BREAKING: There's no safe amount of journalism!

THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2018

When great apes reason, part 1:
Is Aaron Carroll an employee of the New York Times?

We aren't exactly sure. He has an Upshot feature in today's Times, but his formal identity line at the Times reads exactly like this:
Aaron E. Carroll is a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine who blogs on health research and policy at The Incidental Economist and makes videos at Healthcare Triage. He is the author of The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully.
Does he also work for the Times? As usual, we can't quite tell.

That said, Carroll is no ordinary journalist. As you can see, he's a med school professor—and he generally seems to know what he's talking about!

He tends to display basic nuance skills! His analysis piece in today's Times starts exactly as shown below, hard-copy headline included:
CARROLL (8/29/18): A Measured Look at a Study That Alarmed Some Drinkers

Last week a paper was published in The Lancet
that claimed to be the definitive study on the benefits and dangers of drinking. The news was apparently not good for those who enjoy alcoholic beverages. It was covered in the news media with headlines like “There’s No Safe Amount of Alcohol.”

The truth is much less newsy and much more measured.
Oof! Carroll even provides a link to this live report from CNN. He has accurately quoted its headline:
CNN: There's no safe amount of alcohol, study says
Similar headlines appeared elsewhere. Below you see two examples:
New York Daily News: Consumption of alcohol is never safe: Brit study

Philadelphia Inquirer: There’s no ‘safe’ level of alcohol consumption, study finds
We're even willing to tell you this. Online, though not in print editions, the New York Times reported on the study under this headline:
New York Times: How Much Alcohol Is Safe to Drink? None, Say These Researchers
There's no safe amount of alcohol? The New York Times ran a version of that headline itself!

We'll say, right now, that this topic rings bells because it so closely resembles the journalism concerning lead exposure which emerged from events in Flint. But for the moment, let's take a quick look at what Carroll says about alcohol and safety.

In essence, he says these headlined claims are overwrought and in that sense misleading. When he starts "interpreting the results," this is his first example:
CARROLL: The news warns that even one drink per day carries a risk. But how great is that risk?

For each set of 100,000 people who have one drink a day per year, 918 can expect to experience one of the 23 alcohol-related problems in any year. Of those who drink nothing, 914 can expect to experience a problem. This means that 99,082 are unaffected, and 914 will have an issue no matter what. Only 4 in 100,000 people who consume a drink a day may have a problem caused by the drinking, according to this study.
It's true! Based on those data, zero drinks a day per year would (apparently) be safer than one drink a day per year. (Before he gets to this material, Carroll cites some methodological concerns.)

That said, the difference is extremely small—several light years beyond tiny. Does it make sense to broadcast scary headlines about "no safe amount" based on such tiny additional risk?

Full disclosure! The safety risk does increase with increased consumption. Carroll continues as shown:
CARROLL (continuing directly): At two drinks per day, the number experiencing a problem increased to 977. Even at five drinks per day, which most agree is too much, the vast majority of people are unaffected.
Let's stick with people who quaff two drinks per day. Out of 100,000 such people, 977 will will experience some health problem of the relevant type. But that's compared to the control group, in which 914 total abstainers will experience some similar problem.

Based upon these data, it's true—it's safer not to drink at all. That said, it doesn't seem to be much safer, at least not at moderate rates of consumption.

What would be the sensible way to report such findings? In line with other observations about the limitations of the type of study in question, Carroll argues that these screaming headlines cause people to misunderstand the seriousness of what is being reported.

According to Carroll, "Too many people interpret" these studies "with panic-inducing results." He says those headlines stood atop reporting which was admittedly "newsy" but insufficiently "measured."

The New York Times done good today in publishing Carroll's analysis. For ourselves, we were instantly struck by the contrast between the headlines Carroll cited and the underwhelming data he soon provided.

As noted, this recalled the reporting out of Flint—the reporting out of Flint, and the unfortunate propagandization.

Again and again, we were told, concerning Flint, that there is "no safe amount of exposure to lead," especially for children. The people who kept saying this were generally the ones who kept saying, excitingly, that a whole city had been "poisoned."

