Former Christian Post Editor Aims to Fight ‘Disinformation’ Among Evangelicals

By Josh Shepherd
Napp Nazworth QAnon disinformation
Napp Nazworth has been named as executive director of American Values Coalition, a nonprofit group aiming to fight ‘disinformation’ among Americans. (Photo collage: Courtesy of AVC / AP File Photo by Matt Rourke)

A longtime editor in Christian media, Napp Nazworth, is leading a new nonprofit aimed at fighting “disinformation,” called the American Values Coalition. The newly-formed organization seeks to empower Americans—particularly evangelicals—to “lead with truth, reject extremism and misinformation, and defend democracy,” according to its website.

Citing QAnon-sourced convictions, COVID-19-related conspiracies, and election-related claims popular in some evangelical circles, Nazworth calls the current situation a “crisis.” And he finds media outlets partly at fault, alleging many “are no longer truth-seekers or truth-tellers,” he told The Roys Report.

“They’re appealing to consumer demand by providing limited information to distort a story, not thoroughly researching a story, or, in some cases, publishing outright disinformation.”

Nazworth has firsthand experience grappling with these concerns about journalism—having worked for eight years at The Christian Post, one of the nation’s most-visited news outlets for evangelical Christians. In December 2019, Nazworth resigned as politics editor over what he called an issue of “journalistic integrity,” related to an editorial that he claimed “positioned them on Team Trump” during the 2020 election campaign. 

“The number-one job of any journalist is to seek and tell the truth, including about candidates whom one might support,” he said. “Otherwise, you’re just doing advocacy rather than journalism. At the time, I think that The Christian Post felt they needed to appeal to their readers.” 

Give a gift of $25 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a eceive our new limited-edition mug. To donate, click here.

In response to an inquiry from The Roys Report, a representative of The Christian Post stated that the publication had no comment.

Having left journalism in the wake of that experience, now Nazworth says he seeks to foster a better-informed citizenry through American Values Coalition (AVC)—particularly in faith communities. As first steps, the group has published a free “Combating Misinformation Handbook” and organized virtual workshops for pastors and leaders. 

“Our concern is truth,” he said. “Disinformation has been dividing families, hurting friendships, and splitting churches. It has all these negative effects throughout our society. We want to help citizens be able to identify and reject extremism.” 

Newsroom or campaign war room?

Speaking as a professing evangelical Christian, Nazworth has seen tribalism result in some believers pursuing partisan aims. “Loyalty to a political party can distort Jesus’s teachings and the gospel itself,” he said. 

Growing concerns over the past two years resulted in him going public with his story even beyond December 2019 when his resignation made headlines in the New York Times, The Hill, and other major outlets.

Napp Nazworth American Values Coalition disinformation
Napp Nazworth (Courtesy of American Values Coalition)

In a statement at that time, The Christian Post (CP) wished him well and added: “We will remain a publication rooted in our Christian faith and committed to objectivity in our reporting and diversity in our opinions.”

Arc Digital published Nazworth’s 20,000-word story on October 21, 2020, only weeks before the election. In it, he included excerpts from a recorded conversation with CP opinion editor Michelle Vu, as the two editors debated how to publish an editorial.

Though CP had published editorials supporting political candidates before, what made this one different was that the two senior editors, Richard Land and John Grano, initially called for it to publish from the CP Editorial Board. Nazworth was a part of the board and did not agree with the editorial. After he pushed back, CP published the editorial as from Land and Grano. CP offered to have Nazworth publish a rebuttal, but he declined.

“Think about what you’re saying with this,” Nazworth says on the recording from December 23, 2019. “You’re going to be telling the world, ‘We are now on Team Trump.’ That’s what this editorial is saying, if you put it under CP editorial.”

“I understand. Yeah. We are,” Vu is heard replying in audio shared with The Roys Report.

Nazworth resigned the same day.

In the article, he also revealed how PR professional and Trump campaign adviser Johnnie Moore played CP “like a fiddle” behind-the-scenes to ensure glowing coverage of Trump to evangelical Christians.

The Roys Report previously reported how Moore made shocking remarks in a recorded conversation with disgraced pastor James MacDonald. And just this week, Save71, a Liberty University alumni group advocating for reform, tweeted that Liberty has hired Moore to handle their current PR crisis. The Roys Report reached out to Moore and Liberty to confirm or deny the reports, but neither responded.

Nazworth said it was intentional that he named names and provided specifics about “critical years” for the church and for Christian media. “I wanted to write down a history of what happened during that time, so that people will have something to look back on as they try to gain a better understanding,” said Nazworth.

