LONGING FOR BETTER DISCOURSE: President Trump makes accurate statement!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2020

Offended blue tribe fights back:
What's the old saying? Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it?

We think it goes something like that!

At any rate, that's pretty much the way it works with the longing for better discourse. Everyone says they want better discourse, but nobody tries to produce it.

We'll look at Lili Loofbourow's effort before the week is done. This morning, though, we'll start with Nicolle Wallace, defending Dr. Fauci again.

Over the weekend, Team Trump began attacking Fauci, so the liberal, progressive and anti-Trump worlds sensibly swung into action.

Has Dr. Fauci always been right? We're not sure how to score it. But since the attacks have made almost no sense, it made excellent sense to push back, or at least it did so in theory.

Yesterday was Day Two of this movement on Wallace's program, Deadline: White House. Along the way, what kind of discourse did the former Bush spokesperson produce?

Yesterday, she was defending Fauci again. About ten minutes in, she said this, speaking to the Washington Post's Ashley Parker:
WALLACE (7/14/20): Ashley Parker, this story that your paper broke over the weekend about the oppo dump on Fauci was, for me, one of those stories that are pillars of covering the coverage, for people like you and papers like yours, of the Trump presidency. And I was so fixated on it.

I've been looking at all of Fauci's predictions
, because they rubbed me the wrong way because they were so scary, but they turned out to be right.

Let me play for you some of his predictions, very early on, and just about all of them turned out to be right.
As noted, we were now in thesecond day of this global defense. At this point, Wallace played videotape of three presentations by Fauci—presentations from "very early on."

In each case, the videotape was marked with the date on which the presentation was made. Somewhat comically, thee presentations from "very early on" had actually been made on these dats:
Dates of Fauci's presentations from "very early on"
May 12
June 30
July 6
Eventually, we got to see Heilemann's dogs. As we type, this is the only clip the channel has posted on YouTube.

For whatever it's worth, none of Fauci's presentations had been made "very early on." The most recent of the three presentations was literally made last week!

As tape of the three presentations played, we wondered if Wallace would correct her misstatement about their "very early" provenance. Apparently, she had read an erroneous script which someone on her staff had prepared. We wondered if she'd simply say so, in passing.

When the tape ended, Wallace didn't do that. In her reply, Parker didn't mention this matter either.

In the main, Parker said that Fauci's predictions had been right "in the macro" though he'd sometimes been wrong "in the micro." She said he'd changed his mind on some early statements, mainly as new knowledge was gained about this novel virus.

That was Parker's basic stance. Before we get to her bungled logic, we do want to say this:

We've developed a healthy respect for Parker's work by watching her on cable. She isn't snarky, snide, nasty or dumb. As a general matter, she expresses herself with great clarity.

Typically, she even seems to know what she's talking about! But in a rare move for the Post reporter, yesterday's defense of Fauci ended up making no sense:
PARKER: A final irony is, a lot of those small things that Anthony Fauci and others got wrong potentially, they were the same things the president and vice president were getting wrong at the time just because the virus was so fast-moving...So this administration was just as culpable for many of the things they are accusing Fauci of.
In the three-dot edit we've made, Parker seemed to misdescribe a statement by Vice President Pence, apparently from early March.

But that possible misstatement (by Parker) isn't the point. For those who long for better discourse, the more striking point would be this:

In the passage we've posted, Parker says that Fauci did get some things wrong, but Trump and Pence got those same things wrong. The logic there is very strange, especially for those of us who love good solid logical discourse.

What was wrong with Parker's logic? Just this:

In theory, Fauci was the high-ranking infectious disease expert on whom the White House was depending. It was his job to avoid being wrong on matters concerning the virus.

Trump and Pence were public officials. In theory, they were relying on Fauci's expertise. That's where the logic goes south.

Presumably, you'd expect the elected officials to take the expert's advice. You'd expect them to restate and reinforce his judgments, including those which turned out to be wrong.

It makes no sense to defend the expert by saying the laymen got things wrong too. That's the bungled logic of what Parker said. For ourselves, we would say this:

As far as we know, Fauci has never misstated anything in the reliably lunatic ways Trump has persistently done.

We're not saying he never got anything wrong or sanded off any corners. Indeed, we're so old that we can remember when Kevin Drum was challenging Fauci's reputation as "truthteller-in-chief," rather early on.