Rachel Maddow was a prime offender. In fairness, she was trying to please us liberals as she tried to get the governor of Michigan thrown into jail.

Over at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum kept presenting the actual data. It's true that any exposure to lead can have negative effects, especially for children. But at the level of exposure at issue in Flint, the likely effects were remarkably small.

The likely effects were very small! But apes like Maddow kept disappearing such facts, leading to the "tragedy" Drum reported in this January 2017 post.

Drum's post was based on a report in the New Yorker. Kids in Flint kept hearing that they'd been "poisoned." Sensibly but inaccurately, some concluded that their lives had been ruined. When great apes attempt to reason, children like these get hurt.

Again, we want to be fair. Maddow's endless propagandization probably helped her ratings. This put more money into the hands of her corporate owners. It also increased her fame.

That said, there were downsides. Her viewers got made extremely dumb, and a bunch of kids got grossly abused. (So did their parents.) According to leading anthropologists, this sort of thing happens, again and again, when members of our floundering branch of the great apes try to reason.

This afternoon, or tomorrow, we'll offer "When great apes reason, part 2." A warning to those who may tend to get upset:

The Times has done "deseg" again!

34 comments:

  1. Overblown headlines of studies showing negligible risk of something are all too common. Not to mention overblown headlines of invalid studies. This journalistic practice has at least two harmful effects on the populace

    1. Many people wrongly believe that vaccines are harmful.

    2. Many people are unaware just how huge a health risk smoking is, compared to other health risks that we hear about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you agree with Trump that we should go back to putting asbestos into buildings? The danger there is negligible too, and it is only an issue for the people who get mesothelioma, so who cares?

      People don't wrongly believe in vaccines because of journalistic practices. They wrongly believe it because a doctor, a physician in the UK, went around telling parents that vaccines caused autism. They trusted his expertise, which was the same kind of background as Carroll, by the way. Then celebrities and people like Trump jumped onto the bandwagon and promoted the idea that vaccinating kids was bad for them. That made the wrong belief more widespread. Now Trump wants to promote those wrong beliefs from the presidency by establishing a commission on it (headed by RFK Jr). Luckily he was talked out of it. So, it wasn't the NY Times that caused this one.

      As to your second point, I doubt there is a person on the planet who is unaware that smoking is bad for health. But what about vaping? What about smoking pot? What about alcohol? As Mao points out, this recent study looked at alcohol-related diseases, not the overall impact of alcohol on health generally, and not the social impacts of alcohol. Is drinking good for people's relationships? Does it enhance job performance? Does it help or hurt problems like depression, anxiety, PTSD, OCD, insomnia? Is there a relationship between drinking and breast cancer (hint: you bet!) and was that listed among the 23 alcohol-related disorders? Probably not, since women's issues are generally not included in medical studies.

      Delete
  2. Yeah, of course: bullshit science is lib-zombies' all-knowing/all-powerful God. What else is new...

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Based upon these data, it's true—it's safer not to drink at all."

    No, Bob, it's not true. All this talk about "some health problem of the relevant type" (whatever the hell that is) doesn't necessarily address the safety in general.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are a whole bunch of problems with Somerby's analysis today.

    First, he wants to equate lead effects with drinking effects. Those alcohol-related diseases are not the same kind of problem as lead-induced cognitive deficits, which lead to learning deficits and school problems, behavior problems including prison, violence and relationship problems, and lifelong difficulties earning a living and having a good life. The consequences for the individual drinking alcohol might be death a few years earlier after a chronic illness whereas the consequences of lead exposure are pervasive and affect everything the person does, because it affects how his or her brain functions. These are not comparable.

    This study chose to focus on 25 alcohol-related conditions. It does not include the possible complications and side effects of alcohol on other health issues, such as drinking during pregnancy, drinking while taking sleep medications or opioids (which can be fatal), drinking and depression or drinking and car accidents. These are health issues too but they were not included in the study.

