The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource
Follow Us Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter Download Our App 
Professionals >> Visit The Body PROThe Body en Espanol
Ask the Experts About

Safe Sex and HIV PreventionSafe Sex and HIV Prevention
Rollover images to visit our other forums!
Recent AnswersAsk a Question
  • Email Email
  • Glossary Glossary

house of numbers

Nov 24, 2010

please excuse my poor english but im portuguese - can you please tell me what do you think about of house of numbers, i saw Luc Montaigner said that people with strong imunne system can get rid of the virus BEFORE becoming chronic infected. thank you so much. um abraço apertado de Portugal

Response from Dr. Frascino


See below.

Dr. Bob


Hello Dr. Bob,

I make it a point to donate (as much as I can afford every month) to charitable causes, and your knowledge, patience, and care that you provide for everyone here (which has brought me huge relief when I first asked you for help 6 months!) definitely puts you on my top list of organizations I hope to continue to able to donate to!

I would really appreciate your honest opinion on the following:

Have you ever seen/heard of the film 'House of numbers' by Brent Leung?

It seems to investigate the 'truth' behind the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and brings into question the integrity and validity of HIV testing.

1) at 28 seconds on this clip:

Dr. Montagnier states that people can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected, and that the immune system can cure/clean out the virus from the body naturally. Is there any validity to this statement?

2) at 15 seconds in this clip:

Dr. Constantine states that the HIV tests in use today are useless, and many of the doctors interviewed in this film seem to concur and state that the tests are ineffective at diagnosing HIV.

Is there any validity to what these seemingly reliable Doctors are saying?

3) Why is it that the manufacturers of all the HIV diagnostic tests on the market state on their test kit labels that those tests are "not intended to determine the presence or absence of HIV in human blood"


4) my last test was an EIA at 17.5 weeks post exposure, the result was negative. Since the exposure I've been ill with symptoms I've never experienced in my life, no doctor/specialist can find an answer/cause for my symptoms, and no HIV specialist I have corresponded with is willing to tell me that I do not have HIV for 100% certainty, each one only says it's "highly unlikely you were infected".

Why won't any of them tell me I am 100% not infected, knowing that I tested negative at 17.5 weeks, if the tests are so reliable??

Please reply Dr. Bob!

Thank you.


Response from Dr. Frascino

Hello Phil,

As is the case with so many questions cramming their way into my inbox from throughout the cyber-universe on a continual basis, the information and reassurance you request is already waiting for you in the archives. (See below.)

Regarding your symptoms, unfortunately I cannot diagnose the cause over the Internet, as I don't have access to your medical file and results of all diagnostic tests and the benefit of a physical examination; however, what I can do with great certainty is advise you what's not causing them: HIV! Assuming there are no extenuating circumstances, your repeatedly negative HIV-antibody tests out to 17.5 weeks are definitive, conclusive and WOO-HOO-able. HIV is not your problem! Continue to work with a competent general internal medicine physician to address any persistent or bothersome symptoms. However, remember HIV is not the cause!

Thank you for your kind words and support of The Robert James Frascino AIDS Foundation ( Both are warmly appreciated.

Dr. Bob

Montagnier Mar 17, 2010

Hi Dr. Bob,

I love your humor in some of your responses!

But, I think it is imperative that we really question (perhaps again) the idea that HIV causes AIDS and using anti-retrovirals to treat people, especially in light of what Luc Montagnier recently said in the interview. Do you agree?

If you are not aware of this interview, it can be viewed online at

Thanks, -alex

Response from Dr. Frascino

Hello Alex,

No it is not "imperative that we really question the idea that HIV causes AIDS" anymore than it is imperative we question whether the world is flat or whether "Dubya" was the worst president we've ever had. Some facts have indeed been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt!

The YouTube clip you reference is from a totally discredited film called "House of Numbers." (see below.)

Alex, don't be duped by a bunch of dimwits (AIDS Denialists). (See below.)

Dr. Bob

HIV/AIDS Denialism goes mainstream? Oct 13, 2009

Hello Dr.