We can't say that Drum was wrong in his observations at that time. In fairness, we assume that Fauci was trying to "walk the line" as the adviser to a crazy commander. Nor was he ever as compromised in his public presentations as Dr. Birx eventually seemed to be.

As far as we know, Dr. Fauci has never misstated anything in the lunatic way Trump reliably does. But that isn't what Parker said. Instead, she offered a defense of Fauci which, on its own terms, seemed to make zero sense.

Parker's loss of logic followed a presentation of three predictions from "very early on," one of which happened last week. In short, the facts were comically wrong in this exchange, and the logic wasn't much better.

Sadly, this is the way the discourse works when one of our two warring tribes starts defending one of its major guys. At such times, factual presentations don't have to make sense, and logic can fall apart.

In the end, our current, tribalized cable news is Storyline, little else. As long as Storyline is defended and advanced, nothing else has to make sense.

At any rate, this is what we're constantly told by despondent anthropologists whose credentials would rock your world. And sure enough! So it has gone, in the past twenty hours, as our liberal, progressive, blue-leaning team has reacted to one of human history's least common events.

In this highly unusual event, Donald J. Trump, the American president, made an accurate statement! He did so in response to a peculiar question from Catherine Herridge, a CBS News correspondent.

Herridge worked for Fox News for 23 years before moving to CBS last fall. She had served as Fox's chief intelligence correspondent.

As a general matter, she struck us as a straight reporter, not as a partisan player. Last fall, she may have kicked Fox in the teeth just a bit as she walked out the door.

That said, Herridge's question to Trump struck us as quite peculiar. Also this:

Herridge's question to Trump came straight outta blue Storyline.

In one of history's rarest events, Trump responded to this question by making an accurate statement! Only then did he start berating Herridge for having asked the question in the first place.

Herridge's question struck us as strange. In response, Trump stated an accurate fact! There was only one thing for our blue team to do:

Our blue team began to fight back!

Do you long for better discourse, Friend? We'll discuss this exchange on the morrow.

Tomorrow: Storyline over all

Friday: Wittgenstein's later work offers a grisly perspective

42 comments:

  1. So, the good doctor is your cult's new God - for the time being - dear Bob? Well, happy worshiping, I guess.

    "Presumably, you'd expect the elected officials to take the expert's advice."

    What does it mean exactly, "to take the expert's advice", dear Bob?

    I would expect elected officials to listen, to hear what the supposed experts have to say, and then do what they, elected officials, think is right. Which could - easily - be something completely different from what the supposed experts advised.

    Otherwise, why would we need elected officials at all, dear Bob?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. maybe they don't have elected officials in Moscow, Boris ?

      Delete
    2. Hello everyone i am from USA i am here to give my testimony about an herbal doctor called Dr,olu I was heartbroken because i had very small penis,not nice to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors prescribe for me, but could not offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the internet about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to email him on his email i saw on the internet,(drolusolutionhome@gmail.com ) so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal product for Penis Enlargement, Within three weeks of me use it, i began to feel the enlargement, " and now it just 4 weeks of using his products my penis is about 8 inches longer, and i had to settle thing out with my ex girlfriend , i was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my performance in bed and i now have a large penis.thanks to DR OLU for is herbal product. you can also reach him with emsil drolusolutionhome@gmail.com though is..number WHATASPP him today on this number [ +2348140654426 ]

      Delete
    3. A GREAT SPELL CASTER (DR. EMU) THAT HELP ME BRING BACK MY EX GIRLFRIEND.
      Am so happy to testify about a great spell caster that helped me when all hope was lost for me to unite with my ex-girlfriend that I love so much. I had a girlfriend that love me so much but something terrible happen to our relationship one afternoon when her friend that was always trying to get to me was trying to force me to make love to her just because she was been jealous of her friend that i was dating and on the scene my girlfriend just walk in and she thought we had something special doing together, i tried to explain things to her that her friend always do this whenever she is not with me and i always refuse her but i never told her because i did not want the both of them to be enemies to each other but she never believed me. She broke up with me and I tried times without numbers to make her believe me but she never believed me until one day i heard about the DR. EMU and I emailed him and he replied to me so kindly and helped me get back my lovely relationship that was already gone for two months.
      Email him at: Emutemple@gmail.com
      Call or Whats-app him: +2347012841542

      Delete
  2. Dr. Fauci's job isn't to make public predictions. It is to combat the virus. It is the nature of predictions that they will have some degree of error. You don't evaluate a public health scientist like Fauci based on the accuracy of his predictions.