    Third, there have been positive claims of benefits from moderate drinking, largely due to stress relief and lowering of anxiety. There are vascular effects of alcohol that affect heart conditions positively (like blood thinners and aspirin do). It is an important finding if this current study says that alcohol doesn't produce benefits after all. Because arguing about the extent of harm is different than arguing whether moderate alcohol use helps or hurts health.

    So, this isn't about whether scare headlines are warranted. It is about contradicting longstanding advice to people about alcohol use. That's what those "no alcohol is safe" headlines were actually about. No one has ever argued that any amount of lead is beneficial. There is no lead finding that is contradicted when people argue about safe lead levels -- no level is safe. For alcohol, it was thought that moderate drinking was not only safe but a good thing. So those headlines were not misleading unless you want to deliberately ignore the current state of knowledge about alcohol and misconstrue them, as Somerby has done here, to prove one of his pet beliefs about statistical reasoning.

    Then, there is the issue of how we reason about small numbers. Only a tiny number of women get breast cancer each year. An even smaller number get other forms of cancer. Does that mean we should get rid of cancer warnings and abolish the charities and fund-raising activities to help cancer research? There are a tiny number of car deaths, tiny numbers of people who are struck by lightning. Do we abandon cautions and safety equipment and let people play golf in the rain? Or are the small number of preventable deaths worth preventing, even when inconvenient and when there is some expense involved? Do people really need to drink alcohol? A strong liquor lobby says yes. This study flies in the face of that pressure. Who does Somerby support?

    Finally, you have to ask whether these arguments Somerby is making about this study are similar to those made by the tobacco industry about the cigarette health studies. Should we return to smoking? Is vaping worth curtailing? Or do we let people engage in self-destructive behavior simply because it won't have strong effects on everyone, and not until much later in life? Republicans and Libertarians would probably come down on Somerby's side on this matter. And where is the marijuana lobby? Should they make decisions for us or should we get accurate, honest info about these kinds of studies, including unpleasant headlines that tell the truth?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Does he also work for the Times? As usual, we can't quite tell."

    Of course he doesn't work for the NY Times. This man is not a journalist at all. The background info clearly states that. There's no mystery here, unless Somerby is using a roundabout, annoying way of telling us he is not an unbiased source.

    This guy has written a popular trade (e.g., not scholarly) book criticizing the studies upon which current food fads and ideas about good and bad foods are based. His book has a chapter on alcohol. What was his position on alcohol in his book and might he be inclined to defend that opinion?

    Despite Carroll's blogging and health research credentials, I could not find any evidence of training in research methods or statistics. While I agree that the public doesn't know how to evaluate research studies, neither do many physicians, because it is not part of their training. This man's background in pediatrics has nothing to do with the subjects he now blogs about, nothing to do with his book. So, I think Somerby is right if he is hinting that this guy's statements should be taken with a grain of salt.

    I disagree that the NY Times did good by publishing his opinions. The authors of that peer-reviewed publish research on alcohol didn't get a chance to rebut his comments and I see no reason to take Carroll's word over theirs and the opinions of the rest of the medical community. There will be a technical discussion of this new report among those qualified to evaluate it and they will eventually issue a consensus recommendation to the public. Until then, I think no alcohol is safe (because why not opt into the control group) and I certainly wouldn't go around consuming lead.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mrs. D in C, a bio statistician, is enthusiastic about this article. She points out a common misunderstanding of the word "significant". A study is statistically significant if the sample size is large enough for the statistical technique being used. But, a statistically significant medical study can show results of no medical significance, e.g. the effect of one drink per day is insignificant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, David, this is taught in statistics 101. This isn't the point upon which the report about alcohol hinges. Somerby thinks a finding that 4 people (1 drink per day) and 63 people (2 drinks per day -- note steep increase) are not worth caring about and that people should just go ahead and consider alcohol beneficial, as before. Is that warranted by the results of this study? They found that NO ALCOHOL level produced 0 deaths or reduced deaths below baseline (produced a health benefit).

      Notice that if you restricted the diseases studied to 10, you would cut those deaths down to 0 perhaps, or to 4 for the two-drink group. The number of diseases studied is arbitrary and not the full range of health issues people experience in their lives. Alcohol may be a contributing factor to far more health problems (fractures due to falls come to mind), so the actual number of people dying due to the contribution of those 1 or 2 daily drinks may be far larger than this study suggests. Carroll doesn't mention that. Wonder why?

