Allow readers to draw own conclusions
I am submitting this letter in response to a letter submitted by R. Michael Massanari in the Aug. 25 issue of the Tribune.
In his letter to the editor, Mr. Massanari asked the question: “Are newspaper editors and publishers obligated to reject or warn readers when misleading information threatening the well-being of public is committed to print?”
It seems that Mr. Massanari thinks the editor of the paper should choose to freely publish HIS facts and opinion while posting a warning label over (or rejecting completely) the previous letter to which he directed his rebuttal.
The problem here is that for each legitimate scientific claim Mr. Massanari made (the one exception being the infection rate among children), one could quite easily find an equally legitimate scientific claim that states the opposite with just as many credible references and sources to back up those claims.
So who’s perspective is correct? What would compel me to trust Mr. Massanari’s claims any more than I would trust the claims made by the writer of the previous letter?
So I not have an obligation - and the right - to make decisions for myself based on research that I have done, without information first being vetted or given a warning label by a completely unknown-to-me third party?
All this to say … please, editor, continue to print respectfully written letters as they hit your desk … and allow us, your readers, to do our own research and come to our own conclusions.
Children ‘most precious, defenseless blessing’
I want to commend each and every parent in this community for speaking up and fighting so hard for the defense of their children. It takes great courage to speak up in a time when doing so leaves you open for criticism and attacks on your ability to parent your own child.
There seems to be a misunderstanding by some that people on television know better how to raise and care for the children of this world than parents do. No epidemiologist or virologist should tell a parent dealing with a child suffering confusion and fear and physical exhaustion by being forced to wear a mask all day that this is for their greater good.
There also seems to be a misunderstanding that parents fighting for their children’s mental and physical well-being somehow don’t care about their neighbor. The argument is just simply uninformed unless you have children in your home and have seen first-hand the effects this has had on all of them.
Parents should have exclusive rights as to whether or not their child should be wearing a mask, and as a community it is our job to commend those parents for doing whatever they can to stand up and speak up. Children are our most precious, defenseless blessing. It is our job as adults to defend them.
We could all stand to remember that loving thy neighbor isn’t a one-sided argument. Allowing parents to fight for their children without criticizing them is a very profound way of showing that love.
Do your homework, look at both sides
Proverbs 18:13 says it’s foolish to give an answer to a matter before you’ve heard the whole thing.
But sadly, it seems that with the issues surrounding COVID-19, we’re lacking honest, open debate - where substance is presented on both sides, so the people can decide for themselves.
Instead, we have mainstream media that seems to present just one side. It promotes fear and one ultimate solution – the vaccine.
Did you know there are thousands of doctors, nurses, researchers and whistleblowers from around the globe who have tried to present another side? They are largely ignored or censored by the mainstream media, because their message doesn’t fit the MSM narrative.
These brave professionals put everything on the line to get their word out because they care about humanity. It’s worth listening to what they have to say.
The Aug. 25 letter “False claims not protected by First Amendment” answered a previous week’s letter, which passed on some of that message. I say it’s not the newspaper’s role to judge what is true and false. It’s there to present different sides and opinions, so that we can decide. And I thank the Lynden Tribune for allowing that and respecting the First Amendment rights for us all, in this current culture of censorship.
We as individuals also have a responsibility. That is, to come to our own informed conclusions. Do your homework; look at both sides. Use critical thinking skills with what you hear and read. Check sources. Dig down to the data.
Two data sources I recommend in your search: c19early.com – a COVID19 treatment analysis of 900 studies (Ivermectin is near the top with 63 peer-reviewed studies), and openvaerse.com/covid-data categorizes adverse vaccine reactions.
The First Amendment keeps us, and our governing bodies, in check. It’s vital to hear all sides to have a freer, stronger society.
Sen. Ericksen ‘most definitely’ a politician
I read with great interest and greater surprise the Aug. 25 Lynden Tribune article about Senator Ericksen’s SB 5144.
Actually, I needed to read it couple times.
But there it was, Senator Erickson’s statement, quoted, explaining the bill : “It is pro-individual choice. We need to respect the right of people to make decisions for themselves.”
Sen. Ericksen appears to be clearly saying he is “pro-individual choice” and he feels there is a need to “respect the right of people to make decisions for themselves.”
Whether or not Sen. Ericksen is a prophet, of sorts, he is most definitely a politician. One with a substantial capacity for hypocrisy.
Submitting letters to the editor
The Lynden Tribune gladly accepts letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 300 words and may be edited for length, grammar, accuracy, legal issues and clarity.
Include your full name, city and state you live in, and if applicable, the headline date of the article on which you are commenting.
Please email letters to firstname.lastname@example.org.
You also may hand-deliver or mail letters to our office at 113 6th St. Please include your name, complete address and phone number to allow verification of authorship.
Any hand-written letters must be double spaced and printed for ease of reading.
Unsigned letters will not be published.