He says he has no regrets about his exit or decision months later to write about it. “Looking back on it now, I would say it was worth it and that I needed to speak up,” Nazworth said. 

Power and responsibility

American Values Coalition expects pushback from some who claim disinformation has mainstream media as its primary source—or who see no crisis at all.

But Nazworth argues that consumers need to get their news from a variety of sources, rather than relying on sources that just confirm their biases, which has exacerbated the problem.

“Some shows package what I’ve started calling ‘inflameformation,’ information that may be true but has no value other than to get people angry,” he said.

Early initiatives underway at AVC are focused on getting people to look beyond conservative-only or liberal-only news sources. “It’s important to get a range of perspectives, so people should broaden their media diet,” said Nazworth.

On that theme, he also says AVC intends to diversify its board of directors. Currently it includes Neal Rickner, a former Google executive who founded We Vote Values, which ran ads during the 2020 election cycle; former Christian Broadcasting Network producer Terry Heaton; Daniel Bennett, Ph.D., a political science professor at John Brown University; and Nazworth. Nazworth noted that several women and ethnically diverse leaders have not yet accepted the invitation to become board members. 

AVC digital director Dan Green commented that the group is not explicitly faith-based, though evangelicals are their largest target audience. 

Green said he thinks Christians have a responsibility to honor Jesus in all they do. “I think this responsibility has been lost over perhaps the past 5 to 10 years. If we’re spreading misinformation, it’s hurting our relationships and ultimately undermines our witness on behalf of the gospel.” 

Recent stats about declining church attendance—even prior to the pandemic—and the decline of church as a trusted institution underline for Green and Nazworth how partisan disinformation has defined some faith communities.

“Our witness to people outside the church has not been about our identity as followers of Jesus,” said Nazworth. “If we become people who put the truth first, I believe that’s part of what may lead people back to the church.” 

Freelance journalist Josh Shepherd writes on faith, culture, and public policy for several media outlets. He and his wife live in the Washington, D.C. area with their two children.

SHARE THIS:
  •   
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

GET EMAIL UPDATES!

Keep in touch with Julie and get updates in your inbox!

Don’t worry we won’t spam you.

More to explore
discussion

47 thoughts on “Former Christian Post Editor Aims to Fight ‘Disinformation’ Among Evangelicals”

    1. The churches #1 mission is to preach the gospel and teach the believers. Churches should stay out of politics. I research politics all week. The last thing I want to hear on Sunday is more politics.
      It is interesting how President Trump lives on in peoples heads.
      Never Trumpers need to get a life.

      1. I agree with you, Beth ❗I wish Napp Nazworth success.

        Some other sources to look at:

        ‘….
        Christians Against Christian Nationalism[☛
        https://www.christiansagainstchristiannationalism.org/statement
        ☚]offers webinars and other resources to help faith leaders and believers alike think more critically. They have a list of discussion points, like, “How could a group of people ‘fuse’ or ‘merge’ their Christian and American identities?” and are challenged to “give some examples of persons who are good Americans, but not Christian.” They also offer printable leaflets explaining what Christian nationalism is, for churchgoers and leaders to distribute.’—from

        “Christian Nationalism Drove These People Out of Their Churches”
        https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7vew9/christian-nationalism-churches

        An interesting and informative article ❗👍

        Another interesting organization I never heard of before, that is mentioned in the above article,

        “Baptist Joint Committee”
        https://bjconline.org/mission-history/

  1. Jesus says his true disciples are known by their love for him and each other. Not politics of outrage via culture war against the world. Scripture speaks of end time falling away; false Christ’s; a strong spiritual delusion were even the elect could be deceived. We are witnessing the world and the Church degenerate in tandem in real time. Christians should be known by devotion to Jesus. Not the political gospel. Jesus weeps.

  2. One would think that Evangelicals would be one of the most discerning groups on the issue of misinformation and cult-like behavior. But I guess this is not the case.

  3. I wonder how many unvaccinated churchgoers died of Covid-19 based on misinformation being spread through their conservative congregations? I know of one small church locally here in Michigan that had over 80 positive cases, 3 very seriously ill in the ICU, 1 death.

    1. Roger, you need to get off the Covid ‘ Bus’. Glad you are keeping track of a small churches infection rate. “Disinformation” is the lefts version of…”I’m right and you’re wrong”.

      1. Tony Nazarowski

        Can someone explain what “The Left” is?
        Who decides who is part of “The Left”, or classified into other groups?