      Did your wife not think of this David? Why not?

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your comment 2:43. A rise from 4 to 63 people per 100,000 looks steep, but it isn't really. The change is from 0.00004 to 0.0006. for practical purposes,both numbers are essentially zero. There may be reasons not to have two drinks a day, but this study is not a reason to do so.

      Your point about some other study possibly showing additional harm from alcohol is possible, but the article was dealing with this study only.

      Delete
    3. This study shows that any amount of drinking increases the deaths due to alcohol-related diseases. The increase is slight with one drink daily but increases with more alcohol (as you would expect if these diseases are actually alcohol related). Somerby doesn't tell us how much it increases with heavy drinking. He thinks people stick to the 1 oz that is considered one drink by researchers. What most people consider one drink is one glass and the alcohol content varies.

      If you were one of the four people who was terminal in a given year and your doctor told you it was because of your daily martini, you'd care a lot. This dismissing of small numbers out of 100,000 is the way actuaries think, not the way real people think. Real people are risk aversive.

      I'll bet I could give this NY Times article to a group of people and their reaction to the seriousness of the alcohol risk would vary inversely with the amount of alcohol they consume daily. The more they drink the smaller they think that 4/100,000 is.

      The number that matters for everyone is the likelihood of dying from all factors influenced by alcohol. These accumulate until the chance of death increasing with alcohol consumption becomes much larger. Include being raped due to lack of situational awareness while drunk. Include chance of being hit by a drunk driver. Include chance of swallowing a chunk of meat the wrong way while drunk and being incapable of coping with it. Include chance of tripping over your pet dog and falling down stairs while tipsy. And so on. Add it all up and see whether drinking is a good idea from a medical standpoint.

      Delete
  7. "BREAKING: There's no safe amount of journalism!"

    Is an op-ed really journalism? I don't think so.

    Were any of those quoted headlines inaccurate? I don't agree with Somerby -- I think they were all accurate.

    At two drinks there is a 7% increase in mortality. He doesn't tell us what happens with 3 or 4 or 5 (close to binge drinking of the type that young people do engage in at parties and clubs).

    This is assuming they get home safely, don't get AIDS because alcohol-impaired judgment results in skipping that condom, don't choke on their own vomit, etc. etc. (not listed among the 23 causes of death in this particular study).

    ReplyDelete
  8. What is the safe level for exposure to classical symphonies? Four movements or only three?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkN8UFNVVOo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the poli-cyber junkies around here? If you don't want your subjects wandering off to other tabs while they're being injected, go with a concerto and keep the dosage down to around two minutes LINK.

      Delete
    2. Or you could march with Mlada in the procession of the elites.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBdKlNsuPd4

      Delete
    3. Or you could go with this, but it’s only a four-piece.

      LINK

      Is it a short example of counterpoint or contrapuntal? Or neither?

      Leroy

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Cheers, is what I meant to say.

      Leroy

      Delete
  9. No amount of lead is safe. That seems to be established fact. It is "what we are told" by the CDC, among many others. Indeed, the increase in lead exposure in Flint was measurable and had bad consequences. If a new study shows there is no safe amount of alcohol, then that is significant. It is simply being reported by the media that Somerby is mocking. Obviously, a consensus of scientific opinion needs to be reached. But as one commenter above pointed out, there is a belief, possibly based on some sort of research, that alcohol in moderation can have beneficial health effects. This study casts doubt on that widely held belief.

    Now, what the new research on alcohol has to do with Maddow's reporting on the Flint water crisis, I don't know. Somerby thinks he has proven something about media hype, but he has made a spurious argument.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Only 4 in 100,000 people who consume a drink a day may have a problem caused by the drinking, according to this study."

    That adds up to around 9,528 people nationwide. As a comparison, there are more than 10,000 deaths every year from drunk driving. Those numbers are fairly similar.

    Point is, 4 in 100,000 adds up to a pretty large number when you do the math.

