Dr. Danielle Roberts Issues Statement in Response to Revocation of Medical License

This is a statement by Dr. Danielle Roberts. Those who would like to help her financially or otherwise can find contact information at the bottom of this article.

By Dr. Danielle Roberts

The Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) decided to revoke my license to practice medicine on September 29th, 2021. They released a 58-page “Determination and Order” to validate their decision.

There have been many articles in the media written about the decision. To date, only one journalist has reached out to me for comment and decided to focus on smut rather than the loss of my license. In the interest of a more important conversation I am making the following statement:

The lies and fear campaign of one woman:

In June of 2017, my friend, Sarah Edmondson called friends, clients and even the families of friends to say, something so terrible is happening [I can’t say what], but it’s so bad you have to get out.  She gave few facts and provided no real issues, only fear. Eventually, this turned into rumors of “sex assignments” and “human branding” within the organization (Megyn Kelly Today, 5:36). Sarah and others de-enrolled 140+ clients of NXIVM, causing an estimated $1.4 million in damages, according to a then-member of the NXIVM executive board. For this, she was facing possible fraud charges.

July 7th, 2017, perhaps to take the heat off of herself, she brought her complaint to the OPMC claiming her consensual receipt of a brand was gross medical misconduct. After her request was denied, the actress turned to her resources in the media.

Sarah Edmondson showed her brand to the world in a New York Times story

On October 17, 2017, The New York Times published an article, entitled “Inside a Secretive Group Where Women Are Branded.” she claimed her participation [in the initiation] was non-consensual, that she “thought it [the brand] was going to be a small tattoo,” that “for hours muffled screams… filled the room,” that she “wept the whole time.”

she told ABC News in a 20/20 interview (video, 1:00)  “it was worse than childbirth … imagine a hot laser, dragged across your flesh for 30 minutes without anesthetic.”

She claimed “she may have dissociated out of her body” (her book Scarred, pg. 15 and The New York Times Inside a Secretive Group Where Women Are Branded). All of the above are lies, and I have the video to prove it. She knew about the brand before she joined, it was protocol, and testified to in court (Trial Transcript, pg. 1718). I was invited the same way. She didn’t scream once. She breathed deeply for what was approximately one minute and thirty seconds of pen-to-skin time. She made fart jokes and bragged about “being warrior bitches”… getting a brand after her Hallmark audition the day before.

She cried (what appeared to be) genuine tears of gratitude as she thanked Ms. Lauren Salzman for inviting her both midway through and at the end. She emphasized “this is so important” and she thanked me and said it looked great.

The brand of Keith Alan Raniere

And yet, each media outlet bought her crafted story and supported this grown woman’s (39 at the time) sob story without thorough fact-checking or even questioning her.

Political and Media Involvement:

In 2017 NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo decided to “influence” the medical commissioner to prosecute this matter after the OPMC had rendered a written decision to the contrary. When Sarah Edmondson brought her claims to the OPMC in 2017, they issued a written statement concluding that “[T]he issues you [Ms. Edmondson] describe did not occur within the doctor-patient relationship… The issues you describe are not medical conduct… and no further action will be taken.” They also encouraged her to take this matter to the criminal authorities if she felt this act was violent or criminal in nature. When she did, this claim was also denied (see New York Times article “Complaints About Branding Inside Secretive Group Are Under Review”).

Instead of stopping this ridiculous allegation there, the Governor and the OPMC buckled under the pressure of the media. As a result, my license has been under investigation for the past 4 years for actions that have nothing to do with the practice of medicine.

Not the Practice of Medicine:

The art of branding is done all over the county by non-medical tattoo artists and fraternity members in tattoo parlors and frat houses, respectively. There are no licenses required to practice branding in the state of NY. Therefore, I was not leaning on my medical license for scope. There was no patient-physician relationship. It was unknown to the women who would be helping them with their brands until they arrived. There were no monies exchanged, or insurances billed. In fact, billing codes for branding don’t even exist. It is not taught in medical school and there are no courses or fellowships that so much as mention it. I was taught by the nation’s leading body modification artist – not a doctor. But, perhaps most importantly, it does not meet the medical-legal definition for the practice of medicine as clearly outlined in Section 6251, NY Education Law entitled “Definition of Practice of Medicine”:

“The practice of the profession of medicine is defined as diagnosing, treating, operating or prescribing for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition.”

Can someone please tell me what disease, pain, injury, deformity or condition I was treating?

