Political media's bias, in a single chart USA

THE NEW UN I prayed for while in New York Feb. 2019 MVI 0099

 

While in NY visiting the UN St Patrick and Trump towers 

Feb.2019

The World Tomorow ....as it began!

 

  

On October 22nd, thirty-two nations signed the historic Geneva Consensus Declaration, including the co-sponsoring nations, the United States, Brazil, Hungary, Indonesia, and Uganda. However, Canada was not among the signatories.

 

On October 22nd, thirty-two nations signed the historic Geneva Consensus Declaration, including the co-sponsoring nations, the United States, Brazil, Hungary, Indonesia, and Uganda. However, Canada was not among the signatories.

 

Please SIGN this joint petition, from LifeSite and Campaign Life Coalition, urging Canada to ratify the Geneva Consensus Declaration, which will put Canada at the forefront in the fight to protect genuine human rights.

The Geneva Consensus Declaration takes a firm stance against invented human rights by saying, "there is no international right to abortion, nor any international obligation on the part of States to finance or facilitate abortion."

The Geneva Consensus Declaration further reaffirms:

• That "protecting the right to life" is an "essential priority."
• The "inherent 'dignity and worth of the human person'" and that "'every human has the inherent right to life.'"
• That "'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and state,'" as the Declaration on the Rights of the Child stated.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition to Canadian MPs, asking them to restore Canada's reputation as a world leader in human rights, and sign the Geneva Consensus Declaration.

In the past, Canada had a reputation for supporting conventions and declarations that promote fundamental and universal principles, including the right to life and the centrality of the natural family in society.

To that end, Canada signed declarations and conventions supporting the child and the natural family, like the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, in 1959, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in 1990.

However, in recent years, Canada has deviated from its commitments and its historic role in advancing genuine human rights.

Instead, Canada has pushed a marginal agenda focused on newly-invented “rights” that are neither based in natural law nor in any international treaty. Among these are a false right to abortion, a false right to choose one’s gender, and a false right to sexual pleasure for children.

Indeed, Canada has become a bully on the world stage, imposing its agenda on traditional peoples in developing nations, promoting abortion, gender theory, and radical sex education.

It is time for Canada to stand up for genuine human rights like it once did, especially the right to life, and proclaim that the nuclear family is the basis of society.

By ratifying the Geneva Consensus Declaration, Canada would join other nations in upholding these very things, and would recommit itself to safeguarding the rights and principles that it formerly promoted and defended.

Please SIGN this petition calling on the Members of Parliament to sign the Geneva Consensus Declaration.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Information about the Geneva Consensus Declaration - https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/oga/global-health-diplomacy/protecting-life-global-health-policy/geneva-declaration.html

The text of the Geneva Consensus Declaration - https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/geneva-consensus-declaration-english.pdf

CLC article, 'Canada Must Join the Geneva Consensus Declaration' - https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/clc-blog/id/118/title/canada-must-join-the-geneva-consensus

LifeSite article, '32 nations, including US, declare ‘no international right to abortion’ at UN' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/32-nations-including-us-declare-no-international-right-to-abortion-at-un

 

BRIAN ROSE: What Is 'QALY' & Why You Need To Know More About It - Profes...

note:

