Tag Archives: sex

Sex and the Soul – the Origins of the HIV Myth

by Liam Scheff

If HIV is a hoax (if HIV tests do not test for any particular thing – and they don’t, and you can look that up), and “infection” is based on this non-test – then HIV tests don’t have any clinical meaning.

We’re also told that you can “have” “HIV” and not know it. But, have you ever had an STD and not known it?? A sexually-transmitted yeast infection, herpetic infection, or any other sore or pimple in your groin – and “not known it?” (How did they sell us this garbage?)

And that’s their line – the tests don’t test for anything, and you’ll never know, unless you trust the test. It’s a very religious run-around.

But, we assign them great value. Why?

I think it’s because of what they represent in terms of human myth, and ancient law. It used to be that when two people co-joined in sex, it was understood that they were communing their ‘souls.’ In the modern, secular age, the idea of a ‘soul,’ is treated as so much mystical nonsense, so that when two people are entirely intimate with each other, we don’t talk about it as an ‘exchange of soul energy’ or ‘divinity,’ but as ‘recreational sex,’ or, ‘a good time.’

I think this leaves us, culturally, feeling abused, washed out, empty, and wanting…needing. I think the larger mythical mind of the species grabbed onto the idea of this thing that can’t be tested for – but must exist. This thing that is communicated, “infected” from person to person in love-making… something which is now permanently part of you. Something ‘wily, indecipherable.’ Something nearly spiritual – but not.

It’s the communing of souls in a negative aspect – because we don’t allow that that’s what sex is (two souls sharing at a deeply energetic level with each other), we need a ‘scientific’ or reductionist myth to sit in place – in the very footprints – of the old one.

We don’t value sex; we don’t value intimacy. We don’t, as a culture, value the ‘energetic,’ or the soul. We give ourselves away too easily. We feel abused, and used, even by our own actions. We seek to be comforted through ‘confession’ (HIV testing) that we’re not permanently damaged.

Instead of understanding the truth: Every interaction at that level of intimacy is significant, and leaves us in a position of having inherited from one person a quantity of their being; just as we gave a quantity of ours to them. We’ve exchanged soul material. And we are open – extremely open. And extremely vulnerable. We are wanting to commune, gently, lovingly – but we’ve jumped in too quickly, with someone who is not a match for us; or, we’ve seen it as ‘sport,’ and pulled away from intimacy, wounding ourselves in the process.

Is it any wonder that the people who routinely go in for ‘testing’ are people who don’t value intimacy and sex? People with holes in their psyches? The “worried well,” anxious about, well, a great many things, and projecting all anxiety onto one point – that of sexual misconduct?

Is it any wonder that people who are encouraged to go in for testing are people who are seen as overly-sexual, aberrant from the ‘norm,’ who perhaps don’t value intimacy (or aren’t permitted culturally to form long-lasting paired relationships); or who don’t see it as that deeper exchange, but more as ‘sport?’

Again, the myth of “HIV” is that there is some bacteria or ‘retrovirus’ that you can’t see, you don’t know is there, and leaves no mark, does not cause any inflammation on your sexual organs. (Do we really think that real STDs don’t bother your genitals?! How have we bought this incredible lie of the non-STD “STD?”) Because it’s a myth – a metaphor. We need something to remind us that sex is not free, nor should be embarked upon lightly.

–          –          –          –          –          –

I explore the technical and historical origins of the AIDS definition and the totally, heinously bogus “HIV tests” in Chapter Six of my book, “Official Stories.”

Buy Official Stories Online, Ships Worldwide

Amazon.com in the US, UK and Europe.

And will be on Audiobook and Kindle in late 2012

Screwing More HIV Positives is Good For You, Says AIDS Establishment (Or, What to Wear When the Mainstream Commits Suicide)

RTB: We don’t even begin to know what to do when the mainstream begins to openly commit public suicide, but cheer.

From PLoS Pathogens, and a cancer research group in Seattle, we now have the following theory:

Have sex with as many HIV positives as possible, to protect you from…yes, that’s right. HIV.

No, you don’t misunderstand. This is what they’re saying:

“Women who have been infected by two different strains of HIV from two different sexual partners – a condition known as HIV superinfection – have more potent antibody responses that block the replication of the virus compared to women who’ve only been infected once.”

Yes. Get “infected” over and over again. Yes, that is what they’re saying. Because the whole thing is a Sham, and always has been.

Do you need them to spell it out for you? They’ve been lying to you for 30 years.

“The study suggests that harboring a mixture of different viral strains may be one way to promote a robust antibody response. The findings also suggest that being infected with two different HIV strains not only leads to a strong response, but also a more rapid response that is capable of recognizing many other HIV strains. “

Yup. So, if you’re going to screw, screw twice. And then you’ll be protected. By antibodies. To something that doesn’t exist.

Hey Anthony Fauci, please, go screw yourself, maybe that will help you become less of a eugenicist.

