Nashville News Blog

The video above is from the Sunday screening, not the second Thursday screening—which is the one that my article describes, because that's the one that has been the wellspring of so much rumor and furor, and the one that indicates the intensity of the argument. (It is not true, as one rumor has it, that someone got choked at the second screening and police had to be called. A couple of security officers were there quietly on standby after reports from the Boston screening.)

As I heard it, the tone changed significantly between the Sunday and Thursday screenings at the NaFF. At the Sunday screening (the premiere), I heard people warmly applauded the movie and gave a standing ovation to Lindsay Nagel, an adopted Romanian girl who reportedly made a recovery to full health after discontinuing her HIV treatment. It is true that there was not the same rancor that greeted the Boston screening or the second NaFF screening. Ironically, though, it was the second, less attended NaFF screening that had the festival crowd buzzing.

Lindsay's miracle was not simply her recovery, but that ALL of the other nine children who died ALL TOOK AIDS MEDICATIONS BEFORE THEY DIED.

Lindsay's recovery also corroborates Nobel laureate Dr. Luc Montagnier's closing opinion that a healthy immune system protects people from HIV. Since all AIDS medication packaging contain the skulls and crossbone warnings of drugs that compromise immune systems, its understandable why pharmaceutical whores like Bergman feel threatened by evidence that makes them complicit in AIDS Inc's very profitable mortality rates.

The difference between screenings may have also stemmed from the absence of AIDS truthers who chilled the audience in Boston and Nashville's second showing. But even though one of Cornell's multi-billion dollar truthers called in a false complaint to police in Boston and Nashville, their false complaint tended to corroborate the inexplicable behavior of AIDS' pseudo scientists than the more rational conduct of the panelists.

We can be assured of one thing - that as more people watch House of Numbers that the pharmaceutical whores will get increasingly noisier. Since their research (and the gay agenda) are built entirely on Robert Gallo's scientific misconduct, their hysteria can only be expected to grow.

http://www.cwbpi.com/AIDS/AidsDocD.pdf

I work in the pharmaceutical industry, and a good friend of mine worked on this film.

I've yet to see the finished cut, but having been exposed to it over a length of time, I can say that though it raises some interesting topics for discussion, it is mostly comprised of conspiracy theorist propaganda. Yes some of the policies of "Big Pharma" and indeed our society in general regarding prescription drugs are troubling, but to insinuate that there is some kind of anti-cure thing going on... its right up there with false moon-landings and holocaust deniers.

I am no whore, and neither is my industry, as Clark's eloquent comments would suggest. (I work in orthopedics.) I don't agree with the overuse of antibiotics, nor am I fond of the current state of the mental health pharmacopia, but this is absurd. Topical entertainment at best.

Greetings Nashville (aka Village Voice) Scene,

The AIDS Industry is deeply corrupted, no less so than any your paper (and others in the Village Voice ownership) like to attack, like the military, etc.

But unlike the Pentagon, 9-11, the Iraq War, the Bush administration, or Bill Clinton's sex life, the mainstream, and especially Left-leaning media will not permit itself to actually INVESTIGATE this sacrosanct AIDS industry.

You make a pet project out of defending it, whenever a criticism is offered, libeling those who investigate it, but ignoring AIDS Inc's murders and failures.

Joyce Ann Hafford was a murder. The bodies buried in Uganda in the Nevirapine trial were a murder, no less hideous than the Tuskegee experiments on Black US soldiers - but we didn't "know" about those until decades had passed either...or we didn't want to know, I suppose.

The AIDS industry is feverish with blight; it is deeply conflicted and corrupted. HIV tests are a mess and a joke, AIDS drugs are registered at insanely toxic levels.

AIDS estimates are piled on like paint on top of African poverty, and good white liberals nod their heads and without thinking allow themselves to be convinced that Black people somehow have sex that kills them (after 10 or 20 years), but co-eds at UC Berkeley and Brown get their rocks on and off without harming their futures.

But AIDS Inc makes itself immune to all inquiry, by playing at your heartstrings, by claiming to love and care for the Gay men and Africans it tags with a life-long death sentence - and you go along with all of it, happily throwing epithets at those who dare talk critically about this very much for-profit sex-and-death drug industry.

The attack your paper is fronting, comparing an investigative piece such as "House of Numbers," which features dialogue with the top of the mainstream speaking in detail about the limits of their work - comparing this with "Triumph of the Will," for example (see Jim Ridley's recent piece) is pure hate speech, demonstrating the hysteria-driven loathing and fear the industry piles upon any who offer fair criticism.

You apparently are in the tank for the industry, or would be focusing on the issues presented in the film, not the controversy that you're drumming up for your own lack of reporting.