    Somerby is correct that this is a political game, being played by Trump and his cronies against his own covid expert, because Trump needs to show progress against the virus in order regain public trust and be re-elected. That manifestly isn't going to happen, because reality always wins against delusion. It is like when Hitler tried to convince the German people that he wasn't losing the war. He still lost, because Hitler tried to manipulate public perception, not change his approach to fighting the war.

    Parker and Wallace aren't liberals. So, when Somerby transitions from discussing their efforts to defend Fauci to blaming our tribalized discourse, he is making a category error.

    And then he discusses Herridge's question about black shootings by police, and Trump's answer in which he said that white people get shot too (just as Somerby has said for the last several days), all without ever mentioning the question itself or the similarity between his own answer and Trump's response to Herridge's question about black people dying at police hands, which was:

    “So are white people. So are white people. What a terrible question to ask,” Trump told Herridge when asked why Black Americans were still dying at the hands of police. “So are white people. More white people, by the way. More white people.”

    If Somerby believes his own assertions and is proud of that response to BLM unrest, why wouldn't he tell us what he said and how much it is like Trump's own response? Somerby's facade is crumbling, just as Trump's campaign is falling apart and his support is fleeing his sinking ship. Somerby needs to come to terms with how much he resembles the right these days, as he still chides "us liberals" for our storyline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The worst elements on the "right" think every word that comes from the lips of "left" commentators is suspect, subject to ridicule, and even if it isn't, they'll gleefully distort whatever is said in order to advance their political causes. Somerby praises commentators who resist distorting facts, who correctly paraphrase, who turn away from approved story lines. You and many other commenters here seem to object to Somerby's positions as a form of unilateral disarmament. In other words, if Trump is like a broken clock that is "accurate" two times a day, to do political battle with the guy and his minions, we have permission to distort and propagandize all we wish? Somerby is consistently accurate in his analysis of the missteps by "our side" (or the talking heads "our side" listens to and reads), and even when Somerby's assertions are arguable, he provides evidence for what he thinks he’s seeing, and folks here can use that evidence to dispute his points. Therein he provides a model for reasonable discourse. But when every side is lying and distorting and propagandizing, no holds barred, down that road lies Babel.

      Delete
    2. "Somerby is consistently accurate in his analysis of the missteps by "our side""

      No, this is not true. He has been making mistakes, corrected in comments. Since he doesn't read his comments, he goes on making the same mistakes.

      "when every side is lying and distorting and propagandizing..."

      I disagree strongly that the left (and those commentators called liberal but actually just mainstream and centrist) is propagandizing to the same extent as those appearing on Fox and OANN. I do not believe that the behavior on CNN and MSNBC or in the NY Times (which is not particularly liberal) is so egregious that Somerby must spend his time showing us the way in which we are being propagandized. His essays are filled with trivial nitpicks and quibbles while the right blatantly manipulates the truth and its audience. There is no equivalence.

      People on the left typically get their news from a variety of sources. Somerby claims that we are missing facts that are being provided to the right, but his examples are of political misuse of anecdotes and are unconvincing evidence that the left needs to watch Fox more often, or that we are being hoodwinked by left-wing cable (itself a conservative meme).

      You are taking Somerby self-presentation at face value and not looking at the conclusions he draws and the assertions he advances, which nearly always tend to support conservative views. If we wanted to know how conservatives think, we are capable of watching Fox ourselves. We don't need to be served a negative diatribe against liberal/mainstream journalism that tends to undercut the correct info, in the guise of educating us to what The Other thinks and correcting journalistic errors. Somerby is conducting his own propaganda effort and it is not on behalf of liberal views.

      And you did not explain Somerby's deliberate omission of both the question asked and the answer Trump gave, which so closely parallel his own discussion for the past several days. It may be embarrassing to Somerby to hear his own words come from our demented President's mouth, but he should take responsibility for what he said, not hide behind a coy tease, as if he will return to it later.

      If Somerby wanted to help the left, he might encourage those on the right to overcome their knee-jerk suspicion. Instead, he works very hard to undermine liberal support for liberal issues. You judge someone by their behavior, not their self-serving words.

      Delete
    3. For the past week or so, Somerby has been objecting to accurate statements, calling them "technically accurate."

      His objection makes it seem like journalists did something wrong, when in fact they merely chose to use data to make a different point than Somerby.

