When you’re in a hole, STOP DIGGING!
It’s hard to remember a movie that has stirred as much controversy as the documentary, House of Numbers. Ever since its debut at the Nashville Film Festival last April, Brent Leung’s film school project has left audiences stunned and AIDS researchers and activists around the world concerned that their house of numbers will soon collapse.
While it was hard to understand what was driving their inexplicable hysteria eight months ago, it’s now clear that those who most objected to the documentary are, almost without exception, the direct beneficiaries of questionable AIDS research funding – not thousands of dollars in funding but MILLIONS. While none of the signatories of this condemnation saw the documentary, ALL have received millions of dollars in questionable research funding:
The kingpin behind the scenes now appears to be none other than NIAID Director Anthony Fauci MD, who not only awarded their grants and may have directed more than $100 million in unaccountable “research funding” directly to himself.
One researcher conspicuously missing from this list was HIV discoverer Luc Montagnier MD who now admits that his peers push drugs and vaccines because there’s no profit in good nutrition or clean water.
In a desperate attempt to dispel the disturbing revelations of corruption that the documentary produced, Fauci’s propagandists created this website to explain why the Grand Dragons of HIV ended up looking so incompetent in the film.
Their excuse – the inexperienced film student simply cut and spliced their words to make them look bad.
Dear Mr. Sharp,
What John [Moore] is saying is absolutely true. What Mr. Leung has done is take our statements completely out of text [SIC – emphasis added]. For example, he and I were discussing the use of rapid HIV tests and their accuracy. I explained that the tests were excellent, but that some individuals were assembling rapid HIV tests from individually-purchased components and making these tests in their garages for sale. Such tests that had not been subjected to the quality assurance measures required by organizations such as the FDA were inferior and should not be used. That is, only tests that were approved by expert organizations should be used. Hence, my statement in the film “Now if I tell you that the test you took was lousy and didn’t mean a thing……”. Mr. Leung used this to imply that I was stating that HIV tests were useless.
I would be happy to discuss my statements with you at any time.
We thank you for your interest in getting the story correct.
Niel T. Constantine, Ph.D.
Professor of Pathology
University of Maryland School of Medicine
725 W. Lombard St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Dr. Robin Weiss also claims that he was taken out of context:
“The sound bites were extracted out of quite a long interview with me and presented out of context [emphasis added]. In my recollection (I don’t have a tape of the interview) Leung was pressing me about HIV antibody tests in reference to screening blood donations…”
Does Dr. Weiss LOOK pressured?
“When I said ‘I don’t think the Western Blot is a useful diagnostic test; I don’t think it’s worth doing’, I was referring to relatively high throughput screening for blood banks, and in the mid 1980s we did not yet have commercial dip stick Western Blot kits available. In retrospect, it would have been better for me to say: ‘I don’t think the Western Blot was a useful primary screening test’.”
For those who have seen the documentary, it’s clear that Leung and Weiss were NOT talking about screening donors at blood banks. When Weiss replies that “…diagnostics say is the patient infected or not. You don’t need a western blot…” he is clearly talking about patient diagnosis. Brent’s question was in response to the competing interpretations (exposed by the documentary) between tests, labs, institutions and countries – that someone can be HIV+ in one country and HIV-negative in another – and suggests that Weiss and his cohorts are either 1) incompetent or that 2) HIV has acquired GPS technology.
“I also cited what I regarded as a dogma that a Western Blot test was essential as a confirmatory test; ELISA tests made by two different manufacturers can also provide a confirmed result. For instance, in some UK labs the Wellcozyme ELISA using a competition format was used for primary screening and was then followed up with a confirmatory assay using the Abbott standard direct-binding ELISA instead of a Western Blot.”
Weiss not only admits that some HIV tests are regarded as dogmas, but further states that they have been promoted into a holy grail.
Rather than get further into the weeds with doctors Constantine and Weiss, check out these never-before-seen unedited clips of the interviews and decide for yourself (transcripts below):
LEUNG: I’m gonna ask you one last question that pertains to my HIV I took in Africa, and then will go on to –
CONSTANTINE: And you want this on air?
LEUNG: Yes, I tested negative; it’s okay.
CONSTANTINE: It’s up to you if you want to disclose your results. Now if I tell you that the test you took was lousy and didn’t mean a thing, would that make any difference for everybody to hear?
LEUNG: It [would] make a difference for me.
CONSTANTINE: Yeah I know. You want everybody in the world to see that?
LEUNG: Now in an effort to make the Western Blot a little more specific, why don’t they up the criteria from two bands to like four or five?
WEISS: I don’t think the Western Blot is a useful diagnostic test, I don’t think it’s worth doing, but it’s a useful prognostic test; once you know that someone is infected then you can follow their antibody responses well with western blots.
LEUNG: What is prognostic?
WEISS: You’re looking forwards into how the patient’s going to do in the future, in a prognostic test. Diagnostics say is the patient infected or not. You don’t need a western blot and it’s become a dogma in HIV research that you need one ELISA followed by a Western. You don’t! You need two different kinds of ELISA’s made in two different formats. Uh, Western Blots have been sort of promoted into some sort of holy grail.
House of Numbers will begin its theatrical run this month:
Fox Tower Stadium (Portland, OR)
January 22 – January 29
(Check the screening schedule for more information.)