    2. I wonder how many unvaccinated people against Marxism are falling pray to such pretentions of offering the objective truth in the news and in various publications when in fact they are catering to the left ideology. Yes, Christians are very gullible.

    3. Interesting I’ve seen quite the opposite experience. Several vaccinated people I know died of or are recovering from strokes afterward. Two young people I know have had cancer return and one 12 year old is on medication for myocarditis. My type one diabetes friend had the shots months ago and is now being treated for inflamed heart problems and skin issues. It was very uncomfortable explaining the risks to her and that the censorship happening was limiting health professionals from providing her with informed consent. She is finally coming around after the health problems seem to be lingering. I do know three older people who died from Covid. Two went on the ventilators. It was unclear if they had been vaccinated because I didn’t know them well enough to ask. It was also unclear if they had other conditions. One of them was overweight.

      1. All but two of my friends (the only ones under 45) and all my relatives are fully vaccinated (including booster for some) and aside from the usual sore arms and occasional fever, none has suffered any ill effects at all. My mother did have a TIA soon after her first jab, but she’s 90-years old and has had high blood pressure for years. She’s also had two more Covid-19 shots since with no ill effects.

        If your claims were even close to being true, the hospitals would be overflowing with recently vaccinated people on a scale that would be many times the recent flood of unvaccinated Covid-19 patients we saw in Florida and Texas during the peak of the delta wave — and that almost crippled the healthcare systems in those states.

        Billions of people around the world have already been vaccinated, and aside from the very rare serious side-effect that have been fully reported by the medical establishment and the press (blood clots and myocarditis), the vaccines have an exemplary safety record. Anyone who claims otherwise is spreading misinformation that is putting lives at risk.

        Also, Covid-19 patients suffer from myocarditis at a far higher rate than those who are vaccinated.

        https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737

        1. Another thing is that the slight risk for myocarditis exists for the Moderna vaccine, not the J&J vaccine. I have had myocarditis before, so I opted for the J&J vaccine.

        2. Mike Walker, likewise for me. Most people I know have gotten the vaccine, including almost all of my friends and fellow church members, my immediate family, including my elderly parents, and many of my coworkers. I don’t know of a single person among them who has experienced any severe or dangerous side effects from the vaccine. I have no way of confirming Sara’s claims, but I can say they don’t ring true to me.

      2. Typically in the US, there are around 800k heart attacks and another 800k strokes every year. How many of these folks are going to attribute the cause to vaccines this year? I’ve seen calculations for the background death rate (number of people you would expect to see die in a typical year). It worked out that you would expect to see around 7000 deaths each day coinciding with a vaccine appointment (even if they were simply given a handshake instead of being vaccinated.) So most of these background deaths are required to get reported to VAERS and doctors analyze potential cause and effect relationships. So far, only the 3 J&J deaths have been concluded to be caused by the vaccine.

        Anecdotally, I’ve developed a very mild tinnitus which I first noticed around the time I was first vaccinated. I’m not sure if it started before or after my first shot. Two of my wife’s co-workers have reported the same, and I’ve seen other mainstream news stories reporting on it as well. If I had to do it all over again, I’d still get vaccinated without hesitation. An overwhelming majority of the people I know have been vaccinated, and nobody else I know has had any issues.

    4. Julie has compiled (and written) significant reporting on COVID-19 from all angles, it’s worth checking out: https://julieroys.com/category/covid/

      Among those stories, people will sadly read examples of pastors and other faith leaders who have died after contracting COVID. In one example (https://julieroys.com/dallas-area-megachurch-pastor-ricky-texada-dies-covid/), the pastor’s doctor later wrote an op-ed in response: https://www.christianpost.com/voices/this-christian-medical-doctor-says-get-the-covid-vaccine.html

      1. Sadly one angle that seems to be missing is the number of deaths among the fully vaccinated and how unvaccinated are unfairly being blamed. What about reporting on the recent study out of Israel where almost everyone has been vaccinated?

        Another missing angle is the large number of healthcare workers, doctors and nurses, being fired for refusing the jab. What about the thousands of other people losing their jobs for refusing the jab?

        Why are Christians who refuse the jab considered to be willfully misinformed as if the science of all of this was firmly settled decades ago? Why is questioning those who repeatedly say “follow the science ” considered an example of being a right-wing conspiracy theorist nut job?

        What are parents supposed to think when they’re told to have their young children vaccinated so the medical community will know what happens to them afterwards? In other words, their children are guinea pigs.