Have you heard about this "documentary" called "House of Numbers" that is wining all these international awards and being shown at film festivals all around the world? I saw a clip on their website and was absolutely shocked and dismayed by the obvious selective quoting of scientists and misrepresentations... This is scary... HIV/AIDS denialism going mainstream? What of the millions who watch this?

Response from Dr. Frascino


Only someone with the brain power of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh could not see through this propaganda. The film is not winning awards. Rather, it's garnering bad reviews. (See below.) AIDS denialism is not going mainstream; it's circling the proverbial drain. Then again, there are folks who think Sarah Palin really can see Russia from her porch, so I guess there may still be some folks dimwitted enough to fall for the AIDS denialist's poppycock.

Dr. Bob

AIDS Seen From a Different Angle, September 4, 2009, New York Times


Couched as a "personal journey" through the history of H.I.V. and AIDS, "House of Numbers" is actually a weaselly support pamphlet for AIDS denialists. Trafficking in irresponsible inferences and unsupported conclusions, the filmmaker Brent Leung offers himself as suave docent through a globe-trotting pseudo-investigation that should raise the hackles of anyone with even a glancing knowledge of the basic rules of reasoning.

Assembled from interview fragments with doctors, scientists, journalists and others, the film cobbles together an insinuating argument against the existence of H.I.V. as a virus and AIDS as the resulting disease. Among the many inflammatory claims is that diagnosis is a pharmaceutical-industry ruse to sell complex drug therapies (which the film then presents as the real cause of the syndrome we identify as AIDS). Evidence to support this and other highly dangerous contentions is found not in verifiable statistics (house of numbers, my foot) but in the impassioned anecdotes of individuals who have outlived the expectations of an H.I.V.-positive diagnosis.

Rife with fuzzy logic (most people with AIDS live in poverty, therefore poverty causes AIDS) and a relentless fudging of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, this willfully ignorant film portrays minor areas of scientific disagreement as "a research community in disarray" and diagnostic testing as a waste of time. A few months ago 18 angry doctors and scientists interviewed in the film issued a statement claiming that Mr. Leung "acted deceitfully and unethically" when recruiting them and that his film "perpetuates pseudoscience and myths."

Mr. Leung said in a recent interview, "All we do is raise questions." Perhaps his next film will question the existence of gravity.


Opens on Friday in Manhattan.

Produced, directed and edited by Brent Leung; written by Llewellyn Chapman. At the Quad Cinema, 34 West 13th Street, Greenwich Village. Running time: 1 hour 30 minutes. This film is not rated.

no true scientific proof that hiv exists - see website (AIDS DENIALISM, 2010) Mar 13, 2010

hey, I know you have adressed this topic multiple times, however it would be good to know whether it is a lie that hiv has never been seen under EM as is stated in this article about how the virus through rna pcr is detected and in testing antibodies to the virus. Here is the website, so that you can research it. Please let us know what you think, as it indicates that proper scientific method is not used regarding isolating HIV but rather indicates that certain proteins that are common among various other mycoplasmas, fungus, etc produce the same test results. Many places it also states that people who have run down immune systems due to numerous std's are much more likely to get HIV which could indicate that merely a busy immune system needing to deal with too many things at a time causes immune failure. If a virus was never truly visualized, then where is the scientific proof, as opposed to severly convincing circumstantial evidence. There would be no model to proove a theory of overburdoned immune system as the combinations would proove prohibitive to scientific investigation, so is it possible that the scientists bended the rules a bit to allow circumstantial evidence to become fact. This is not to say that there is not a virus, but this article states that there was never concrete proof, only mathmatical evidence. here is the article and this article as well although not as scientifically written

Response from Dr. Frascino


See below. I've already addressed this Web site and the topic of AIDS denialism extensively. Don't be fooled by the nonsense and pseudoscience of that Web site or the rapidly dwindling number of AIDS denialists who support these repeatedly disproven theories. It's all pure poppycock!

