AIDS. 2. Lots of people live with HIV without "treatment" and they do not show any signs of AIDS. 3. Most children who develop AIDS are on HIV medication (that randomly attacks RNA in your body and thus creates AIDS). 4 and 5. I have to read those studies.
    • –  Aug 12 '12 at 15:01
  • 4
    @dan-klasson An answer with sources would be more helpful than an unsourced comment. – Brendan Long Aug 13 '12 at 03:51
  • This answer was posted before the requirement for references was enforced. Please help it by adding references. – Oddthinking Jul 19 '13 at 15:28
  • @user8150 - just saw your comment from a year ago, but I'm very curious about your point 3. If Aids is caused by HIV medication, then without HIV medication there would not be Aids, therefore HIV medication would never have been invented. Isn't that just common sense? – Mark Jul 20 '13 at 13:54
  • @user8150 is what we call a troll. Stay far away. – Ernest Friedman-Hill Jul 12 '15 at 01:51