        I haven’t seen much reporting of these things here. That’s probably because they aren’t considered newsworthy. Maybe that’s an unfair assessment, but that’s the way it appears to me.

        1. Peter, This is a novel coronavirus so what medical researchers know about it has been evolving. Still, reliable data exists that answer some of the questions being raised.

          As of August, the CDC began reporting rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths by vaccination status: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status.

          One may want to review that information to answer the question of whether being vaccinated makes a difference against COVID-19. There is also data there about breakthrough cases, that small percentage of vaccinated people who’ve contracted the virus (most of whom never get severe cases or worse). If there are current and medically sound sources regarding the various issues raised, it may be helpful to share them so people can evaluate the information.

          1. You said,,

            “This is a novel coronavirus so what medical researchers know about it has been evolving. Still, reliable data exists that answer some of the questions being raised.”

            Which is why all of the vaccines have now been FDA approved and are no longer under the auspices of emergency use. Except this isn’t true. And why are certain groups exempt? What does the CDC say about the medical wisdom of allowing tens of thousands of people to come into the U.S. without proof of vaccination or negative tests? Why would people who work for a certain company advise against getting the vaccine they produced?

            Yes, this is a “novel” virus, which is what amazes me. This is a pestilence that we are still learning about, and yet it has quickly been politicized. Two weeks to flatten the curve has turned into get jabbed or get fired. If you’re in the military that comes with a dishonorable discharge.

            Breakthrough cases weren’t even supposed to happen until they did. Our own Chief Executive said if you were jabbed you were protected. He said that with support from our top medical officials. Then the goalposts were moved again. We were all supposed to be living normally when the mask mandate went away. That lasted a minute until the goalposts were moved again with plenty of condemnation for the unvaxxed who are keeping the pandemic going even though the vaxxed carry the heavy viral load.

            I understand that misinformation abounds, but that goes for all interested parties, not just the “conspiracy theorists”.

            I do appreciate your engagement with my comment.

          2. (In reply to comment published by P Hays, Nov 1, 9:59am)

            Peter, Yes, misinformation abounds – some facts in your comment are actually unsourced. For instance, no source cited for the assertion “the vaxxed carry the heavy viral load (versus unvaxxed).” The CDC link cited above refutes this.

            If all one has are questions and various theories, with no sources cited, then the conversation is not advancing towards more knowledge.

            To be sure, some people who are vaccine advocates have not expressed ethical viewpoints, such as denying care to those unvaccinated. That’s wrong. My brother who is an ICU nurse responded to that unethical mindset in an op-ed: https://www.newsweek.com/stop-politicizing-my-dying-patients-opinion-1632019

            Again, if there are sources that support one’s theories, it’s valuable to cite those. I do wish you well and value dialogue where it can be constructive.

  4. Stacey:

    The Christian Post has a shadowy history, connected with David Jang and Olivet University students.
    (not the Nazarene University)

    A few years ago Christianity Today and Ken Smith (Confessions of a Would Be Theologian) did an expose on Jang and the proverbial you know what hit the proverbial fan. It got nasty and weird in the comments section at The Christian Post.

    Jang was also connected with Johnathan Davis and Etienne Uzac (IB Times , Newsweek). Jang has been accused of running a cult overseas and in the US. Jang has founded many media publications, is well connected – his groups are very sensitive to criticism and very aggressive in defending and deflecting. Jang was supposedly connected with the Unification Church prior to surfacing in Christianity. The Second Coming Christ controversy has gone fairly quiet but questions remain.

    His holdings and agenda are far murkier and less transparent than for example The Epoch Times, which is open about being Falun Gong or the Washington Times and the Unification Church.
    While The Christian Post has publicly tried to distance itself, and look westernized, it is difficult to know how many of his followers are involved.

    Ministry Watch and Apologetics Index have good summaries.

  5. Good for him. I hope he succeeds because this is really needed. I think it’s going to be a herculean task, though. A lot of white evangelicals have bought so heavily into lies that they are almost brainwashed. Combine that with heavy doses of tribalism and you have something that looks nothing like the gospel of Jesus, a poor man from the middle east and an outcast from the worldly powers of his day but one who had a revolutionary message of life for those who would listen.

  6. If you are a gullible Christian you need to repent and ask God for wisdom.

    My Bible does not teach anything about being gullible.