My hard-earned medical license was taken away for actions taken between consenting adults outside the practice of medicine. I have never so much as had one complaint from an actual patient of mine.

Roberts gave Edmondson a brand using an electrocautery pen, similar to what is used to give tattoos and commonly performed by non-licensed tattoo and branding artists.


Three board members were chosen (by a board that hires/fires them, who are hired/fired by the Medical Commissioner, who is now hired/fired by the Governor [Cuomo]) to evaluate the legitimacy of my case and determine my competence. It is not their job to protect consenting adults from the consequences of their decisions as in the case of Sarah Edmonson. It is, however, their job to distinguish medical practice from personal endeavor. Unless, of course, we want government agencies to dictate to us what we can and can not do in our personal lives, just as our parents did when we were 15.

Dr. Ramanathan Raju, MD was one of the physicians on the board that decided to revoke Roberts’ license.

They were way outside their scope.

The board’s lack of judgement, discernment and morality are a matter of great concern for me (and should be for all of us). If boards, political offices and news outlets are run by individuals who have not exercised and refined these skills then we run the risk of accepting oppression and coercion under the guise of security and protection.

The Consequences:

Nowhere was it proven that I hurt a single patient, or was grossly neglectful, or gave a patient bad medical treatment, or even misdiagnosed someone. This is the realm where a doctor should be evaluated. Not their belief system, their religion, or their non-medical life. I was stripped of my hard-earned medical license, not because of my failures as a doctor (as I have never, in my entire career, received one malpractice complaint from a single patient or colleague), but because of my personal beliefs and activities outside the practice of medicine. It took merely one friend (not a patient, not a colleague) complaining, retroactively, about something she not only consented to, but celebrated at the time, to destroy fifteen years of my hard work and ten additional years of dedicated and faithful service.

The ruling in my case ultimately says that physicians must live their lives, both personal and professional, in a way that the OPMC approves of. Frighteningly, it requires a retroactive evaluation by the OPMC to determine that a physician’s personal conduct violated their unspecified and undisclosed code. This historic decision grants power to administrative occupational boards to peer into a physician’s personal life and revoke their license(s) for consensual actions taken in “privacy”. If this is allowed, even once, by any of us… kiss your civil liberties goodbye.

Danielle Roberts receiving her white coat.

The OPMC released a 58-page justification for their decision. I will address the issues in this justification one by one in coming statements. For now, I’m continuing to evaluate what it means about the rights of all medical practitioners, and all of us as humans, that this was allowed in the United States.

I was stripped of my medical license as a result of a fear campaign incited by one woman willing to lie, the careless and fervent appetite of our culture for gossip, the lack of integrity and rigor of our media to fact check, and the moral weakness of our political leaders and elected court officials.

I will appeal this decision, not just for me, but for all of us.

Please contact me if you’d like to help.


About the author

Guest View


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • Sarah Edmonson is so powerful in her detractors’ eyes.

    One woman took on the legal threats from the Bronfmans and the lawyers from Mexico who were attempting to have her arrested and she defeated them all.

    One woman outwitted the smartest man in the world!

    One woman drove the entire narrative of the Nxivm demise in the media!

    One woman rescued and opened the eyes of all the other DOS defectors.

    One woman strategized better than one of the top 3 problem solvers in the world!

    One woman held an entire medical board in her palm.

    One woman brought down an entire cult/crime syndicate.

    All while raising beautiful children, working, keeping her marriage wonderful, and looking good doing it all.

    Are they aware of how much credit they are giving Sarah Edmondson? It’s kinda funny.

  • and laughed out loud driving her BMW down the street knowing that defrocked “doctor” Danielle holds such resentment towards her.

    Sarah: 1
    Danielle: 0

    What kind of car does Danielle drive? Or did she sell that in her failed bid to save her medical license?

    • I don’t know what model of car Danielle Roberts owns. But I do know that by her own account, her car is only worth $6000.

      It can be found out what kind of car Danielle Roberts drives, but I’m not going to do that work. Not on a car that’s only worth $6k.

      • By Raniere/NXIVM standards that the person with the most money is the better person, Sarah is the better person.

        Sorry, Danielle, you lose.

  • Woman A tricks her friend (Woman B) into getting the initials of Woman A’s male lover burned into the flesh near her vagina.

    Just that basic truth… is so f×cked up!

    1 woman tricks a 2nd woman into being branded with the initials of the 1st woman’s boyfriend.