TRANSCRIPT 

so i appreciate that let me move forward

00:01

to my second point

00:03

and uh i was really honored yesterday to

00:05

have an incredible guest on the show

00:07

and uh this guest his name is professor

00:09

david miles

00:11

he is a professor at imperial college

00:14

london he's a former member of bank of

00:16

england's monetary policy committee all

00:18

right now look i spent 20 years in

00:20

finance

00:21

monetary policy is how governments

00:24

choose

00:24

short-term interest rates and it

00:26

basically controls the economy

00:28

it's one of the most powerful positions

00:29

in government some would argue in

00:31

america

00:32

it's the decision the fed makes it's

00:34

more powerful than what the president

00:35

can decide

00:36

so this man is high ranking he's also

00:39

former chief economist for morgan

00:40

stanley and merrill lynch all right

00:42

former member of the financial services

00:44

authority which polices all the bankers

00:45

here

00:46

and i sat down with professor david

00:48

miles yesterday and we had a discussion

00:49

and the professor said this

00:51

quote uh the three-month lockdown

00:55

earlier this year came

00:56

at an extremely high price relative to

00:59

the health benefits

01:00

and he went on to say that in another

01:03

extremely costly lockdown

01:06

he believes that the benefits may not

01:08

exceed the costs

01:10

we went on further and we concluded that

01:13

we

01:13

cannot survive past 30 days and he

01:16

briefly said this and i'm going to play

01:17

a video of him shortly

01:19

if this lockdown lasts for any longer

01:21

than 30 days and honestly i think he was

01:23

being generous at 30 days

01:25

i think he really wanted to say more

01:26

like two weeks he said literally we

01:28

won't survive

01:29

and he's not talking about surviving the

01:31

disease he's talking about surviving

01:35

as as a people we will no longer

01:38

have the money to even pay for basic

01:41

services

01:42

we will no longer have the funds to keep

01:44

this country going we won't be able to

01:46

pay for our health services

01:48

this is how dire these decisions are

01:50

being made and that's why i want to go

01:52

in deeper on this

01:53

but he also made a really interesting

01:55

point and he talked about something

01:57

called

01:57

quali and this is something that's not

01:59

being talked about and we need to talk

02:01

about it right now

02:02

it's called the quality adjusted life

02:04

year

02:05

quali and this is the measure that the

02:08

nhs

02:08

actually uses to evaluate whether a

02:11

procedure needs to take place on a

02:13

patient in the national health service

02:14

and this is how it works they look at a

02:17

patient and they look at a procedure

02:20

if the procedure can increase the

02:21

patient's lifespan by one year

02:24

then they agree to do that procedure

02:26

only if it costs

02:27

30 000 pounds or less let me repeat that

02:31

say there's a cancer surgery that

02:32

they're about to do or a cancer

02:34

treatment

02:35

if it costs more than thirty thousand

02:37

pounds and it doesn't extend their life

02:39

by more than one year

02:40

they say no we're not going to do the

02:43

procedure

02:43

now you might say well that's really

02:45

callous they should do anything to save

02:46

their life but

02:47

what if that procedure cost three

02:48

million pounds or 300 million pounds or

02:51

3 billion pounds at some point

02:53

it's not cost effective to have that

02:54

procedure for everyone

02:56

and the professor went on to say brian

02:58

our our health budget would be 98

03:00

of gdp if we spent every dollar to save

03:03

every life so at some point we have to

03:05

make a decision

03:06

and these decisions are made every every

03:08

day in our lives the speed limit

03:10

is at i think 70 miles per hour in

03:12

britain because that's the optimal

03:14

uh limit to make sure transportation

03:16

moves and we minimize the loss of life

03:19

if we wanted to eliminate the loss of

03:21

life we would make the speed limit five

03:22

miles an hour so we would all go so slow

03:24

there would be no traffic accidents

03:26

so every day we make decisions that are

03:29

are somewhere in between optimizing for

03:32

loss of life and the economic benefits

03:34

and he went deeper on this quality

03:36

adjusted life here

03:37

and he said that if you save someone

03:39

from covid they're usually in their 80s

03:42

he said on on a maximum scale they had

03:45

ten years

03:46

of expected life left it's probably more

03:48

like five he said if you multiply that

03:50

times thirty thousand when you save a

03:52

life it's

03:52

it's if you want to quantify it it's

03:54

three hundred thousand pounds

03:56

to save that life and uh professor miles

03:59

went in

04:00

and said if you look at that 300 000

04:03

pound figure

04:04

and you multiply it by the potential

04:06

1000 people

04:08

that are gonna die per day according to

04:10

some of these models or even two or

04:11

three thousand

04:12

when you compare that to the 1.8 billion

04:16

pounds

04:16

of loss to the economy every single day

04:19

you start to really see

04:20

a clear cost benefit analysis and you

04:24

start to really understand

04:25

that eliminating the virus

04:29

if you try to do that we will not

04:30

survive because we cannot afford to look

04:33

at it that way

04:34

again we need to think about control

04:36

versus elimination

04:38

and we need to find a way to live with

04:40

this virus

04:41

there is no way to eliminate it but

04:43

right now our government has sold you an

04:45

agenda that this is the way to eliminate

04:46

this virus

04:47

and we are literally crushing our

04:50

economy

04:51

our future our livelihoods on the back

04:54

of trying to save

04:55

a small portion of lives that when you

04:57

quantify it does not justify the loss

05:00

from this lockdown i can't put it any

05:02

clearly and again

05:04

every loss of life needs to be minimized

05:06

but this is a disproportionate response

05:08

to the virus

05:09

and it couldn't be made any clearer than

05:12

by this quality score and here's

05:13

a short video of me talking to professor

05:16

miles about this concept and again

05:18

he's very clear on the cost-benefit

05:20

analysis and this is the conversation no

05:22

one's having

05:23

we need to talk about it because it's a

05:25

real reason why we shouldn't be locked

05:26

down right now

05:28

here is professor miles if i was maybe

05:30

just

05:31

just to generalize some of the

05:33

assumptions you made about that model

05:35

i think you said if you save a life

05:37

roughly uh

05:39

10 years of life you might save for that

05:41

person times the 30 000 i guess that's

05:43

300 000

05:44

pounds you would potentially

05:47

uh save with each life is that a rough

05:50

idea

05:53

um yes in a way in a way that's right so

05:56

i mean if if you looked at the average

05:59

age

06:00

of people who you know tragically have

06:01

died with covid

06:03

it's somewhere in the sort of low 80s

06:06

um if you asked what was the life

06:09

expectancy of people

06:11

of that typical age at best probably it

06:14

was about 10 years

06:16

probably actually a little bit less

06:17

given that most of the people who've

06:19

died of that age with kobet had related

06:21

health problems

06:23

um so if you then said well okay suppose

06:25

you apply that national health service

06:27

rule

06:30

how many resources using the nhs rule

06:34

would you want to apply to saving on

06:37

average those kind of lives and the

06:38

answer would be as you say you know

06:40

three or four hundred thousand pounds

06:42

now i stress again this looks like a

06:44

very macabre thing

06:45

to do it looks like the kind of thing a

06:47

kind of heartless economist would do

06:50

attaching money values to lives saved

06:53

but the reality is that that's how

06:56

decisions are made in public health

06:58

systems in pretty much every country in

07:00

the world and in other areas where

07:02

governments have to make rules

07:04

how fast can people drive on our roads

07:07

for example so we're simply applying

07:08

that kind of rule

07:10

and i think had that analysis said well

07:13

it was a close run thing whether the

07:15

lockdown for three months

07:17

was sensible or not i think had to be

07:20

much more open-minded about it but i

07:22

think as it turned out the numbers

07:24

suggested

07:25

that the costs were so much higher

07:29

than the 30 000 pound per

07:32

quali rule would have justified

07:36

that it seemed to me um you'd have to go

07:39

way beyond that national health service

07:41

rule to have justified

07:44

restrictions blanket restrictions kept

07:46

in place for as long as we did

07:47

back in the spring into the summer here

07:49

in the uk

07:50

yeah i think you're right because i

07:52

think the maximum uh deaths

07:54

was back in april i think it was 1200 or

07:57

in one day so if you took that number of

08:00

300 000 which is probably being generous

08:02

for 10 years of life

08:04

and you do the math compared to the gdp

08:06

loss per day which i heard now is about

08:08

1.8 billion in gdp loss per day on

08:10

lockdown maybe i'm off

08:12

but it looks to be orders of magnitude

08:14

uh

08:15

cost-benefit analysis and i know this is

08:18

kind of a macabre topic but like you

08:20

said we make these decisions every day

08:21

in our policy and

08:22

like you said the speed limits the nhs

08:25

so it's something we have to face

08:27

at some point like you said in an

08:28

extended lockdown and say this

08:30

actually just doesn't make sense and if

08:32

we continue this we'll quite literally

08:34

just bankrupt the nation

08:37

well i think i think you know continuing

08:40

to have blanket

08:41

lockdowns switched on for a few months

08:45

then maybe off for a month or so then

08:46

switch them back on

08:48

um is so costly that my guess is that

08:52

that would not pass any sensible cost

08:54

benefit analysis

08:56

again to stress you know that's not the

08:58

current government strategy

08:59

you know we're told that this is going

09:01

to be a four week lock down hopefully it

09:03

will succeed in bringing the infection

09:04

rates down very rapidly

09:06

take off the table much of the risk of

09:08

hospitals being um overwhelmed

09:11

and that that might well be a sensible

09:13

strategy i think what wouldn't be though

09:15

is if we kept getting back into this

09:17

situation

09:18

you know two months on one month off two

09:22

months on one months off

09:23

i think that would be pretty disastrous