      1. Roms 12:1,2. Being transformed in your mind surely is an antidote to gullibility.
        But let’s not go around categorising things as sin/not-sin in such detail. I find US evangelicalism very legalistic in this respect, sweating over things in pharisaic fashion. Let’s talk about wisdom, or being aligned with our mission. ‘Gullibility’ is not ‘a sin’, unless, I guess it leads to being unloving toward God or neighbour. But it is very unwise, ungracious, potentially self-deceptive…

          1. Christians must be bold, discerning and full of the free gift of wisdom supplied by God to all those who ask.

            Therefore “gullibility” does not fit the mould of transforming to the image of Christ.

            I doubt that has anything to do with the ridiculous strawman argument put forward above that gullibility is not a sin. That was never the point.

    1. @ Larry Statten – You posted:

      “If you are a gullible Christian you need to repent and ask God for wisdom.

      My Bible does not teach anything about being gullible.”

      I questioned why you would advocate repenting of something that you said “your Bible” didn’t teach.

      If your intent was to say that “your Bible” does not allow for gullibility or strongly condemns gullibility, or that God is angry with gullible Christians every day, then I can understand why you perceive a strawman. You assert that there’s no room for gullibility as a Christian. I’m inclined to agree.

      Jesus exhorted His disciples to be “wise as serpents and gentle as doves”.

      However, perception of gullibility is frequently not known by the gullible. Others, the non-gullible, will often exert tremendous effort to convince the gullible of their gullibility.

      No…giving your mortgage money to that TV preacher isn’t going to result in God raining fantastic sums of money down into your bank account.

      The above example seems easy enough to see and understand. What’s less clear and concrete happens in a situation like the current environment where there are two camps both making claims and counter claims. Members of both camps believe each other to be the gullible ones. Whether arguments from one side or the other have greater merit has yet to be determined.

      I have very close friends and family members who have been vaccinated. We still love and talk to each other and have yet to engage in any heated arguments. I think that’s possible within the Body of Christ as well. So, my hope is this will cease being the issue that has become so divisive among Christians.

  7. On the basis of what Napp Nazworth is here reported as saying about what he (and colleagues) intend; he and it are to be applauded.
    There are then complexities attaching to what is intended. These stemming from human understanding being relativistic. Truth and fact being matters of experience, rather than absolute matters beyond human experience and process.
    We may experience the expressed truth of others, as perniciously motivated or false in its import: but that experiencing is grounded in our own grasp of truth; where yet others may experience our truth as pernicious or false.
    So, I believe, we cannot sort out our collective world, regards truth and fact, structurally. The best we can do is contribute to cleaning up the underlying processes, as these pass through us or before us. So doing something akin to a woodworker’s air-filtration unit, or an industry’s carbon-capture process.
    Our knowledge-processes are doing something necessary for each of us individually. What we are not handling well is the overall ecosystem of entire populations running their knowledge processes. That eternal problem intensifying as our human world becomes ever more interconnected societally and globally. An ameliorating localism becoming ever less of a factor.

  8. George (Arthur) says, “One would think that Evangelicals would be one of the most discerning groups on the issue of misinformation and cult-like behavior. But I guess this is not the case.”
    My sense of evangelism is that, across collective (congregational) processes, it propels its adherents into trust in experiencing. So there is a knowledge base to this, in theology and doctrine and institutional practice; but the movement into transcending experience strong enough to be trusted existentially, is distinctive. This evangelical variant of Christianity differing from variants whose adherents remain more closely tied to a knowledge base.
    Variants of faith which become central to societal development, tend to be more characterised by this tethering to a knowledge base. Such that evangelism can be viewed as something more happening on the margins of societies cohered by other variants.
    So, in some sense, evangelical adherents are putting themselves out there, in a realm of experiencing and trusting. A crucial matter then being, that at this level of such lift off, the evangelical technology works superbly. This combination of aspects then leaving evangelical projects wide open to manipulation and exploitation; as whatever form it takes, it seems to do what it says on the tin.
    That said,evangelism is a worthy (and inescapable) variant within the Christian fold; on the bell-curve of Christian variants it has its well-earned place. But its current advent carries with it significant risks.

  9. So I went to the American Values Coalition’s website. Three blog posts. One purported to discuss comments by Tucker Carlson regarding President Biden. Hardly did. It was a piece on Charlie Kirk. Nothing, one way or the other, combatting supposed misinformation from Carlson. Another was unequivocally supportive of the vaccine and advocated that pastors should influence their congregants to get the jab.

    If Nasworth left the CP because of partisan politics, you can’t tell based on his current blog posts. Completely partisan. The very reason he left the CP is what he’s now doing.