    (Number is based on the number of us citizens of drinking age.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read that the number of people fracturing their pelvises due to slipping on a pomegranate seed increased by 100% last year, from 1 to 2. Isn't it about time to ban pomegranates???

      Delete
    2. People who are prone to fracturing their pelvises (e.g., due to osteoporosis and aging) try to erase as many falling hazards from their lives as possible. Are they being silly? I don't think so.

      Delete
  11. It's useful to understand the relative sizes of different risks. E.g., six thousand American pedestrians were killed in accidents last year. Should you give up crossing the street because of this risk? Of course not.

    Several people have fatal accidents in Yosemite National Park each year. Since around 10,000 people are in the park each day, this is higher mortality rate than the risk of 2 drinks a day. Should you not visit parks?

    The point is, there is many risks that are negligible. Don't spend effort trying to figure out which ones are even more negligible. "Negligible" means "so small that it may safely be neglected." So, go ahead and neglect the negligible risks.

    P.S. make sure you pay sufficient attention to the large risks. E.g., drunk driving is dangerous, not only to the driver by to others as well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. “For each set of 100,000 people who have one drink a day per year, 918 can expect to experience one of the 23 alcohol-related problems in any year. Of those who drink nothing, 914 can expect to experience a problem.”

    The study to which Somerby linked from the Times under Carroll’s byline is massive in its detail, and I admit, I didn’t search for the data indicating the possible coincidence of alcohol-related problems and similar or identical problems totally unrelated to alcohol consumption. Such as, who knows, lead poisoning.

    Btw, I couldn’t help but think of George Burns, cigar smoker extraordinaire and near centenarian before his passing.

    The segue from alcohol consumption in the general populace to lead consumption in the case of Flint in this case seems a rather clumsy attempt by Somerby to incorporate “She Whom He Hates Most of All” to a rather unimportant topic, given the parameters set above. I don’t like her either, but that’s beside the point.

    I noticed Bob gave a hat-tip to Drum concerning his excellent study of the horrific effects of lead on the general populace way back when (which I hadn’t been aware of ‘cept for Bob), and perhaps the next upcoming project projected by Bob may involve Drum. If that’s true, I hope it comes to pass. Who knows, we may see Somerby’s byline on MJ.

    Perhaps this is Bob’s way of telling us he’s going on the wagon. Power to you, brah, if that’s really the case. I just hope sobriety doesn’t interfere with some of the most creative and erudite writing I’ve ever seen on the topic(s) to which you seem to have dedicated your life. But then again, how could it?

    Cheers,

    Leroy

    ReplyDelete
  13. Science reporting generally will not report general truths, but what is new and fresh.

    ReplyDelete
  14. MY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN RESTORED
    Hey guys, my name is John Carlos, am from London United Kindom, Life has being very difficult for me Since when my Wife left me and my Kids, She left for no reason. I and my kids had being dwelling in pains for almost two years now, Recently, A Friend of mine Directed me to this great spell caster named Dr Noble, he is a Powerful Spell caster, he helped me and before 48 hours, My Wife that left me came back and started begging for forgivness. What more can i say, Dr Noble showed me How powerful Hes Love spell is. I will drop Hes Email address along with this testimony of mine in case anyone want to contact him, There is His Email: (templeofjoyandprosperity1@gmail.com)
    Whats_App number or Call +2348145643630
    http://ineedmyexbackdrnoble.blogspot.com/2018/08/urgent-love-spell-to-fix-your-broken.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Guess what's more deadly than lead? Blowing the whistle on lead:

    Sasha Avonna Bell, a woman leading the drive to sue the Michigan government over the Flint lead poisoning water crisis, has been found shot and killed in her home, M Live reports. She had claimed that her child was poisoned by the water after it was switched from the Detroit water system to the Flint river, (which officials hadn’t applied corrosion inhibitors to).

    http://econewsmedia.net/2017/12/20/woman-leading-flint-lead-poisoning-lawsuit-found-shot-dead-home/

