Origines du SIDA, Les (2003)

Directors:

Peter Chappell
Catherine Peix Eyrolle

Writers:

Peter Chappell (writer)
Stéphane Horel (writer)

Genre:

Documentary

Plot:

Documentary about the hypothesis that HIV may have been caused by mass vaccination against Polio, in Congo, between 1957 and 1960.

Plot Keywords:

Acronym In Title | AIDS | Vaccine | Chimpanzee | Colonialism

Awards:

2 wins & 1 nomination

Cast

Cecil Fox	...	Himself (as Dr. Cecil Fox)
Simon Wain-Hobson	...	Himself (as Dr. Simon Wain-Hobson)
Joseph Vandepitte	...	Himself (as Dr. Joseph Vandepitte)
Tom Curtis	...	Himself - Rolling Stone journalist
John Martin	...	Himself - former FDA scientist
Edward Hooper	...	Himself - Author
Bill Hamilton	...	Himself - Biologist
Stanley Plotkin	...	Himself (as Dr. Stanley Plotkin)
Robin Weiss	...	Himself (as Dr. Robin Weiss)
Joseph Limbaya Mwenge	...	Himself - Camp Lindi
Baelo Alukelo	...	Himself - Camp Lindi
Pierre Doupagne	...	Himself
Gaston Ninane	...	Himself
rest of cast listed alphabetically:
Hilary Koprowski	...	Himself (archive footage)

Also Known As:

The Origins of AIDS (International: English title)

Runtime:

92 min | 91 min

Country:

Canada | Belgium | France | Spain | UK

Language:

English | French

Color:

Black and White | Color

Company:

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)

You have to see this if you are a human.

This is absolutely a must-see. Stop reading comments and go see it. When you're done, come back and read, if you are still able to. More likely your mouth will be stuck in an open position, your body in a state of near-paralysis on the couch. This is mind-bending stuff.

The film is very well-executed and the presentation is objective. But it does not carefully examine every theory as to the origin of AIDS--only the most interesting one. It makes no claim to comprehensiveness however, and I doubt that it's fair to criticize it on that ground.

By "interesting," I mean "horrible" and "shocking." If this theory is correct, the AIDS epidemic could easily have been prevented. It boggles the mind and sickens the stomach to think of the millions who have died possibly because of an event that could have easily been prevented.

Could the AIDS epidemic be the result of the negligence or recklessness of the greediness, or laziness, of two scientists testing a new polio vaccine in the Belgian Congo? Did they use the wrong kind of monkey? And did they know of the severity of the risk involved in doing so? Should they have known? The film attempts to answer these questions.

In 2005, I tried to locate a copy for purchase, but so far the only way I know of in which to see this film is on its rare airings on the Sundance Channel.

Response to the Reviewer Who Claims This Film Is Flawed:

He is clearly missing something and needs to re-view the film. He's completely misunderstood the theory that is the subject of this film, and the film presents the theory so clearly and precisely that it is difficult to understand how his misunderstanding could have possibly taken place if this reviewer had actually seen the entire film. The film never claims that the batch of virus used for tests in the Belgian Congo was the same as the batches used by Americans, or anyone else for that matter. This reviewer's objection makes absolutely no sense.

In response to the same reviewer who suggests that we should not care about the origins of AIDS, and we should focus only on what we should do about AIDS now--this is almost too ridiculous to respond to. History is important, for many really obvious reasons. Obviously, the question of what to do about the AIDS epidemic is also an interesting one, but it is not what this film is about. It is not fair to criticize a film for not delving into a subject you're interested in. It's like claiming the Wizard of Oz is flawed because there aren't enough sex scenes or gunfights. The Origins of AIDS is about the origins of AIDS. It is not about what to do about AIDS now, and it does not, at any point, make any inkling of a claim to have tackled that issue.

I believe the reviewer who claims this is flawed really did not actually watch the entire film. This may not be a perfect film, but the particular criticisms in that review are seriously flawed, and that review can safely be ignored.