      The main difference was that Somerby objected to the US being portrayed as not doing a good job of controlling the virus. He wanted journalists to use a statistic that would minimize the magnitude of Trump's failure. How accurate would that be? Should Trump's failure be minimized to anyone, with an election coming up? Doesn't the public have the right to know how big a screw-up Trump is?

      How can a person who is busily objecting to so-called propaganda, engage in his own propagandizing? It under-cuts whatever purity-in-journalism cause Somerby thinks he is advancing.

      Technically accurate = accurate

      Transforming numbers in service of an ulterior motive is bad statistical practice. When in doubt, researchers are taught to express the numbers both ways (several ways) or to discuss the differences. Somerby doesn't understand that, and instead has been consistently arguing that numbers should be presented his way, which invariably helps Trump out, not the way the reporters or editors have chosen.

      That makes Somerby no better than those he criticizes and worse than the journalists, if they have merely presented the figures that are easiest for readers to understand.

      Delete
    4. 'Somerby is conducting his own propaganda effort and it is not on behalf of liberal views.'

      Somerby propaganda is on the behalf of the Orange Dotard and the likes of Bill Barr, Roy Moore, Zimmerman etc.

      Delete
    5. Today's TDH reads like a comedy bit.

      Hilariously TDH is outraged that journalists do not consider demographics when reporting Covid numbers, yet in police shootings is perfectly ok with it.

      Blacks are 2.7 times more likely to killed by police than Whites, to say nothing of why Blacks are killed (racism).

      Delete
  3. "At any rate, this is what we're constantly told by despondent anthropologists whose credentials would rock your world."

    The only anthropologist most people have heard of is Margaret Mead. Others work in obscurity, no matter how famous they are to their peers.

    Somerby's anthropologists are hypothetical, but today he feels the need to boost their credibility by giving them some extra credentials! This is about as pitiful as Trump telling us that he has the best words, that we'll do so much winning we'll get tired of winning. Trump promised to rock our world too. If no one believes hyperbole, do they believe extra hyperbole?

    This isn't funny or clever, Somerby. It is just sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Somerby is being serious, then it's flat-out sad. If he's joking, then it's not flat-out sad, although if the joke isn't "funny or clever," then fine, you're unimpressed and Somerby needs to work on his "comic" technique, etc. Still not sad.

      For the record, there are many widely known anthropologists other than Margaret Mead. To name a few, Franz Boas, Claude Levi-Strauss, Bronisław Malinowski, Clifford Geertz. You may not have heard of them. Indeed, "most" may not have heard of them. But they can't be put into a box of figures so obscure they're "famous only to their peers."

      Delete
    2. All of these anthropologists are familiar to those who follow anthropology. They are not well known to the general public. Margaret Mead is famous because she wrote a best-selling book and because she wound up in the middle of a fight between behaviorists and nativists that transcended disciplines. I believe you need to have taken an anthropology class to know about the others. I do not believe Somerby has ever taken an anthropology course or he wouldn't be saying the ridiculous things he says about those future anthropologists.

      We are only disagreeing about the knowledge of the average guy on the street about anthropology, but that is an empirical question. Show all of those names to some random people and see how many of them are familiar to anyone you ask.

      If you put all the names on a list and asked random people on the street to put a check next to the familiar names, I believe only Margaret Mead's name would be checked, and then only because her book "Growing up in Samoa" is still occasionally assigned to high school or college students because it concerns teen sexual behavior.

      Delete
    3. I'm the guy who mentioned the various anthropologists. For the record, I've never taken an anthropology class. I've traveled a fair bit and read a lot about the world's cultures, so I am somewhat familiar with arguments about culture as a form of social formation, etc. Bottom line: even non-anthro folks can know about anthropology. Is that your random guy in the street? Probably not. But they may be more widely known than you're saying, and their theories may also be absorbed second or third hand even without people knowing their names. They're influential. Mead's reputation has actually declined quite a bit, for what that's worth, in part because her sources for her Samoan work 'fessed up to lying to her!

      Delete
    4. You're the guy that just lost a really pointless argument. If all the traveling and reading brought you to losing this petty squabble, of what use was it?

      It is not a question of how effective his humor is, Somerby wants to express and frame his worldview as being more legitimate and serious because he thinks the future will prove him correct. He senses his views no longer hold relevancy just as he senses his mortality, he is desperate to matter.

