« US Navy declassifies a few UFO videos. | Main | 25 million lifetime page views for SST »

28 April 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Eric Newhill

One of our internal studies has been published. Confirms what I said above, despite yeah right's criticism.




Thank you for your comprehensive timeline. I defer to you as I am not a scientist and didn’t take notes on 6 March. I hope you will continue to enlighten us here at SST.



You can't explain to anyone without years of virology research experience how leaks from labs just can't happen. That's rich sir. This deplorable with separate but equal rights salutes the noble " we're all in this together, comrades" expertise. Good luck, I suggest you start advising Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, she needs all the help she can get.

Yeah, Right

Eric it says nothing of the sort.

Colonel, ban me if you will, but blatant untruths from Eric should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.


JJackson (01 May 2020 at 08:15 AM),

I can't say enough how I'd appreciate this post by JJackson. Like Walrus, I hope to continue reading JJackson posts here in this forum.

I think we should consider facts, not the Deep State's propaganda. Perhaps it's time to reread Colonel Lang's "Drinking the Kool-Laid" article.


Yeah, Right

For what it's worth I second TonyL's post.

I have more that a passing knowledge of research into respiratory illness, but JJackson's posts on virus research are on an altogether different level.

Eric Newhill

yeah right,
You said my entire comment was unsubstantiated. Part of the comment was about about people with acute and chronic conditions becoming very ill or dying because the virus panic caused doctors to close their offices. In the original comment I mentioned a girl dying because her appendicitis was undiagnosed. The article spoke to exactly that issue - not the girl specifically, but that appendicitis is not being treated. If appendicitis is not diagnosed and treated, you die. So that substantiates part of what I said in the paragraphs of my comment - which you said were completely unsubstantiated

I also said that deaths due to other conditions are being attributed to covid if the deceased tested positive. That was also part of the study, but was not included in the publication. How do I know that? I'm not going to tell a socialist agent like you. Does B at MoA pay you? Or are you connected to his handlers?

Yeah, Right

Eric Newhill: "Confirms what I said above, despite yeah right's criticism."

Despite. Yeah. Right's. Criticism.

The only point of criticism I made regarding your earlier post was your claim that...
Eric Newhill "Dies of cancer in hospice, but tested positive? Covid death."

That's what I criticized, nothing else, so if you want to rebut *my* criticism then you have to address *my* criticism.

The article that you referred to does nothing - absolutely nothing - to confirm the claim that I criticized.

Eric Newhill: "You said my entire comment was unsubstantiated."

I said nothing of the sort.

You wrote a blatant untruth when you wrote "Confirms what I said above, despite yeah right's criticism." and I was being perfectly reasonable to complain to Pat Lang about it.

Honestly, Eric, it is not OK to just make stuff up. It is even worse to verbal someone.

Eric Newhill

Yeah Right,
Ok. Here's a link that says what I'm saying about misattribution of cause of death and the incentives to do so.


You impress me as someone who has little real life experience, but imagines him (her?)self to be very knowledgeable in all matters. Imagination is not a substitute for experience. Google is not the equivalent of knowledge.

Of course you're probably not even seriously discussing because that is not your mission.

Yeah, Right

Eric Hewhill, I listened to that interview from beginning to end, and I note that the Senator is not actually backing up your claim.

Your example was: "Dies of cancer in hospice, but tested positive? Covid death."

His was: Someone is hit by a truck and dies of a collapsed lung but blood-work tests positive for Covid-19.

Nowhere does he argue that the guideline would force him to write "Covid-19 death" as the cause of death, rather, he objects to noting anywhere in the death certificate that the patient tested positive "Covid-19".

He wants to leave it off altogether.

Quite why is not something that he explains, even though the interviewer (who is excellent) gives him multiple opportunities to do so.

The CDC guidelines are here:

This is the money-shot:
"If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should
be specified on the death certificate. In many cases, it is
likely that it will be the UCOD, as it can lead to various lifethreatening conditions, such as pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In these cases, COVID–19 should be reported on the lowest line used in Part I with the other conditions to which it gave rise listed on the lines above it."

Now, back to the two examples:
Dies of Cancer?
Then the CDC guideline does NOT require "Covid-19" to be listed as the cause of death, precisely because Covid-19 did NOT "play a role" in that death.

Hit by a Truck?

That's what the CDC guidelines say, so that's what it means.

Now, if you want to argue that massive fraud and rorting goes on in the USA Health System then go ahead, be my guest. I'm sure it does.

Or if you want to argue that there are health professionals in the USA who are less than professional then, again, be my guest. If you do then list Senator Scott Jensen among them.

But don't blame the CDC, and don't blame Covid-19 either.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad