FALSEHOODS, MISSTATEMENTS AND LIES: Fact Checker appears in the hard-copy Post!


Part 2—Proceeds to turn water to wine:
Over at the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler has long been in charge of the paper's Fact Checker site.

Normally, Kessler's work has only appeared on line. Each Sunday, though, some sample of his work has appeared in the hard-copy Post.

In this way, the Post has turned devotion to fact into a once-a-week, Sunday event, like the old-fashioned visit to Grandma's house or the long, lazy nap on the porch.

Today, though, Post breaks the mold! In the past few weeks, the mainstream press has made a decision—it cares about facts after all! In line with that exciting new value, the Post has published a Kessler lieutenant in its hard-copy editions.

Kessler's lieutenant is Michelle Ye Hee Lee. She fact-checks recent statements by Spicer and Trump, and quickly bungles her task.

Good lord! There Lee sat, at the top of page A5, right in our hard-copy Post! Excitedly, the analysts started to read—but as they read her first paragraph, they emitted a wail, then a groan.

Lee begins by quoting Sean Spicer's latest misstatement. Then, just like that, her bungling starts. For now, we'll highlight one single word:
LEE (1/25/17): "I think there have been studies; there was one that came out of Pew in 2008 that showed that 14 percent of people who have voted were not citizens. There are other studies that were presented to him."
—White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, at a news briefing Jan. 24

The White House on Tuesday reiterated President Trump’s false contention that he lost the national popular vote because of 3 million to 5 million illegal votes, as yet another untruth swelled into a distraction that threatens to undermine his first week in office.
That statement by Spicer was rich with bungling, as we'll note below. But Lee's first paragraph is bungled too. Specifically, we refer to her assertion that Trump's recent (unfounded) contention is "false."

Nothing Lee says, in a full-length piece, justifies that assertion. Nothing justifies her claim that the statement is an "untruth."

Does Lee actually know that Trump's unfounded contention is "false?" We find no sign that she actually does, as we'll explain below. As others are turning falsehoods to lies, we would say that Lee has now turned an unfounded statement to "false."

Yes, but does that actually matter? the excited liberal might ask.

We'd say that it very much does! Aside from a general rule of thumb—the journalist should only make claims she can defend—we'll explain why this actually matters by the time this series is done.

There are several major reasons why this matters, reasons which should be of special concern to liberals, progressives and Democrats. We'll return to those reasons, which we've note before, in the next few days.

For today, let's focus on our specific claim. Let's consider the claim that Lee, at the mother of all fact-checking sites, has made a substantial bungle, has turned "unfounded" to "false."

Reportedly, Donald J. Trump has now claimed that 3-5 million illegal votes were cast in November's election. We would assume that this (largely unfounded) statement is false, but it's quite hard to prove that it's false.

Everyone has heard the rule of thumb—it's hard to prove a negative! Applied to this case, that rule tells us this:

It's hard to prove that Donald J. Trump's unfounded statement is false.

Everyone has heard that rule of thumb. Today, amid all the excitement about the new importance of facts, we'd say Lee blows right past it.

In truth, there's nothing in Lee's hard-copy piece which shows that Donald J. Trump's claim is false. Let's review the various ways Lee bungles her evidence.

Before too long, Lee reaches the part of her report which bears this heading: "The Facts." In her first paragraph beneath that heading, she overlooks a gong-show misstatement—a gong-show misstatement by Spicer.

Below, we show you the way the text appears in the hard-copy Post. On line, Lee's text is much shorter, and it's substantially different.

We don't have the slightest idea why a big newspaper would want to do that. But for the record, this is the text which appears in today's hard-copy Post:
LEE: Spicer said that a Pew study from 2008 showed that “14 percent of people who have voted were not citizens.” He probably was referring to research by Old Dominion University professors, using data from 2008 and 2010, that was published two years ago by the Monkey Cage, a political sciences blog hosted by The Washington Post. They found that 14 percent of noncitizens in the 2008 and 2010 samples said they were registered to vote.
Uh-oh! Lee doesn't seem to have noticed. But she and Spicer give vastly different accounts of what those professors said.

According to Lee, the professors said that 14 percent of noncitizens in their samples said they were registered to vote. According to Spicer, the professors said that 14 percent of people who voted in the past were noncitizens.

Those are vastly different statements! Consider:

If we apply Lee's account of what the professors said to November's election, it would mean that roughly 1.5 million illegal votes were cast. (Fourteen percent of the nation's estimated 11 million unauthorized residents.)

But uh-oh! If we apply Spicer's formulation to last November's election, it would suggest that roughly 19 million illegal votes may have been cast! (Fourteen percent of the 136 million total votes.)

According to Lee, Spicer competely misstated what the professors said! But so what? Lee completely failed to notice the fact that Spicer authored this gross misstatement. In part for this reason, his account will rocket around the conservative world, heightening conservatives' sense of the depth of this alleged problem.

So it goes at the Washington Post under this rubric: "The Facts."

So the fact-checking tends to go at the Washington Post! Might this give us a hint of the skill levels found in our mainstream press?

We'll keep that question for another day! For today, we'll note that Lee started by giving Spicer a total pass on a major, howling misstatement. She then proceeds to make another mistake, turning "unfounded" to "false."

Alas! Nothing in Lee's presentation shows that Trump's statement is "false." For ourselves, we would assume that his statement is false. But Lee's report doesn't demonstrate any such fact.

Indeed, her own account of what the professors said might seem to suggest, on its face, that a lot of unauthorized residents really are registered to vote. That's different from actually voting, of course, a second distinction Lee fails to note. But Lee's critique of the professors' study may seem to suggest that a lot of unauthorized people really are registered to vote.

This tilts the field in Trump's direction. It's hard to see how this aligns with her claim that Trump's statement is "false."

Is Trump's latest statement actually "false?" Lee demonstrates no such thing. Indeed, when she critiques the professors' study, she seems to leave a great deal of room for doubt about what the actual facts may be.

Trump supporters will see lots of wiggle room here—a whole lot of room for concern about the possible amount of illegal voting:
LEE (continuing directly): But the researchers warned that “it is impossible to tell for certain whether the noncitizens who responded to the survey were representative of the broader population of noncitizens.”

A number of researchers were skeptical of the findings and methodology. In particular, critics noted the small sample of noncitizens and the possibility, explained by the study's own authors, that some of the self-reported"noncitizen" voters in the study might actually have been citizens who "accidentally misstated" their status. Some critiques are being incorporated into a revision of the original study.

One of the researchers, Jesse Richman, wrote about the Trump staff’s use of his research. The results “suggest that almost all elections in the US are not determined by noncitizen participation, with occasional and very rare potential exceptions,” he wrote.

The original post on the Monkey Cage now includes an editor's note at the beginning of the article saying that it inspired three rebuttals and a peer-reviewed article saying the findings were biased.
Good God! Based upon that account, we'd start by rolling our eyes and saying this:

These professors today!

Based upon that account, it sounds like the two professors thoroughly bungled their research. Beyond that, it sounds like the Washington Post also bungled, when it allowed the Monkey Cage to report such bungled work.

To our ear, that passage seems to suggest that the professors' research wasn't worth the fig leaves on which it was written. But nothing in that embarrassing passage shows that Trump's claim is false.

That passage does suggest that Trump's claim is unfounded, at least to the extent that it was based upon that apparently bungled study. But nothing there shows that his claim is false—and conservatives will see much room, in that very passage, for suspecting that many non-citizens really are registered to vote.

(Example: Was the professors' sample of non-citizens possibly "biased?" Liberals will take that possibility to mean that many fewer than 14 percent, maybe even none, are actually registered to vote. Conservatives will take it to mean that the real percentage might be even higher!)

Readers, let's review:

Suddenly, the Washington Post has decided that it cares a great deal about facts. For that reason, it took The Fact Checker hard-copy today, in mid-week, breaking with genteel tradition.

But alas! When it took The Checker hard-copy, The Fact Checker bungled its task. In truth, The Fact Checker made a series of bungles. Foremost among them was this:

As Jesus once turned water to wine, Lee changed unfounded to false. Meanwhile, make no mistake—conservatives will notice this fact.

Before we end, let's say this: In our view, Lee was much too easy on several players today. First and foremost, she was much too easy on Sean Spicer.

She failed to note the way he misstated what the professors had said. She went too easy on his bungled citation of Pew, a prestige site whose study in 2012 provides exactly zero support for Trump's latest unfounded claim.

Spicer's misstatements were demonstrable and grievous; the Fact Checker barely noticed. It seems she was excitedly chasing the press corps' major target today. In the process, she excitedly changed unfounded to false.

Is Donald J. Trump's new statement false? We would assume that it is, but Lee's exciting, excited piece fails to demonstrate this fact.

When the Washington Post overreaches this way, the conservative world takes notice. The tribe's spear-chuckers will tell the troops that this means that they shouldn't believe a single thing the Post says.

In truth, that isn't the world's worst advice. But it leads to the Babel of Conwayism and to the death of our culture.

We liberals are having big fun this week, turning water to wine. We're turning falsehoods into lies. We're turning unfounded to false.

We liberals are having our usual fun. But we will pay the price in the end, just as we've already paid a huge price for our own past clowning, for our naps in the woods, for our crowning incompetence.

Our tribe just isn't impressive at all—unless you let Us tell it.

Still coming: Falsehoods, misstatements and lies? False, unfounded, misleading?

Why do we have so many words? And, at times of high excitement, why should these differences matter?


  1. I believe there have been studies which tried to find the extent of illicit voting - and didn't find any. This seems to be widely known (except to Trump and Spicer, they claim) You can't expect a news piece to give detailed academic references.

    1. Those studies worse than the one done by the Old Dominion University professors. Illegal voting is by its nature hidden. In order to really look for it, one would have to take a sample of votes, compare with the registration and then investigate each of these people to see if they're citizens. That third step is never done. The studies skeptonomist refers to only compare voters with registrants.

      BTW it's possible that the Old Dominion study understates the illegal vote. That's because an illegal immigrant who is registered may be fearful of admitting it.

      Let me add that politicians are generally allowed to state something as fact if there's a single academic study supporting it. E.g, the flawed study by David Card, Alan B. Krueger that contradicts the law of supply and demand is widely quoted as justifying a higher minimum wage. Pols who quote this study are never called liars.

    2. Speak of the Devil and you hear the rustle of his wings.
      If you want to speculate David, why not speculate that the illegal immigrant would be afraid to show up in person at a polling place where his status might be discovered?
      Also, the Card and Krueger study didn't justify minimum wage. They measured employment in adjacent counties in states that had minimum wage and ones that didn't and found little difference in employment
      BTW. How come none of the anti-minimum wage crowd mention the Marginal Product of Labor and the Marginal Value of Labor, the formulas that describe hiring decisions by employers?

    3. Good day to all viewer online am Monica Watson From USA..Texas am so happy sharing this great testimony on how i was checking for solution in the internet then miraculously i came Across Dr.Zuku the powerful herbalist that Cure Numerous individuals Herpes Simplex Virus,so I contacted him base on the testimonies I?m seeing about him on the internet, I was cured too by him, kindly contact him today through his email he can help you..drzukuspelltemple@gmail.com and so he can cure types of diseases like,HEPATITIS B,DIABETICS,CANCER,HPV,LOW SPERM CAM.. all thank to you Dr Zuku for your kindly help in my life his Mobile number +16177296273

  2. Michelle Yee Hee Lee moved from tha Arizona Republic to the WaPo. I noted other errors in her reporting in the Republic. Twice I bothered to email the ed and was amazed to see the postage stamp size correction at the bottom of page 2. Evidently Lee and her editors are no better today.
    The MSM may be committed to checking facts now. But it takes more than good intentions. It takes research and a healthy skepticism.

  3. Not to mention that those 14 percent of non-citizens who reported that they were registered to vote might well be registered to vote in local elections. There are cities and towns in the US that allow non-citizens, even undocumented immigrants to vote in local elections. They cannot, of course, vote in presidential elections. Does the Pew study identify what percentage of the 14% claim to be registered to vote in elections for federal office?

  4. The answer is an investigation into voter fraud and who is promoting it. No one can argue with that.

  5. Totally stupid blog post.

  6. I think it would be interesting to see someone follow up with the press secretary to see if the mis-statement about that 14% was a mistaken reading of the results or an attempt to overstate the problem...

  7. Lee says: "The original post on the Monkey Cage now includes an editor's note at the beginning of the article saying that it inspired three rebuttals and a peer-reviewed article saying the findings were biased."

    Somerby then says he would roll his eyes and say "These Professors today."

    Somerby doesn't seem to understand the process of peer review and the dialog of science. An article is criticized before it is published and once it appears, it may evoke more criticism, additional research and an ongoing controversy addressed by others in the field. No study, published or not, is without error and methodological problems. The question is whether the study also contains useful information and what can be concluded from it. Scientists debate and argue about this because that is how science works.

    No study produces definitive answers -- conclusions do not rest on a single study, ever, but on scientific consensus emerging across a large number of studies.

    Someone who cherry-picks a single study to support a preferred view is abusing research by ignoring the larger context of the literature.

    Somerby and David are both exposing their ignorance. It astonishes me that someone could get through both high school science classes and an undergrad education at Harvard without knowing how science works.

  8. The simplest way to solve this problem would be to legalize all the undocumented people living in the US so that their votes become moot. They live here, pay taxes, support communities and participate in our society, why shouldn't they vote?

  9. Perhaps those 14% of noncitizens who said they were registered to vote were registered in the countries they came from. It depends on how the question was asked whether they would be able to qualify their response that way.

    I find my self wondering how they knew they were noncitizens. These must have been legal immigrants, not undocumented people, if they freely admitted on a survey that they were noncitizens. Spicer is talking about illegals not legal permanent residents or visitors. They don't go around admitting their status on surveys, as a rule.

  10. The Monkey Cage article says: "Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

    How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010."

    To do the math:
    .064 x 339 = 21 out of 32,800 = 21/32800 = 6.4 e(-4) or .00064 (I think), an extremely tiny % in 2008
    .022 x 489 = 10.75 out of 55,400 = 10.75/55400 = 1.94 e(-4) or .000194 (I think), an even smaller % in 2010.

    These % of likely noncitizens extrapolated to have voted are so small they are not worth worrying about. They certainly don't add up to millions.

  11. I don't know how good or how bad that Old Dominion study was. But, the simple fact that is exists refutes two widely reported statements:
    1. It's false to claim that millions of non-citizens voted. As Bob points out, nobody knows for sure
    2. It's baseless to claim that millions of non-citizens voted. That study is a basis, although not a conclusive one.

    Many media outlets reported these false statements. Do you think any corrections will be forthcoming.

    P.S. as a Californian I'd like to see a good investigation. Given the large number of non-citizens living here and the ease of registering, this state is the most likely to have large numbers of illegal votes cast.

    1. Somerby is being an idiot about this. He is applying standards of logical proof to a probabilistic problem. Science uses probabilistic reasoning, not certainty, to draw conclusions from evidence. Knowing for sure isn't required. Knowing with a high probability is sufficient.

      The burden of proof is on Trump, the person making an extreme claim. It is not on the rest of us to prove that those undocumented people didn't vote. Trump needs to show that they did. There is no data supporting that. End of story.

      It would be no different in California. If undocumented people in California were voting in the millions, you would expect to see many more Hispanic elected officials than we do. When Mexican-Americans citizens with a legitimate right to vote do not vote in large numbers, why would you expect even more undocumented people to be voting? This doesn't pass the test of common sense.

    2. David, since you are an actuary, tell us whether @3:34 put the decimals in the right place in those calculations.

    3. I'm not sure what 3:34 did. Here's my appoach:

      There are supposedly 11,000,000 illegal immigrants. Also there's some number of non citizens who are legally here. I'll assume that figure is 5,000,000 based on POOMA. That makes 16,000,000 total non-citizens. If 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008, that would be 6.4% of 16,000,000 which is about a million.

    4. Congratulations David, you voted for Caligula.

      In 2012, Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s administration tried to crack down on noncitizens voting by comparing driver’s license data against voter rolls.

