Why Does HON Terrify Pharma-Sluts & Activists?

Last year, when I began my investigation into allegations that UC Professor Peter Duesberg PhD was guilty of genocide in Africa, I never imagined the delusionary zealotry exhibited by the pharmaceutical industry’s top marketers and gay activists.

Despite the vast number of credible reports like this and highly paid executives like John Virapen PhD who spend their careers bribing government officials into releasing deadly drugs like Prozac, Oraflex, Vioxx, Nevirapine, Benoxaprofen and nicotine to millions of unsuspecting people throughout the world, most people are completely unaware that companies like Eli Lilly and Bristol Myer Squibb willingly spend $1 billion dollars to buy the silence of people they’ve maimed and killed to make a $3 billion profit. Profits are so large that the pharmaceutically-caused illnesses, death and mayhem (called Adverse Drug Reactions or ADR's) has become nothing more than the cost of doing business. For supporters of Capitalism like me, it’s hard to ignore the fact that the US drug industry may now be Marxism’s most legitimate argument against it.

While Dr. Virapen is no longer paid to bribe researchers, officials and politicians, Cornell’s John P. Moore PhD still attacks people and sells his opinion to courts for “research grants”. Because Cornell and the NIH, CDC and FDA are infested with pharma-sluts like Moore, Americans can expect that these agencies will remain as effective as the SEC was in protecting Bernie Madoff’s investors. Admittedly, this is a crude comparison: While the SEC caused a little financial ruin and suicide, the pharmaceutical industry continues to knowingly, intelligently and deliberately injure, maim and kill millions around the world. The fact that most Americans are unaware or ambivalent only reinforces the adage that the death of one is a tragedy and the death of millions a statistic.

But like most criminals who’ve never been held accountable, the pharma-sluts are getting sloppy. Because they have signed each others' fake reports and regulated themselves for so long, their malignant narcissism gets them into occasional trouble.

Believing that filmmaker Brent Leung was another opportunity to sate their insatiable self-aggrandizement, they invited him into their Temples so that the High Priests of HIV and AIDS could evangelize among the ignorant masses.

Unfortunately for them, House of Numbers does not airbrush their hallucinogenic schizophrenia the way that the mainstream media does between the glossy pages and 60-second Viagra and Lunesta ads that keep America’s anxious reporters employed. (Thankfully, kids are catching on).

One visit to his Facebook page explains why Thomas DeLorenzo wrote this political attack against a documentary that he has no intention of ever seeing. Although DeLorenzo identifies himself as an HIV+ gay man, his hysteria has nothing to do with the scientific corruption that House of Numbers has unintentionally exposed. (I say unintentionally because, while the filmmaker set out to interview the world's top researcher and skeptics, he never imagined that academics like John Moore and Robert Gallo would indict themselves.)

As a political component of the scientific corruption that the documentary exposes, there is no reason for attackers like Thomas DeLorenzo or JP Moore to see it. Simply stated, the gay activists and pharma-sluts hate it because it exposes stained and bloodied bedsheets of their politically profitable relationship.

Because lifestyle appeared to be the reason that a small population of self-destructive gay men got sick in 1981, the stigmatized and still-closeted gay community wanted to blame something other than "their behavior" for their sickness and death. At the same time, infectious disease had become statistically insignificant by 1981 and Congress was planning to pink slip corrupt and unwanted researchers. To their mutual benefit, the pharmaceutical industry and the “gay movement” became political bedfellows that funded what became the Gay Movement and the profiteers of AIDS drugs.

For gay men whose lifestyle alienated them from families and religion, AZT became something akin to a sacrament. When AZT killed them, their mortality delivered to them the political innocence that American slavery and the Holocaust gave to the progeny of slaves and Jews; while HIV gave Burroughs-Wellcome and other drug companies a reason other than drug toxicity.

The same alibi is used in Africa today. Why should these 1600+ international mining companies admit billions of dollars in liability when they can blame it on AIDS and coerce Congress into sending another $48 billion to Africa's corrupt politicians and activists to keep the scam alive.

The pharmaceutical industry and the “gay movement” have been inextricably connected ever since. Gay activists like DeLorenzo need pharma-sluts to blame a “mysterious virus” for the behavioral toxicity of a statistically small group of promiscuous drug-abusing gay men, while pharma-sluts like Moore need activists like DeLorenzo to attack filmmakers and investigators as homophobic Denialists. And because the alleged AIDS epidemic remains statistically non-existent in the United States and South Africa, the AIDS activists and pharma-sluts are getting as nervous as the reporters who are paid to ignore the deadly fraud.

House of Numbers does not expose all of these issues, but gives people around the world a glimpse of what science and medicine have become in the 21st century. Instead of blaming anyone, House of Numbers gives the world’s top AIDS researchers an opportunity to indict themselves.

While it continues to receive awards at film festivals throughout the US, DeLorenzo’s attack, the filmmaker’s response and this unbiased review suggest that House of Numbers may be the most important film since The Insider.