      There are issues with Mead's work but not as you characterize - it was one source, that source had converted to Christianity so her later testimony is suspect, and Mead's conclusions were not based on that source. In reality her conclusions are now accepted as correct, but while some of her methodology was ground-breaking, some of it was overly interpretative. Anthropology is not a science, the field itself refers to itself as a "nexus of sciences and humanities".

      Depending on your cultural stance, you may or may not be comfortable with Mead's impact on society. The fact is, like Samoans and other non-industrialized cultures, today women do indeed engage in deferring marriage and having casual sex for much of their youthful years, as men have always done.

      Delete
  4. Bergabunglah bersama Starxo88 di agen main judi online slot terpercaya starxo88, dan dapatkan banyak sekali promo menarik dari starxo88 pastinya dan yang ga kalah pentingnya adalah kalian akan banyak kesempatan menang ratusan juta dengan bermain di situs main slot online terbesar dan juga taruhan slot online terpercaya.

    ReplyDelete
  5. “Herridge's question to Trump came straight outta blue Storyline.”

    And yet, Somerby didn’t print her question. It was:

    “Let’s talk about George Floyd. You said George Floyd‘s death was a terrible thing. Why are African Americans still dying at the hands of law-enforcement in this country?”

    That doesn’t come from “blue storyline.” She didn’t ask “why are only blacks dying at the hands of police?”, or “why are more blacks dying at the hands of police.” Those would have contained factual errors that could be taken as supporting a storyline. The fact is, African-Americans are still dying at the hands of law enforcement.

    A reporter should ask challenging questions. It is up to the interviewee to answer as he sees fit. Trump may have responded with an “accurate statement”, but he didn’t answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why are African Americans still dying at the hands of law-enforcement in this country?”

      What a moron. Because they live in this country, that's why.

      If they all move to some other country, they will immediately stop dying at the hands of law-enforcement in this country. They'll be dying at the hands of law-enforcement in that other country.

      Delete
    2. Mao demonstrates that he can read but not think.

      Delete
    3. Mao may be an ignorant moron, but he's also one of the smartest Right-wingers you could ever hope to encounter.

      Delete
  6. When Trump responds that more whites are killed by police than blacks, Somerby judges that an “accurate statement.”

    When Anderson Cooper says that the death toll from Covid is higher in the US than anywhere in the world, that is “Storyline”, because he didn’t use per capita deaths.

    More blacks are killed by police as a percentage of the black population than whites as a percentage of the white population.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. However, I don't think more blacks are killed by police as a percentage of the violent criminal population in each group.

      Bear in mind that almost all these killings by police are justified. It's easy for me to sit in my office and dis the police for sometimes using violent methods. But, the police have to sometimes deal with dangerous, violent people.

      Delete
    2. David, black people are a higher percentage of the criminal population because of biases inherent to our criminal justice system. Black people are more likely to be stopped, more likely to be charged, less likely to have good legal representation, more likely to accept a plea bargain when not guilty, less likely to make bail, receive harsher sentences and less likely to be given alternatives to jail, treated worse in prison, and so on. This is not my opinion -- there are studies showing these biases. BLM is about addressing all of these injustices.

      mh's point was that Somerby adjusts for population only when it suits him, inconsistently. He complains about accurate statements when he doesn't like the point being made.

      Delete
    3. Don't do crime, dembot, and you won't need any legal representation, plea bargains, and all the rest of it.

      Delete
    4. See if you feel the same way, if you are the one mistakenly arrested (all trolls do look alike).

      Delete
    5. Indeed, you do.

      Once again, dear dembot: if you're stopped by a cop, be polite, honest, and cooperative, and with any luck there'll be no problem, no mistakes. It's not complicated.

      Delete
    6. It shouldn't require luck to survive such an encounter.

      Floyd was polite and look where it got him.

      Delete
    7. Everything requires a bit of luck, dear dembot. Walking across the street, driving, everything.

      Saint Floyd was a 5-times convict, high on drugs, who was trying to use fake money, and then resisted arrest.

      And it's quite possible that he died from an overdose, anyway. We will find out soon enough, I'm sure.

      Like I said, don't do the crime, and you'll be okay.

      Delete
    8. Qanon Mao troll must live in Mayberry.

      Delete
    9. It is bad enough that Somerby is quoting what he hears at Fox News, now Mao is doing it too.