Most sincerely,

Liam Scheff

"Investigative (that's NYC orphans used like kindling in NIH AIDS drug experiments, with hundreds dead, but no one giving a dime for the use of their bodies) Journalist."
Boston.
http://liamscheff.com

Nothing like a foaming rant from conspiracy theorist Liam Scheff is there? This is apparently what he means by "scientific debate".

Liam, Montagnier’s observation that exposures to HIV do not necessarily result in established infection isn’t news to anyone who has bothered to familiarise themselves with the basics of the subject.

And no, he isn't talking about "improving the immune system of AIDS patients, in order to help them ‘get rid of the virus,’ and recover…" He is talking about improving overall immune health to make people more resistant to getting an established infection in the first place. Getting exposed to HIV is not the same thing as getting an established HIV infection is not the same thing as having AIDS.

Perhaps you should spend more time asking genuine rather than rhetorical questions and listening to the answers and less effort constructing your self-righteous tirades, and you wouldn’t make a fool of yourself so often.

But thanks for demonstrating why it's pointless trying to "debate" with an ineducable loon with a giant chip on his shoulder.

Err, Billie, I was responding to Liam's invitation to "Debate this, if debate is Allowed...Ask yourself if you have ever heard this, or anything like this before:"

What Liam seems to find so stunning and surprising is common knowledge that's ordinary and uncontroversial. The fact that Liam was previously unaware of this is a demonstration of his profound ignorance of the subject matter around which he constructs his toxic polemics.

He's a failed self-described "investigative journalist" who specialises in manufacturing controversy where none exists. He's an attention-seeking nutcase, in other words. No one with even the remotest familiarity with HIV and AIDS is ever going to take him seriously. This drives him bananas.

Somewhere in the world there's a tin-pot dictator who's down one Propagandist/Speechwriter.

Now that I think of it, HIV needing co-factors would also help explain long-term non-progressors and elite controllers. If these people are simply lacking other immune system-weakening co-factors it seems like they could maintain health into old age.

I agree with what you are saying Bryan, about cofactors. Fauci and Gallo look like fools in the movie saying that cofactors are not necessary, when shown side-by-side with Sonnabend and others who say there are cofactors for everything. I applaud House Of Numbers for showing interviews with EVERYONE and letting them make their own case...some more successfully than others.

I saw the film the second time in Nashville.

It was well-produced and provocative. I'd definitely recommend it. Leung did a good job, raising important questions. There are so many gaps and flaws with the viral theory of AIDS that anyone who is taking these toxic drugs or is sick from an HIV diagnosis should watch this film.

After the movie was shown, the director (Leung) started a panel discussion and Q&A in the theater. It got heated quickly.

The first question out of the box was this bald-headed AIDS professor from Vanderbilt, who read a "statement" on behalf of soem un-named scientists in the film who were peeved, then he attacked (feebly in my view) the director's objectivity and honesty, but refused to cite any specifics, sat down, refused to discuss anything of substance and marched out in a huff.

Then, this short-haired woman -- Dr. Jeanne Bergmann -- from AIDS.Truth started to haranguing people on the podium, lost her cool and yelled "You're a fucking liar!" -- at which point the audience booed Dr. Bergmann, and she finally shut up.

Then, the audience members asked great, probing questions about the film, and the panelists, particularly the Nagels, gave informative responses -- a good time was had by all.

As far as I can tell, the central thesis of the movie is that the HIV tests are unreliable, because they register many false positives, but based on this test, people are scared into taking toxic AZT.

The secondary thesis is that most of AIDS is fueled by fear and exaggeration by scientists who profit from the disease, but most ordinary people are ignorant of this, because it doesn't really affect them anymore.

Definitely, a good film.

Snout, Luc Montagnier says you can be chronically infected, not clinically. That means you have an established infection based on HIV testing. That means seroconversion. This is usually established by an ELISA and a Western Blot or Viral load here in the US. Though from the trailer doesn't seem like they mean anything. I think you need to take some Science 101 or in listening to people and stop hearing what you want. I read a fantastic comment about the montagnier comment which I will put below my next paragraph.

Montagnier also was asked about improving the nature of health with people specifically infected to get rid of the virus. Stick to FACTS. It is very SIMPLE to do. FACTS, FACTS, and FACTS.

FROM Valendar @ the Tennessean Blog:

Luc Montagnier says “we can be exposed to HIV many times without getting chronically infected. Our immune system can get rid of the virus in a few weeks, if you have a good immune system”. So Montagnier is telling us people are getting infected all the time but shrugging it off as long as they have a healthy immune system. But any HIV expert will tell you by the time the person is HIV positive, (antibody positive, the only proof experts accept), HIV has insinuated itself permanently into the host DNA. From where nothing can get it out. Once infected, always infected. However, according to Montagnier, if your immune system is unhealthy, you can fall prey to HIV. Which is putting the cause (HIV) after the effect (immune deficiency). If you put all this together, a person who looks after his/her immune system could have sex with every HIV positive person on the planet and never get infected. Is this the message Professor Montagnier wishes to convey?