      Through this process the Florida Department of State created a list of 182,000 potential noncitizens who had voted. That number was whittled down to 2,700, then to about 200 before the purge was stopped amid criticism that the data was flawed given the number of false positives — including a Brooklyn-born World War II vet.

      Ultimately, only 85 people were removed from the voting rolls. State officials began a second attempt at a purge before the 2014 election but abandoned that effort, too.

      Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, called Phillips’ claim “fake news.”

      “There is no credible evidence I have seen to show large numbers of noncitizens voting in U.S. elections anywhere,” Hasen said. “The idea that 3 million noncitizens could have illegally voted in our elections without being detected is obscenely ludicrous.”

      Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article116742673.html#storylink=cpy

    5. David, even if we use your figures, you forgot that only 17% of the non-citizens are registered and then 6.4% of those people voted, so it is 6.4% of 17% (which is 1%)of 16 million, which is 160,000 people nationwide. Not enough to affect any election anywhere, even if many are concentrated in California, as you claim.

    6. Sorry -- they said more than 14% were registered. That would make it a smaller number. The words "these people" makes it clear they are referring back to the non-citizens who were registered and then voted, not all non-citizens.

      See also: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims-revisited/

    7. Stick to what you know David, bean counting.

    8. If he cannot figure out what @3:34 did, he is not good at bean counting either.

    9. Even the authors of that flawed study now admit it was flawed and in no way supports the insane ravings of the Bastard President.

      While we have no idea how Phillips arrived at his claim that 3 million noncitizens voted, people who have made similar claims in the past have cited a 2014 report that claims 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of noncitizens voted in the 2010 midterm congressional elections.

      That report was based on data from a Harvard survey of people. But the data was flawed, which created flaws in the subsequent report.

      The authors of the survey say a small percentage of respondents, who are citizens, accidentally misidentified themselves as noncitizens on the survey. This is because the respondents didn’t read the question carefully and accidentally selected the wrong response to the question.

      How do researchers know this? One of the authors of the survey, Brian Schaffner, said people changed their answers later when they were asked about their citizenship.

      “When we took out people who changed their answer on the citizenship question and only look at people who answered consistently that they were noncitizens, we found no reported noncitizens who voted,” Schaffner told PolitiFact.

      Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article116742673.html#storylink=cpy

    10. Monkey Cage said, "Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008..." That statement looked clear. If MC really meant that 6.4% of some subset of non-citizens voted, then this is unclear writing.

    11. Here is the complete quote:

      "How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010."

      It is unclear writing. You must take the 6.4% statement in context. Then it refers back to the % that are registered not the entire noncitizen population. It comes at the end of a chain of statements that first reduces the total number of noncitizens to those registered, then estimates the % who voted.

      Leaving out those preceding sentences is dishonest, David. It is also stupid given that I quoted them above so your excision would be obvious to readers here.

  12. "Even to say 'there's no evidence' for Trump's claims is a cop-out. There's also no evidence that Godzilla or King Kong exists. But we're less tentative about saying someone's either crazy or a liar if they say otherwise......

    Voter fraud is close to non-existent in the United States going back more than half a century. When it's brought up, it is almost always to discredit fair elections or with the political agenda of making it hard to vote. The folks who push this are liars."

    Josh Marshall


    1. If Marshall referred to the Old Dominion study and refuted it, that would be one thing. But, he is apparently ignorant of that study. That makes his assurance that voter fraud is close to non-existant completely worthless. How can he reach that conclusion without first looking at all the evidence that voter fraud exists?

  13. The complete lack of any fact to support an assertion of fact is a falsehood. It may properly qualify as a guess, speculation or conjecture, but it's not a fact.

