Off the rails
Call the guys in the white coats, the ones with straitjackets and the key to the rubber room. Opinion editor Marty Trillhaase has gone off the rails.
On Oct. 2, Trillhaase trumpeted an edict: Richard Eggleston is henceforth forbidden from discussing COVID-19 in his column. The Washington Medical Commission alleges Eggleston has engaged in “disinformation.”
Trillhaase concluded his polemic by writing “This is a time to err on the side of reason.”
His “reason”? He operates in lockstep with mainstream media, which blindly follows orders.
Trillhaase has been practicing medicine without a license for two years. Using the Lewiston Tribune’s megaphone, he has been bullying each and every living soul who reads his pontifications to get the shot — gospel straight from Bill Gates, George Soros and Big Pharma.
What qualifies Trillhaase to give medical advice and, worse yet, to pillory Eggleston, who offers footnotes and solid reasoning for his statements? If I need medical advice, guess who I will not consult.
Trillhaase is an establishment lackey. Maybe he invested in Moderna, Johnson and Johnson and Sinovac. It’s a cinch he and the Washington Medical Commission care little for us deplorables — Hillary Clinton-speak for Americans.
But Trillhaase and the WMC have a vital and lively interest in keeping vaccine money flowing.
Nevertheless, being attacked by such obviously biased and compromised entities as Trillhaase and the WMC emphasizes Eggleston’s credibility. He threatens the establishment because he writes truth.
Bridger Barnett
Clarkston
Eggleston was right
On Oct. 2, the Lewiston Tribune suspended Richard Eggleston’s column because Eggleston, an M.D., violated that credential’s supposed “cultural authority.”
Here’s an example of why they’re wrong.
From the Tribune’s statement: “The (Washington Medical) commission cites four broad allegations against Eggleston:
“He minimized the lethality of the pandemic. Eggleston argued most of the COVID-19 deaths were attributed to underlying conditions, leaving the actual death count at 35,475. The actual U.S. count at the time he wrote the column last year was 587,653.”
Eggleston’s words: “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that 94% of 591,265 supposed COVID-19 deaths had underlying causes. Therefore, 6% — or 35,475 — were actual COVID-19 deaths.” (7/11/21)
Eggleston used the official numbers for both deaths and the percentage with underlying causes.
Eggleston didn’t minimize the numbers. He dared to have different ideas about what the data, taken as a whole, meant.
Eggleston thinks we’re smart enough to understand that and make up our own minds about health risks. The Tribune doesn’t.
Data from Statista shows that as of Sept. 7, about 75% of U.S. COVID-19 dead were aged 65 and over — age being just one “underlying cause.”
Eggleston was right: The government hyped the risk COVID-19 posed to otherwise healthy non-geriatrics.
Eggleston stood up for our right to hear more than just government-approved ideas.
That’s the most important kind of speech protected by the First Amendment.
The Tribune is in the wrong on this one.
Thomas A.
Hennigan
Asotin
Trillhaase is ‘reckless’
Marty Trillhaase says (Oct. 2) the Lewiston Tribune continuing to allow Richard Eggleston to write about the subject of COVID-19 would be “reckless,” given that some offended letter writer filed a specious complaint with a government agency against the doctor.
No, Marty, “reckless” is the Tribune limiting only one of its opinion writers’ speech by restricting his subject matter while some government agency “investigates” him. This imitates fascism.
Compounding the “recklessness,” Trillhaase literally reprints much of the complaint, including mere allegations as if they were fact, for example, that they were “dangerous.”
This further slanders the doctor, without proof.
The Tribune habitually hides behind the First Amendment when doing so benefits its political agenda. Using a farcical pending “investigation” to limit an opinion writer’s First Amendment freedom is attacking that writer simply because his opinions disagree with the Tribune’s.
The First Amendment’s reason for existence is to protect opinion, allowing citizens to make their own decisions after hearing all sides, regardless of factual accuracy. Limiting just one side of an argument among opinion writers biases the field and, by definition, violates First Amendment principles. The Tribune could limit all opinion writers from discussing COVID-19 until that investigation completes. But that would also be wrong.
How would the Tribune respond to any entity attempting to limit the subject matter of its opinions? This writer bets lawsuits would ensue, and rightly so.
The Tribune’s owners can to do whatever they want with their newspaper. This includes running it straight into the ground.
Rick Rogers
Clarkston