Doesn’t this all seem to be a tiny shadow of doubt? Or am I going too far?

Dan, you are such an optimist! Snout can't afford to take time out of his busy forum-spamming schedule to go and watch the movie he has been criticizing. His big pharma bosses won't allow it for one thing. If his mind was opened to new possibilities, he would be filled with absolute dread from all the pseudo-scientific rants he has posted for so long. Poor guy, he would be so lost...

...and as Duesberg says in the movie, if people were given millions of dollars to study cofacters, after a year or two they would drop the "co" and drop the "HIV" and eventually just be talking about the "factors" that cause immunosuppression. Which I think is what will happen

Billie,

I think the cofactors are important. So often a study will have the words "mysterious, enigmatic, paradoxical" in it. Or HIV will be described as "wily, cunning, malevolent". Perhaps including the cofactors will clear up a lot of the confusion. Maybe after that, the scientists won't need to be so poetic and can go back to being prosaic.

Dan, you are still getting confused between exposure to HIV without established infection, and established HIV infection. Your use of the term "clinically" makes no sense at all, and suggests you are unfamiliar with the term.

And Dan, Valendar Turner has never been allowed within a bull's roar of an HIV/AIDS patient in Australia, because he is, quite frankly, a nutcase. The fact he likes spending his time confusing the scientific ignoramuses of the world on the net is a source of deep shame to the rest of us here in Australia, and has earned him the almost universal contempt and disgust of his professional colleagues in this country.

"They [Turner and Eleopulos] are a considerable embarrassment to Australian science" - Sir Gustav Nossal.

(WARNING: It's morning in Snoutville, Australia, so expect constant ramblings for the next 18 hours straight.)

Dearest Snout, If you read Valendar's papers, he sounds logical and not at all like a nutcase. Please stick to the facts.

As usual snout you don't address the inaccuracies pointed out in your Montagnier rebuttal. You are on track for continuing to debate nothing. You get 5 stars in that. FYI, It is "chronically."

Why don't you dissect my comment to you below right NOW. Word by word please with out infecting us with your opinions.

According to the press release, "Montagnier adds that he thinks an impoverished person living in Africa or Asia can clear the virus simply by building up their weakened immune system." People who have seen the film confirm this, that he is referring to someone not EXPOSED, but INFECTED. That means the person is INFECTED and good NUTRITION etc... CAN CLEAR IT.

Dan, I've just watched the trailer and I think I've worked out what you were getting at when you said: "Snout, Luc Montagnier says you can be chronically infected, not clinically."

But it was Liam that misquoted Montagnier, not me. And Bryan then just copy-pasted Liam's misquote, in typical HIV/AIDS denialist style.

So I fully agree with you when you say: "I think you need to take some Science 101 or in listening to people and stop hearing what you want."

It's excellent advice. Now all you need to do is direct it at the right person.

and your getting your information second had as well my friend. At least I am getting it from the film's official site. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe you and I should both just SHUT OUR MOUTHS. DEAL?????

LET ME KNOW. YOU SHUT UP AND I WILL TOO.

i don't mean to intrude on all this male bonding, but as for the film, i've seen the trailer, luv it, and plan on attending in jacksonville at the next showing.

gallo clearly is a basket case, a microbe hunting version of captain ahab chasing a small whale thru a microscope.

where is the hiv vaccine, though, if you boys are so smart?

--mary

Dan, I'm not fussed about whether you shut up or not.

You and the other... err... dissidents on this thread are making an extraordinary claim. You are claiming that Luc Montagnier contends that a person with established HIV infection (as opposed to exposure to HIV not resulting in chronic infection) can clear that infection by attending to good nutritition.

Your sole evidence for this extraordinary claim, which goes against everything Montagnier has ever said on the subject, appears to be a... wait for it... a press release from a propaganda film financed by... well, we don't know.

Now I'm quite open to the possibility that people seeing Brent's film might be left with that impression, particularly if Valendar Turner and his dishonest buddies had anything to do with it. Turner is a master at lying about and twisting the words of others to make them appear to be saying something they are not. He's been doing it for years in print and on the net, which is why he is regarded with contempt by real scientists, particularly those he has lied about. Montagnier is one of his favorite victims.

My advice? Don't get your scientific knowledge from the PR blurbs of dubious films. I'd have thought that was just common sense.

Hope you didn't hurt yourself, Billie.

Short answer is no, you shouldn't rely solely on press releases for your scientific information. I thought that was common sense (something that seems to be lacking from many participants on this thread).