      Delete
    10. What, your innocence has been violated, dear dembot? How horrible.

      Delete
    11. There are plenty of examples of bigoted thinking in the world without you adding another.

      Delete
    12. Tsk. How beautiful this world would've been if everyone in it was a liberal-hitlerian dembot. How horrible that not everyone is.

      We sympathize, and we feel your pain, dear dembot.

      Delete
    13. Hera that, Donald the Magnificent? If you don't want to be impeached, don't commit the treason.
      You committed treason. Suck it up, buttercup.

      Delete
  7. Somerby thinks Wittgenstein will provide better discourse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's assuming he wants to engage in better discourse himself, not just criticize other people's discourse.

      The movie Birdman has a nice speech about the difference between being a critic and being an actor or playwright, the difference between creating something and knocking down the efforts of others.

      Delete
  8. I find myself wondering if Somerby could coherently explain what is wrong with Trump's statement. He says it is accurate, but only as a truism. Behind his statement are meanings that divide the country and deserve to be discussed, but which he pretty obviously wishes to evade.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ' So it has gone, in the past twenty hours, as our liberal, progressive, blue-leaning team'

    You mean

    'our team of lying, rapist/pedophile/racist defending malevolent Trumptards'

    There, fixed it for you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. EFFECTIVE LOVE SPELL TO GET EX HUSBAND/BOYFRIEND OR EX WIFE/GIRLFRIEND AND CURE HERPES AND INFERTILITY THAT WORKS WITHIN 24 HOURS.

    Contact Dr. Odunga at odungaspelltemple@gmail.com OR Whats App/CALL +2348167159012

    I got my ex husband back to me and also got fertile and gave birth to twin girls after 12 years of marriage.
    When I came online last year, I saw a testimony about Doctor ODUNGA and how he has been helping people with marriage issues and I decided to contact him. We spoke on email at odungaspelltemple@gmail.com and later he gave me his WhatsApp number which is +2348167159012. He assured me he would help me get my ex husband back after 3 years of no contact. Doctor Odunga is the best spell caster I must say. My husband called me after 24 hours of contact. The third day, I received natural herbs for fertility and after using it, I became fertile and conceived. I and my husband reconnected, had sex and I was pregnant. Presently I am happy to say I am the mother of twin girls and this is ALL THANKS TO DOCTOR ODUNGA. I came online to say this If you need help, I believe you are saved with this man.

    Contact his email at odungaspelltemple@gmail.com

    OR Whats App/Call +2348167159012 and you too will give a testimony too to help others

    ReplyDelete
  11. I visited my doctor for a second opinion to verify that I am currently experiencing genital warts on both sides of my inner labia caused by HSV which I was not aware I had until the genital warts appeared. I discovered them about 2 months ago and it saddened me to find the warts because I felt it meant I had contracted an STD,I never applied medical drugs or therapies,because I prefer going natural routes first if any are available. At first, I was not sure I’d be able to use anything since the labia is such a sensitive area but I remembered that I had been reviewing series of testimonies on how herbal doctor razor had been curing people of Genital warts, And I had Them on the bottoms of my feet so I decided to try doctor razor herbs. Thankfully, Doctor razor herbal medication seems to be getting rid of the genital warts. When I first began applying it I noticed some slight aching feelings in my vaginal area that I had never felt before. I no longer feel the aches though. I AM SO GRATEFUL TO BE COMPLETELY CURED OF THIS VIRUS.However, I don’t feel the shame anymore and am so grateful to Mother Nature and Doctor Razor for helping a sister out. Reach him on Email : drrazorherbalhome@gmail.com Whatsapp/Call his cell phone on +2349065420442. Visit Doctor Razor's Website : https://drrazorherbalhome.wixsite.com/drrazorherbalhome

    ReplyDelete
  12. My husband and I have been married for over 10 years. We met when I was 18 and he was 21. We’ve been through a lot emotionally together. There were several HUGE fights and painful situations in our marriage, but we always seemed to come out stronger on the other side. Out of the blue my husband just sprung the divorce talk on me, I was totally depressed until I found Dr.Todd website online and I ordered for a Love spell. You won’t believe my husband called me at the exact time this spell caster finished his spell work in 48hrs. I was totally amazed! He is wonderful and his spells work so fast. His Email: manifestspellcast@ gmail. com manifestspellcast.wordpress.com
    WhatsApp:+1 604 901 9747

    ReplyDelete