  14. Hello, i am Jessica Wayne from TX, USA. Life without my husband was a real mess for me and my children I am so happy to get my Ex back through the help of Dr Noble the spell caster . My greatest surprise was that 48 hours after the Doctor prepared the spell for me, my husband who has abandoned me for 4 years suddenly called me unexpectedly and am so happy that we have come to become one again through the help of Dr Noble and am so happy to be with my husband once again. Dr Noble is a very wonderful spell caster, you can contact him if you need his assistant because i know he can also help you. contact him through his email: templeofjoyandprosperity@gmail.com +2349039520524 immediately

  15. I have been suffering from (HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS) disease for the past two years and had constant pain, especially in my knees. During the first year,I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.This disease started circulating all over my body and i have been taking treatment from my doctor, few weeks ago i came on search on the internet if i could get any information concerning the prevention of this disease, on my search i saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from (HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS) by this Man Dr Ero and she also gave the email address: dreroherbaltreatment@gmail.com of this man and advise we should contact him for any sickness that he would be of help, so i wrote to Dr.Ero telling him about my (HERPES Virus) he told me not to worry that i was going to be cured!! hmm i never believed it,, well after all the procedures and remedy given to me by this man few weeks later i started experiencing changes all over me as the Dr Ero assured me that i have cured,after some time i went to my doctor to confirmed if i have be finally healed behold it was TRUE, So friends my advise is if you have such sickness or any other at all you can email:: dreroherbaltreatment@gmail.com.

  16. Hello everyone, I was infected with the herpes virus and I got cured of the herpes virus few months ago after i contacted Dr Ekpiku. I saw a post on the internet after i have seek healing for several years from different doctors in California. I sent the Doctor a request for help, just a few email i followed his instruction and he sent me the medication after i paid him. Now i am negative and i referred him to all my friend who had this same sickness and they have gotten their cure too. You can contact him via his email.Ekpikuspellhomeofgrace@hotmail.com or Ekpikuspellhomeofgrace@gmail.com or Phone call: 2348073673757. While i was on his medication i understood that he can also cure HERPES, HIV/AIDS, CANCER, Male/female menopause, Miscarriage, Menstruation problems, PREGNANCY PROBLEM, EPILEPSY, GONORRHEA, LASSA FEVER, OBESITY, KIDNEY FAILURE, HYPERTENSION, FIBROID TUMOR and many more.

  17. i'm from USA i want to testify of a great and powerful spell caster my husband left me and the kids for 2 weeks when i called him he didn't pick up when he came back home the 3rd week he told me he wanted a divorce i was so sad i cried all night he left again i was so lonely the next day i was searching for something online when i found a spell caster called dr ben who have helped so many people with their problems so i contacted him with my problems he told me it will take 48hrs and my husband will be back to me i did every thing he told me to do and the next day my husband came back kneeling and begging he canceled the divorce we are now happy together dr ben can help you too Email him at: drbenspellcaster@gmail.com or whatsapp him on : +2348151642717..

  18. I found out, that taking herbal treatment is the best to get rid of hpv as soon as i feel the symptoms of hpv is appearing, i took the healing process by contacting Dr onokun for natural treatment it works wonders, amazingly ever since I had the herbal treatment i have not feel these horrible disease anymore and my doc told me the virus is gone, i am glad i finally got cured out from this horrible disease. every hpv or herpes patients should also get in touch with this herbalist Dr to get ride of these disease forever his email address; dronokunherbalcure@gmail.com 

  19. A big Thanks to you doctor   Just confirm am completely cure free from hsv with the help of his wonderful herbs medicine, may God continue to bless you and your wonderful herbs medicine thanks so much Dr Abubaka anyone looking for any herbs medicine should kindly contact Dr Abubaka  to place your order for his lovely herbs medicine Via email: DrAbubaka@gmail.com or WhatsApp: +2348075551672

  20. Happiness is all i see now I never thought that I will be cured from HERPES virus again. I have been suffering from a deadly disease (HERPES) for the past 3 years now, I had spent a lot of money going from one places to another, from churches to churches, hospitals have been my home every day residence. Constant checks up have been my hobby not until this faithful day, I was searching through the internet, I saw a testimony on how DR agaba helped someone in curing his HERPES disease, quickly I copied his email which is Dragabasolutionhome@gmail.com just to give him a test I spoke to him, he asked me to do some certain things which I did, he told me that he is going to provide the herbal cure to me, which he did, then he asked me to go for medical checkup after some days after using the herbal cure, behold I was free from the deadly disease, he only asked me to post the testimony through the whole world, faithfully am doing it now, please brothers and sisters, he is great, I owe him in return. if you are having a similar problem just email him on : Dragabasolutionhome@gmail.com or WhatApp: +2349074536486