Dr. Bob


what are your thoughts and opinions on this article?

Response from Dr. Frascino


The Web site you reference is an "AIDS Denialist" Web site. I have discussed this dwindling idiotic fringe group many times before in this forum. (Check the archives.) The article you reference is from 1994, ancient history in the world of HIV/AIDS. It's also complete balderdash! Check out the science that debunks these illogical farfetched claims at

I'll reprint below a post from the archives that addresses AIDS Denialism.

Dr. Bob

Prove that HIV causes AIDS Jan 16, 2009

There is a lot of talk on here about Duesberg and the Perth Group. You say that their so called 'dangerous' beliefs have been disputed time and time again yet this is not true. Many of the questions asked by some of these 'denialists' have never been answered satisfactorily. To this day there is still no convincing scientific evidence to prove that HIV leads to AIDS. The test itself should be abolished. How do you explain the growing number of people who have tested positive and then reversed their status back to negative? How do you explain that an HIV positive persons cd4 count gets higher and the viral load is undetectable after being positive for 15 years on NO medication? Is it not true that there are over 60 conditions that can give you a false positive on an HIV test? There are a significant number of cases of people who tested positive after recently having a flu vaccine and then 6 months later their test is negative. How do you explain this? Is it not true that so far there are over 60,000 cases of AIDS patients who died in the 80's but were never tested for HIV? Is it not also true that the results are 'interpreted'according to whether you belong in a risk group or not? Is it not also true that you can test positve for HIV in Africa where only two coloured bands on the WB are required for a positive result yet if that same person was to come to Australia, they would test negative because 4 bands are required for a positive result? How come if you ask your doctor to prove that a positive result is proof of HIV itself that they can provide no such proof? It's not just Duesberg and the Perth Group who deny the HIV=AIDS myth - the number of credible doctors, scientists and run of the mill citizens who dispute this theory is growing! The truth will set you free!

Response from Dr. Frascino


Detailed scientific answers to each and every one of your questions (many of which have been recycled for years by the dwindling number of people who refuse to believe science or common sense) are available at Check it out! You have much to learn. The one thing you and I definitely agree on is your last statement: "The truth will set you free."

I will make a few comments about AIDS denialism in general for our readers who may not know the history of this misguided cult. In the early years of the epidemic, a few scientists postulated that HIV infection may not be the cause of AIDS. They suggested a number of other potential explanations, such as AZT causing AIDS in developed nations and malnutrition causing AIDS in the developing world. These scientists argued that "Koch's postulates" have not been fulfilled and suggested that antiretroviral therapy rather than being life sustaining was actually killing people. (Koch's postulates are a series of four distinct criteria that need to be fulfilled to conclusively prove that a germ, microbe or organism is the cause of a specific disease.)

The AIDS denialists hypothesis was far fetched when it was proposed in the 80s and today we know it is complete lunacy. Koch's postulates have been fulfilled many times over. We now have solid scientific evidence of how HIV infects human cells, damages the immune system and results in AIDS. The life-sustaining effects of antiretroviral drugs have also been absolutely established by countless clinical trials and large epidemiological observational studies. The death rate from AIDS plummeted by 50% the year after HAART was introduced!!! It's hard to argue with facts such as these.

The AIDS denialists are a dwindling cult. Many have either died prematurely while some have come to their senses and started therapy. These feckless whack-jobs would be nothing more than amusing if it weren't for the influence they have exerted on some gullible individuals. They have encouraged some very scared folks into believing their myths and even affected the health policy of South Africa, which resulted in tremendous human tragedy.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health have calculated that the South African government's refusal to provide antiretroviral drugs (because Mbeki, their president, was influenced by AIDS denialists) resulted in 330,000 lives being prematurely snuffed out by the virus between 2000 and 2005!

Dr. Bob

Count my blessings
Atripla and Ecstasy (ECSTASY, 2010)

  • Email Email
  • Glossary Glossary

 Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS



This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.

Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.

Review our complete terms of use and copyright notice.

Powered by ExpertViewpoint