    Come on! That’s super f×cked up!

    And then multiply that into many “friends” being deceived into searing this same one man’s initials onto their pelvis.

    So f×cked up. Anyone can see the wrong.

    The cult die-hards can parse this simple truth. And they can try to spin it this way and that way. To take things out of the larger context, lie by omission and all their usual cult tricks

    But at the most basic level, it’s just a horrible scenario that is so deeply screwed up.

    It’s really an indefensible thing to do to a “friend”. It inflicts permanent emotional and physical damage. It’s such a painful betrayal.

    And it’s an actual wound! Not the fake kind of wound that Nxivm taught that little boys retain because they cannot punch little girls with impunity.

  • Good point Anonymous at 6 44pm. Wasn’t Danielle branded by a scarification specialist? Did the scarification specialist get hounded out of their job and threatened with lawsuit?

    Also, Sarah Edmunston is Jewish and the Jewish religion explicitly prohibits drawing on ones body. I would need to know if Sarah had other tattoos prior to the branding? Was Sarah’s emotional trauma at least in part due to breaking a requirement of her faith? Could it not be argued she accepted the brand because it wasn’t a tattoo then had “religion remorse after the fact?

    Alternatively, what did Danielle know about Lauren’s bait and switch, promising a tattoo but giving a scar brand. Was she aware the ladies were being misled prior to arrival, (providing the facts given by Sarah were accurate)? I mean, a room full of naked women shouting “please brand me, it would be an honour I wish to carry etc etc. is emotionally confusing to say the least.

  • RE: DOC Roberts & Wisconsin:

    Why did Doc Roberts move to Wisconsin?

    Wisconsin has a shortage of Doctors and medical staff. They’re so short they may give her a license.

      • Oh! Wook! Poor ex-doctor Danielle got her feeeeeewings hurted!

        Why don’t you write your beloved Vanguard a letter about it? No doubt that brilliant genius will have the right words to soothe her.

      • She’s a Great Doctor:

        1. Anti-Vaxxer
        I have no problem with people not wanting the vaccine. I have a problem with people spreading lies, in the same vein as Shadowstate1958.

        2. Anti-Mask
        I believe in personal freedom. I understand people not wanting to wear a mask. I have a problem with anyone spreading misinformation.

        There is no way to refute science. The only thing people are doing is promoting lies. Every time a lie is debunked the anti-science people move on to something else.

          • And spreads her legs, if Keith orders it.

            Is he in the SHU because he was using a cell phone to pimp out her anorexic, menopausal ass at bargain rates? Better bargain rates than nothing.

            Granted, there are plenty of aging betas here on the FR who would gladly pay market price for her since the young whores won’t touch their shriveled members.

  • Since she had to sell her house to fund her legal defense, Ex-Doctor Danielle is facing the prospect of bankruptcy.

    Is there anyone with direct, relevant experience who posts here on the Frank Report that could give her advice?

    • This is Professional ethics and only a few lawyers practice this specialty. Any lawyer can help brief this. Navigating the procedures and rules of appeal is another issue.

  • All I can think when I read this is that Danielle was branded by a professional. She was one of the few DOS members who was not branded by Danielle Roberts. She makes a lot of assumptions about what the experience was like for people who were branded by her and not a professional.

    • Really good point! After all, she wasn’t performing the act as a professional. Just as the only person wearing slacks who so happened to be a doctor in a living room full of naked and blindfolded women.

      • Ha ha my2cents.

        Additionally, I would like to point out that some of the women in DOS did not know Keith. Or had barely made his acquaintance. Nicole needed to be given his contact information and forced to communicate with him.

        Do not take my word for it. Take their trial testimony and the court evidence. Or take Keith Raniere’s word for it!

        The world’s smartest man has repeatedly stated he does not know some of these former DOS women.

        Logically: Why would women want the initials of a man they did not really know burned forever into the flesh near their genitals?

        They wouldn’t.

        Unless you tricked them…maybe…by say…lying about the brand…?

        Naturally, someone like Nicki Clyne – “Keith’s partner of 10 years” – will feel differently about being branded with his initials than a woman who does not know Keith really or have a relationship with him.

        Whenever people try to rewrite history, it usually raises more questions than it answers. And just like this time, it usually does not make sense.

  • Danielle,

    Please tell us why you were recently trying to contact Sarah?

    I am sure the judge in the civil case did not believe your lie that you were not trying to intimidate her. Why contact her then, considering you blame her for your undoing? It certainly wasn’t a friendly hello.