Some press sources are more reliable than others, but I'm always inclined to check the background information - say the the scientific publications that press releases occasionally report. You'd be surprised how often journalists get it wrong, although perhaps not if Liam Scheff is your model. I certainly don't accept PR media releases from independent film makers spruiking their wares - they're generally somewhat less reliable than TV ads.

And no, the idea that AIDS (or HIV) "started" with a press conference is a denialist cliche. Perhaps you don't remember the early 1980s. Very few denialists do, which is part of the problem.

Snout said, "And no, the idea that AIDS (or HIV) "started" with a press conference is a denialist cliche. Perhaps you don't remember the early 1980s. Very few denialists do, which is part of the problem."

It's so difficult pointing out every time you say something backwards, but I'll try to keep up. It is, in actual fact, (what do you call non-denialists then?) "you guys" who don't remember the early 80's, in terms of AIDS. You cloud statistics by lumping all people labeled as HIV Positive today (with or without a test result to "prove" it) in with the original group of clinically ill patients with KS and PCP. The HIV "hypothesis" very much was thrust upon the world at a press conference, 4 years later, whether you believe it or not. The whole discussion surrounding this film should be centered on the idea that other things (or "factors") played a very obvious role in the immunosuppression of those original patients and to say, "nah, it was ALL caused by a retrovirus, stupid" is rather ridiculous.

What's even more ridiculous is that we are also supposed to buy a completely fabricated fairy tale that this retrovirus somehow came from monkeys and only infects poverty stricken people in Africa and mostly gays in the Western world! The fantasy doesn't stop there either. Let's not forget that this contagious retrovirus has had more than 25 years to wipe out humanity and not only has it done no such thing, you still cannot prove that a single human being actually HAS said infection. If this is all "news" to you, maybe you need to read that press release again. And by the way, you can stop with the Swine Flu fairy tales too. The world is sick of the virus/germ theory of health and nobody is buying it anymore.

Well said Bryan. All of that history is put into context very well by the film. If people like Snout would stop confusing the issues, we could get back to the core problem of searching for the causes and cures of immune dysfunction.

And your point is...?

NM, I spelled it wrong.

It is A-CHIVEY,

and yes, I called a local restaurant to verify this. The gay chef there assures me that it is sometimes sprinkled onto baked pototoes along with sour cream and butter, and is used in some soup recipes as well. It's considered a quite tasty herbal type of retrovirus among most gays, it seems.

One final point.

Brent Leung's film is clearly intended to push a particular viewpoint, and is thus highly political.

When Brent was asked a direct question about who funded what was obviously a work with a significant budget, he was evasive.

"One audience member asked Leung who funded the film, noting that Leung seemed to have a large budget for travel. Leung declined to name the sources but described them as a group of 'funders from all over the world.'"

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=90259

For any self-respecting investigative journalist, this should be red rag to a bull.

I thought denialists were big on disclosure Bryan? They often post links to this website:

www.shillfactor.net

They usually miss this though:

"NOTE: While the concerns of commercial bias, corruption and kick-backs expressed here are serious and well-documented, they in no way endorse or support a thesis which denies any of the following:

(1) That HIV is necessary in the causation of the immune deficiency syndrome called AIDS;
(2) That HIV antibody tests accurately diagnose HIV in up to 98% of infected individuals after 4-12 weeks of infection;
(3) That antiretroviral medicines, while far from perfect, can, when used properly, dramatically suppress replication of new virus and allow for (limited) restoration of immune function and can extend life;
(4) That HIV is heterosexually as well as homosexually transmitted;
(5) That condoms, when used properly, can prevent HIV transmission;
(6) That HIV/AIDS is one of many serious public health challenges in many regions of Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean."

Brent's going to have to answer the question honestly sometime.

Welcome to Linebay.Com - RapidIt!. Linebay.com allow you to download any files shared and hosted on RapidShare directly on Premium Links at NO Cost!! Use it at work, school and home effortlessly. The best thing is that we are free and simple to use, so check it out and tell your friends!

[url=http://www.linebay.com]FREE Rapidshare Premium Links[/url]

Hey everyone!

My name is John and Im new here :). So far this is an incredible resource of information and I've spent a ton of time reading. Look forward to hearing from you!

------------------------------------
http://acnetreatmentreviews.blogsome.com/rss

By the way, Deal news, Late deal on holidays events, Big deal reviews and Deal to vegas tips still available http://deals.goodnano-av.com/

This page wasnt working earlier i tried accesing it but it timed out 4-5 times now i can access it. Whats going on?

Hi everybody. I just registered here, and this looks like a great forum. Very professional and friendly. Keep up the great work!
I'm just an average city kid, currently i am attending the university of philadelphia and my name is Sam. Just wanted to say hello to you
all i hope to have a great time here i guess!