(Fauci is head of NIH and has destroyed millions of lives worldwide with criminally fraudulent HIV tests, and he’s just one of hundreds of bogus researchers stealing tax money to murder people, with their ignorant ‘consent’ of course.)

Back to the funny papers. I personally have got to get to the “HIV” clinic and find at LEAST two people to have sex with. Because then I’ll be protected. From HIV.

The original article:

SEATTLE – Women who have been infected by two different strains of HIV from two different sexual partners – a condition known as HIV superinfection – have more potent antibody responses that block the replication of the virus compared to women who’ve only been infected once. These findings, by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, are published online March 29 in PLoS Pathogens.

“We found that women who had been infected twice not only had more potent antibody responses, but some of these women had ‘elite’ antibody activity, meaning that they had a broad and potent ability to neutralize a wide variety of strains of HIV over a sustained period time,” said senior author Julie Overbaugh, Ph.D., a member of the Hutchinson Center’s Human Biology Division. It is estimated that only about 1 percent of people with HIV are so-called “elite neutralizers” who are able to potently neutralize multiple subtypes of the virus.

“Individuals who become superinfected with a second virus from a different partner represent a unique opportunity for studying the antibody response and may provide insights into the process of developing broad neutralizing antibodies that could inform HIV-vaccine design,” she said.

The study suggests that harboring a mixture of different viral strains may be one way to promote a robust antibody response. The findings also suggest that being infected with two different HIV strains not only leads to a strong response, but also a more rapid response that is capable of recognizing many other HIV strains.

The researchers tracked the immune activity of 12 superinfected women from Mombasa, Kenya, over a five-year period and compared each to a control group of three singly infected women. Overbaugh and lead author Valerie Cortez, a doctoral student in her lab, assessed the ability of antibodies present in superinfected and singly infected women to neutralize a spectrum of circulating HIV-1 variants. In doing so they were able to determine whether the presence of two viruses compared to one made a difference in immune response. The researchers controlled for variables such as antibody response prior to superinfection and biomarkers of immunity such as CD4+ T cell count and viral load.

The study found that superinfected women had, on average, 1.68 times more neutralizing antibodies than non-superinfected women, and they scored much higher in their ability to neutralize the virus – superinfected women had 1.46 times greater potency than the singly infected women.

More than 1.1 million Americans are estimated to be living with HIV today, and every nine-and-a-half minutes someone in the U.S. becomes infected, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. An HIV vaccine is considered the best approach to long-term protection from HIV infection, but attempts to develop such a vaccine so far have meet with limited success.

“The holy grail of an HIV vaccine is to elicit antibodies to the virus because antibodies have been shown to block virus infection. But there has been little progress in determining how to elicit such antibodies with a vaccine. The study of individuals HIV infected who have developed strong antibody responses to the virus may shed light on the best approach to design a vaccine that will induce an effective immune response,” Overbaugh said. http://www.eurekalert.org/

You heard the man; go get screwing.

Oh, you can contact them, if you want to point out how broken their paradigm is:

Contact: Kristen Woodward

kwoodwar@fhcrc.org

206-667-5095

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

Study finds HIV ‘superinfection’ boosts immune response

Findings may provide insight into HIV-vaccine development

We Really All Are “HIV Positive.”

by Liam Scheff

We really all are “HIV positive.”Think about it. What does “HIV positive” really mean to people. It means:

1) You’re going to die one day; someday, you don’t know when precisely. But it will happen, and you will be sad.

2) Sex is no longer safe for you, and you have to tell people that you are damaged.

 Well, what’s the news?

We’re all going to die one day; there is nothing anybody can do about that. And sex is dangerous for all of us. And it always has been.

You can break your heart, your soul, give too much, risk too much, give too little, reveal your damages, weaknesses, frailties; get pregnant, get an actual STD.

Of course sex is inherently dangerous. We don’t need a bullsh*t test (that doesn’t test for anything) to figure that out for us.

And we really do all ‘test’ HIV positive, if you don’t dilute the blood samples. Run the blood samples as is, or at a low dilution, and we all have the damned protein/antibody reactions:

“Since all undiluted blood specimens react positive on the ELISA test, a test that supposedly tests for antibodies to HIV, the results presented here suggest that every single human being has HIV antibodies. And this suggests that everybody has been exposed to HIV antigens. ” [Link]

I asked an “AIDS specialist” about this too. Dr. Cohen, who ran or runs the gay men’s clinic in Boston, said the same thing. “We all test positive if you don’t dilute the sample?” I asked. “Yes, that’s the way it works,” he said. [Link]

So, “HIV” is just another way of stating the ancient reality – Life has a time limit, so live it. Don’t sit in front of the TV waiting to die, or to live. And sex is inherently risky. The 60s didn’t change that.

And of course you’ll get sick if you have sex with 30 people a week – or a night – and do drugs all the time. Big freaking surprise.

Wake up AIDS morons. It’s called the human condition.