    Sarah told the truth. You lie and manipulate, just like Raniere taught you to do.

    Maybe if you stop lying and start taking some responsibility for your own failures, you might earn back your license one day.

  • Danielle,

    Did you verify with the many women you branded that they were giving full informed consent including that the brand was Raniere’s initials?

    Why did Raniere and the group select you to do the branding? Do you really tell yourself that choice had nothing to do with you being a medical professional?

    Didn’t you do “follow up” after the procedure to make sure the wounds were healing properly? Why you and not a random member? Did you burn these women as “not a doctor” and then quickly put your white coat on “as a doctor” to make sure “not a doctor” didn’t cause more harm?

    You paint yourself as a victim and that others haven’t asked for your side. Have you talked to all your victims and listened to their stories?

    You and the other devotees spout women’s rights to be responsible for their own choices. Then you write things like the above where you blame and see yourself as a victim of everyone else. This is straight out of Raniere’s playbook. It is blame wrapped up in a package with “responsibility” stamped all over it.

    There is an agreement society makes with those it grants the title of doctor. We require a certain moral character of those in which we trust our lives. You lack that.

    You proved this again when you forged a federal document so you could attend the ballet. You have a right to not vax. However, you are not entitled to play with the rest of us if you choose that. You lied to the people who sat near you so you could avoid the consequences of your choices. Again, right out of the Raniere playbook.

    A conscience is a requirement that we, society, require of people we call doctors. Instead of blaming, how about making sure you meet the requirements of the job?

    • She did not forge a federal document. She showed them a copy of her lab report that demonstrated her immunity. She told them that’s what it was. They accepted it. She did not lie or mislead the staff in any way.

      I know for a fact. I was there and witnessed it. If you look at the photo she posted on Twitter, you can see for yourself!

      • Danielle needs to take responsibility for how she presented the vax situation to the public. And the backtracking that she’s done since. And why put it out there at all?

        Why not just attend the event and have a good night without tweeting for approval?

        At best, Danielle is a poor communicator and attention-whore. Really, Twitter nonsense at her age? In her situation?

        Why tweet about it at all? Especially when she’s fighting to regain her medical license? It shows a diminished capacity for judgement.

        Be a real friend to Danielle. Don’t co-sign this kind of continued self-sabotage.

      • I actually don’t disagree about the science behind this but Danielle still acted selfishly and as if she’s above the law. She gloats because they let her in and would be crying victim again if they hadn’t.

  • Lying about permanently searing Keith Raniere’s initials into the delicate flesh of your “friend’s” pelvis is f×cked up.


    WHY you want to coerce such a painful, dishonest and bizarre act of violence on a “friend” is super disturbing. And a whole other issue. What a betrayal of friendship and supposed “mentoring”.

    Some of these women did not even really know Keith. Those women have made that clear. And it’s a fact backed up by court testimony. Evidence (texts, emails pushing them to contact Keith, etc.).

    You know who else claims that Keith did not know all of the women? Keith. Keith Raniere. He stated that fact (again) at a recent court appearance.

    It is completely illogical to then claim that the women would “want” initials of a man they did not even really know branded into their genital area. And to LIE to them about it in order to pull it off.

    That is NOTHING like a full disclosure informed choice to get a brand of a fraternity symbol.

    DOS branding has nothing in common with that fraternity example. Nothing. Not one thing in common with that comparison.

    One brand is a known and agreed upon symbol of a group that you are a part of – Keith’s was a brand of ownership. Or as Keith stated, ” All mine – devil emoji” in a text. One is fully transparent. DOS was fully dishonest. Done for blackmail. Naked. As Keith Raniere is on audio planning.

    This tired and invalid argument that DOS branding bears any resemblance to a college fraternity’s brand is ridiculous.

  • Regarding Danielle Roberts’ Face:

    Anyone notice how Danielle’s nose comes down on an odd slant?

    Her eyes, mouth, and nose are out of alignment.

    Her nose and mouth are at 15-degree angles.

      • Hunting People 2:

        Was Pablo Picasso kidding?


        Immediately after I posted the “15-degree angle”, Picasso’s “Girl with the “Yellow hat”
        popped into my head. I knew I had found Danielle Roberts’ oddly familiar face.

        Here’s Roberts’ collateral:


        The 15-degree slant-nose is pure Picasso, and is an observation, not mentioned, anywhere else, but right here. Picasso consistently did 15-degree nose slants.

