But not at a rate higher than rabbis or schoolteachers. Also, the Catholic Church was infiltrated by communists decades ago (per Bella Dodd). Also, not 'priests'... 'faggots'

I mean... we know about the uniparty and jewish blackmail.

A better list would concentrate on normal people.

Life expectancy is higher due to hygiene and food supply. Basically, you should thank civil engineers and garbagemen and farmers.

The more cogent number would be 'conditional life expectancy' -- that is, if you make it to 10 years old, then what is your life expectancy.

Rick Wiles, Trunews. He's unfathomably based.

Plus, you still have to be 'turned on' for viagra to work.

Most people go to China for the massive amounts of slim, pliant pussy that throw themselves at any white dude, be he 18 or 80. I know at least a dozen kissless virgins who... weren't anymore after visiting China.

Leaving that aside... there's no real reason to go to China. Because of their 'cultural revolution', there's no real culture there. India has a magnificent culture looming behind the legions of squalor and misery. If you can spend about $50/day you can see some really interesting things.

Nose: Unfortunately, there's no compact answer to this question. All that you can hope is that your friends are capable of adjudicating information.

Consider: I spent almost a decade in Toronto, so I was constantly in contact with sick people on the subway, bars, work, etc... and yet I was rarely sick. So, imagine that one day I became sick -- well, there are sick people everywhere, so 'obviously' I picked it up from them... but what about the other 359 days of the year!!!

Okay: so it's my 'immune system'... But consider: cold viruses, although they mutate, are, by and large, quite similar. So why would my 'immune system' flush out hundreds of cold viruses... and then have an absolutely catastrophic failure on the 101st virus? And why have I, personally, never had 'the flu'? Am I superhuman?!?

And, ultimately, the real truth is that 'colds/flus' have never been shown as transmissible in scientific experiments -- so the virus hypothesis has to be discarded.

An aside: Marek's disease in farmed chickens is often quoted as a 'proof' of viruses. But farmed chickens literally defecate on each other! Wild chickens, like the ones I see here in Cambodia, are never sick.

Filled: I don't know if you've looked into the curious case of Polio... if you do, you'll see it's even more cynical/evil than you've outlined.

Nose: Honestly, the best source on all of this is Sam Bailey -- just type 'sam bailey odysee' into your search engine.

Background: Sam and her husband, Mark, are both medical doctors, but became suspicious of the pharma model. Mark explicitly stopped practicing. Sam was 'let go' when she was too open about not vaccinating her children.

In the last 4-5 years they have done constant and extensive literature searches to see the foundations of 'virology'... and it's everywhere lacking. Sam has beautiful videos that answer the usual questions -- what about polio, rabies, measles, smallpox etc.

If you prefer reading, then the book "Dissolving Illusions" by Susanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianik is magnificent. The book presents what I call 'the most important graph in the world' which, using freely available public health data, demonstrates that all 'communicable' diseases had largely vanished before vaccination.

And if you want a real trip, Peter Duesberg's 'Inventing the AIDS Virus' is shocking... He outlines how many normal diseases, like Pellagra, were initially thought to be infectious. And, of course, he demolishes the HIV myth. Both books are 'available' on 'z-library.se'.

Bruv: You've obviously been raised very well, because, despite our arguments, you've been very polite. Thank you. Or, maybe, thank your parents.

For someone that talks about epistemology... Look, the rosenau experiment suggested that viral transmission doesn't exist. There are no counter-experiments from the Spanish Flu that demonstrate that viruses do exist. Since you're a 'logic' guy you should recognize that at best the virus hypothesis is not disproven.

I'm sorry to go ad-hominem myself, but your level of stupidity is astonishing.

Have the findings of the "Rosenau experiment" been replicated or not?

Who cares? The issue is -- has the viral model been replicated via experiment... no... only 'epidemiologically'.

I'll take 50 virus deniers and inject them with blood from an HIV positive person.

You can do one better. You can give us full blood transfusions! Go ahead -- look into the evidence of your 'experiment'.

You could also just let doctors and nurses interact with 'infected' people and... oh wait, that's done every day, so I guess that the results are clear!

Sigh... Look, you obviously don't understand what 'peer review' is. However, the first two sentences of your first paragraph are fine. And, you're right... I know neither things, nor do you. However, subsequent experiments should then unveil the truth -- which they didn't. (and, if you read the readily available Rosenau experiment... it's quite detailed).

Does it disprove (HIV, Influenza...etc)... well... no. Obviously not. So then there should be experiments that prove those... which there aren't.

Sophistry... okay, but nowhere did I claim what you claim that I claimed. The issue is that (a) one experiment claimed no transmission... and then no other experiments in the history of science superseded it.