    ReplyDelete
  16. I want to offer a bit of advice to anyone looking to find help on saving their marriage/relationship or get your ex lover back fast after breakup/divorce even if your situation seems hopeless!Contact: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com is certainly the best spell caster online and his result is 100% guarantee.
    My Name Olivia Stephen form Tx,USA. After 12years of marriage, me and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me and moved to California to be with another woman. I felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again. i tried to be strong just for the kids but i could not control the pains that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because i was really in love with my husband. Every day and night i think of him and always wish he would come back to me, I was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a Love spell for me. 28 hours later, my husband really called me and told me that he miss me and the kids so much, So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and the kids. Then from that day,our Marriage was now stronger than how it were before, All thanks to Dr Unity. he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that Dr.Unity is real and powerful spell caster who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and you need Love-spell to Win your Man Back from Another Woman or Win your Boyfriend/girlfriend back forever. Do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster now. Here’s his contact:
    Call/WhatsApp: +2348071622464 ,
    Email: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com ,
    blogsite:https://unityspelltmple.blogspot.com .
    Website:https://unityspelltempleblog.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  17. Spells To Get Your Ex Back Fast after breakup/divorce even if your situation seems hopeless!Contact: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com is certainly the best spell caster online and his result is 100% guarantee.
    My Name Olivia Stephen form Tx,USA. After 12years of marriage, me and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me and moved to California to be with another woman. I felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again. i tried to be strong just for the kids but i could not control the pains that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because i was really in love with my husband. Every day and night i think of him and always wish he would come back to me, I was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a Love spell for me. 28 hours later, my husband really called me and told me that he miss me and the kids so much, So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and the kids. Then from that day,our Marriage was now stronger than how it were before, All thanks to Dr Unity. he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that Dr.Unity is real and powerful spell caster who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and you need Love-spell to Win your Man Back from Another Woman or Win your Boyfriend/girlfriend back forever. Do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster now. Here’s his contact:
    Call/WhatsApp: +2348071622464 ,
    Email: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com ,
    blogsite:https://unityspelltmple.blogspot.com .
    Website:https://unityspelltempleblog.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hello,

    I'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.

    Contact me -
    Email: greatogudugu@gmail.com
    WhatsApp No: +27663492930

    ReplyDelete
  19. Fantastic post.

    Really enjoyed reading it and it held my attention all the way through! Keep it up.

    Read my Latest Post

    ReplyDelete
  20. I Can't still believe that i got cured from Genital Herpes through herbal treatment from Dr Oyagu who I met through the internet, I actually couldn't believe it at first because it sounded impossible to me knowing how far I have gone just to get rid of it. Dr Oyagu send me his medicine which I took as instructed and here I am living a happy life once again, a big thanks to Dr Oyagu, I am sure there are many herbal doctors out there but Dr Oyagu did it for me, contact him oyaguherbalhome@gmail.com , also call or whatsApp him on +2348101755322

    ReplyDelete
  21. I Can't still believe that i got cured from Genital Herpes through herbal treatment from Dr Oyagu who I met through the internet, I actually couldn't believe it at first because it sounded impossible to me knowing how far I have gone just to get rid of it. Dr Oyagu send me his medicine which I took as instructed and here I am living a happy life once again, a big thanks to Dr Oyagu, I am sure there are many herbal doctors out there but Dr Oyagu did it for me, contact him oyaguherbalhome@gmail.com , also call or whatsApp him on +2348101755322

    ReplyDelete
  22. The article you shared here is very awesome. I really like and appreciate your work. I have read your article deeply, the points that you mentioned in this article are useful download for android

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm 61 years old, I contracted hpv in 2011' I has be taking lot treatment for it and embarrassed some months ago the wart stated coming out seriously, I used lot recommendation because there was lot warts around my anus and was so . but today I'm totally happy I got the virus eliminated by using natural treatment from Dr Onokun herbal center after his treatment I got cured. all the warts went away' seriously believed Dr Onokun he have the cure for human papillomavirus because he has eliminated hpv been in my body since 2011, Dr Onokun make it possible for me. Here is Dr Onokun email:  dronokunherbalcure@gmail.com 

    ReplyDelete