    I don’t fault him for his positions. They are his. Let’s just not pretend he’s combatting misinformation but truth or balance or objectively.

    1. Good call to visit the AVC site David.

      It’s clear that the AVC bloggers take a value-position. However, they are averse to being drawn into partisanship and misinformation. So their strong value-position is not partisan.
      What they have expertise in, is information. Across that grasp of information, they discern some purported information, as disinformation, and they theorise that this disinforming is grounded in and driven by partisanship.

      However, some who choose to follow them (as an information source), might act in a partisan way, and may themselves not be squeaky clean regards avoiding disinforming (themselves and/or others). So something to watch out for.

      Their declared value set, “Building bridges for Americans who value family, tradition, integrity”; may be seen by some as inherently partisan. So defense and clarification might be required there.

      However, bottom line, on first reading and view of their activity, does indicate that that they do have expertise when it comes to distinguishing between information and disinformation. Their concepts and language seem suited to that task. I suspect they can develop deep grounds on which to continue with their project.

    2. Unequivocal support of vaccination is objectively warranted, and was never even considered controversial outside of the minority of antivaxxers until it became weaponized as a political issue right-wing conservatives. Even now, a large majority of conservative politicians are still encouraging their constituents to get vaccinated as the best way to fight the pandemic, even among those who allied themselves with Trump.

      1. Since you stated vaccination was objectively warranted, do you support mandatory vaccination for the hundreds of thousands of people who have crossed into the U.S. at our southern border in recent months?

      2. Medical issues should be covered with discussion of epidemiological opinions of a range of experts and not giving medical advice. Go to your doctor for that. There are many shades of grey in the question of vaccinations, particularly those using the very new approaches that some CV-19 vaccines do. The question should be about comparative risk factors, noting that vaccinated or not, if you have viral particles, you spread them.

  10. Why do I get the strange feeling that “misinformation” can be defined as anything that the left disagrees with?

  11. Bill (Hoskins) says: “… “misinformation” can be defined as anything that the left disagrees with …”. And Bill’s right. Simply calling out “misinformation”, tends to be neither here nor there, simply going with a concerning flow of antagonistic polarisation.

    What AVC appear to be doing, as the vehicle of their “truth” (and leadership) project, is researching perceived misinformation to a good academic level, and publishing the results of that research as an information source for an evangelical Christian constituency. This researching and publishing then being further characterised by specifically Christian values; where that distinguishes what AVC intend to be doing, from the purely academic.

    The touchstone of all this is the evidence they provide about their methodology, and how they present their research findings. Academics in the social science field will find their language and theorising very familiar. They do present across a sound scientific grasp of what information is, how it does what it does, and what the effects of what it does are.
    AVC have clearly done much preparation for this project. From that beginning their acumen in what they intend, should further develop

    1. Colin, you’ve been highly active on this post, attempting to help others understand the intention of AVC. You’ve indicated you think they’re doing a good job with academic research regarding misinformation and then advocating a values-based position based on said information.

      Here’ the problem: they unequivocally advocate for the vaccine as a “values” issue, under the guise that is it safe and effective. It is neither. The voice of doctors, nurses, epidemiologists, virologists, and researchers all over the world (not conspiracy theory wack jobs . . . actual professionals and experts) that question the efficacy and safety of the vaccine have been silenced under the guise of “misinformation”. If AVC did any objective research, they would tell their readers of these cultural and political hi-jinx and that they recommend the vaccine despite its dangers, side effects, and in many cases, lack of efficacy.

      If they want to advance the vaccine as a values issue, so be it.
      However, let’s not pretend they’re doing so based on actual data, objective information, and research.

The Roys Report seeks to foster thoughtful and respectful dialogue. Toward that end, the site requires that people use their full name when commenting. Also, any comments with profanity, name-calling, and/or a nasty tone will be deleted.

Comments are limited to 300 words.

Leave a Reply

The Roys Report seeks to foster thoughtful and respectful dialogue. Toward that end, the site requires that people register before they begin commenting. This means no anonymous comments will be allowed. Also, any comments with profanity, name-calling, and/or a nasty tone will be deleted.
 
MOST RECENT Articles
MOST popular articles
en_USEnglish

Donate

Hi. We see this is the third article this month you’ve found worth reading. Great! Would you consider making a tax-deductible donation to help our journalists continue to report the truth and restore the church?

Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Become a monthly supporter of The Roys Report at $25 or more and you will receive our new limited-edition mug.