As for your ad-hominems. What's the point? Experiment is the basis of science. Yes, I only gave one example, but then you should be rife with counter-examples set in impeccably perfect physical conditions that show a viral transmission. Good luck.

Crazy: But... he didn't! Well, okay, he did, and for that he should be lauded. But the experiments that he did, which would have established, almost incontrovertibly, viruses/viral transmission... failed! This is really the issue.

Look: I literally remember exactly where I was when I heard about the 'no virus' hypothesis. I thought it was crazy. And then... it just turns out that no experiments ever have demonstrated viral transmission of disease.

I don't think of Ivanovsky (the tobacco-virus guy) as intellectually bankrupt. It's the people ((())) who ran with his work without verifying basic details who are... well, enemies of humanity.

Crazy: to your first point... no... When they put healthy plants beside an 'infected' plant, and let the 'virus' propagate via natural means... the healthy plants did not get sick.

The whole discipline is more intellectually bankrupt than I would have thought possible.

Have you? There is the famous 'rosenau' experiment from the 1910's/20's (I forget which) that demonstrated that the Spanish Flu, the most transmissible/deadly disease of the modern age... couldn't be transmitted from person to person in controlled experiments.

Crazy: The tobacco mosaic virus study is also quite fraudulent. The 'isolated pathogen' was introduced via needles or rubbing etc, neither of which are things that would happen in nature.

It's a bit like when they inject a 'virus' into the brain of a mouse and say -- look, bad things happened!

Oh, maybe I was unclear. I'm not making a blanket statement that 'history' is a pack of lies, but that the dominant narrative of WWII is a pack of lies.

Consider: one of the reason that Hitler wanted to expel the jews is because he saw how the (lying) jew media had demoralized Germany into surrendering in WWI (this is verifiable). So... why not say that instead of going with the 'narrative' that the Germans hated the jews for no reason at all. For example, you could present Hitler's argument, and then show that the jewish media was very, very supportive of the Kaiser (good luck!!!) which would, in fact, make Hitler a bit of a lunatic.

Consider: According to Patton's letters, post-war Germany was crawling with jews (1M+ of them, many of whom can be seen fat an smiling in archival photos). Why not point out that the German final solution didn't, for some reason, include jews in Germany?

Consider: (after 'Hitler's willing executioners') that there were 100s of thousands of part-jews in the German army, including to the level of Field Marshall. Why not point that out and let people make up their own minds.

Consider: even if the holofrost happened (lol!), the firebombing of Germany and Japan are some of the worst crimes against humanity in history. Why is that obscured?

Consider: Bayonetting babies/nuns, and 'Death Factories' were part of the (allied) WWI propaganda against the Germans, while the Germans had effectively no propaganda against the allies in either war. Why not mention that it's the allies that are clearly the liars?

I could go on, but really -- Why the constant lying? Remember, the dominant narrative is that the jews did nothing wrong, and Hitler wanted to kill all of them for no reason. This is demonstrably false at all levels. Also, we feel that the Allies were fighting the ultimate 'evil' of the 'Axis', and yet Germany, at least, was purely good by any reasonable (non-jewish) definition of the word.

If you're not talking about direct military history, like this squadron attacked that one on this date... then what we are taught is a complete pack of lies.

They control fiat currency, and will ruthlessly kill people at the drop of a hat.

He wasn't a C student -- he was an A+ student.

Maybe, but the ones 'dropped' on Hiroshima/Nagasaki weren't real.

I suppose the technology has advanced since then.

Lance?

To be fair, the smarter leftists call it a 'logical fallacy', which it sort of is.

But it's definitely not a fallacy.

I had two parallel careers -- theoretical physicist and then I accidently became an engineer.

Bruv, you're not as dumb as you let on. You know that I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Bruv,

Look, there are two distinct points here.

1. Gas chambers vis a vis lunch lines. Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. It seems like you understand the words, but not the point. Build something, and then get back to me. Please don't think of this as an insult. Most people never build anything. Engineering is very distinct from Mathematics.

2. 'arguing in bad faith' -- do you even understand what that means? I'm clearly not arguing in bad faith. I might be wrong, but those are two distinct issues. You, on the other hand, are clearly arguing in bad faith. Again, you might be right, but that's a distinct issue.

As for gas chambers -- depends what you mean! I'm fluent in German, and visited Dachau which, these days, is not considered a Gas Chamber.

I read Maus (and other books) about Auschwitz. Maus is fantastic. If you persist in believing in the mythology, then -- hey, it's really one of the best-written things I've ever read.