        So the dear Doc Roberts face imitates art.

        IMO: Someone with the alias name Hunting People 2 shouldn’t be critiquing a guy who sees thru an artist’s lens.

        • Good eye, Anonymous.

          The defrocked “doctor” is good at using camera angles, cosmetics, lighting and Photoshop to make her look less like a monstrosity.

          But, menopause is a bitch that just won’t stop chasing her.

          • Anonymous ( & all your other monikers )

            I think the needle is broken on your record.

            You should get out. See a play perhaps, The play Menopause was hysterical.

            You might have a laugh, maybe even enjoy it…

          • huntingpeople2-

            I was roped into seeing The Vagina Monologues, I gotta enough estrogen. None of the menopausal comments are me, I’m Mr. Picasso. Menopausal women rock! Tons of bedroom experience and no need for birth control!

  • Here’s an article in a fraternity magazine on how and why to conduct branding ceremonies in your local chapter.


    Do some of their members act as “wing men”, helping their leaders, and each other, get laid? Do the pitchers of beer these wingmen earn in return constitute commercial sex trafficking?

    Do any of these fraternity members have multiple sex partners?

    Will the feds go after them with a RICO prosecution in a government show trial, complete with allowing evidence that has a broken chain of custody, articles in the New York Times, followed by multiple documentaries on Showtime and HBO?

    Come on. You are being emotionally manipulated to engage in a moral panic, and the result is that you hand the government more power to violate all of our rights to live the lives we choose.


    • Alanzo, you’re such a mystery. On the one hand, you’re against the corrupt Scientologists. Yet, on the other, you’re falling hook, line and sinker for these nxivm ideas.

      Frat boys aren’t getting, for example, the initials of the dean of their school seared next to their penis in a nude ceremony and being told it’s the 4 elements. Yes, both may involve a fraternity and branding but they are not the exact same thing. Well? Except that keith raniere says they are.

      Why do you hate the Scientologists but love keith raniere? Keith raniere seems kind of gross, vengeful, super paranoid and kind of stupid, actually. Never mind that he was 45 and sexually manipulating 15-year-old girls. How do you justify defending this guy and his twisted thinking?

      You know this group hunted people down and terrorized them just the same as you claim the Scientologists have done to you, don’t you?

      • “Why do you hate the Scientologists but love keith raniere?

        I’m so sick, My2Cents, of this stupid tribalism.

        Your point, and other points about not being informed of the meaning of the brand are valid points, which I acknowledged when I spoke about Sarah Edmonson’s wholly justified participation in SuperStar Neil’s BigPayDay® Lawsuit.

        How many of those fraternity members are physicians, tho? No one here seems to apply the medical board of the State of New York standards to them.

        Why not?

        • What do you mean by stupid tribalism?

          Also, I think branding probably falls under body mods. I think part of their mistake was in trying to cheat the system. They couldn’t really nail Danielle for being an unlicensed tattoo artist because it was branding and had no specifications. Yet? She was a doctor using a cauterizing pen. They applied the law where it most closely fits in my opinion. If they just hadn’t cheated and lied, they probably wouldn’t be in trouble. And I believe the big problem is that a guy was the leader!

          • “What do you mean by stupid tribalism?”

            Here’s a great video about what I mean when I say “stupid tribalism”. Homo Sapiens is a tribal species. Human tribalism underlies all cults and anticults, and these days, polarized tribes such as democrats and republicans.


          • Correction: I meant to type that *this guy* was the leader.

            Keith thought all of these things were fabulous ideas! And the women went along with it, willfully lying to and branding their so called friends. Trying to skirt consent by videotaping them vocalizing a script and trying to skirt the law because the health act doesn’t yet include branding.

        • If a layman does it, it’s not a procedure. If a doctor does it, it is a medical procedure.

          Think of law. If someone is in court representing themselves, it’s not ‘ practicing law’.

          If they get a pro bono lawyer, for free, to take over the case, that person is practicing law.

          • Interesting point.

            Thank you for this.

            But a pro bono lawyer is practicing in a court room with a judge, prosecutors, etc.

            Dr. Roberts wasn’t operating in a medical setting at all. No one, physician or non-physician, operates in a medical setting when they perform branding. No one came to her to be cured of anything or to treat an illness.

            By contrast, I know of a surgeon in California who performed surgery in a hospital on a patient. The patient developed complications after the surgery, but the surgeon didn’t want to pay the hospital fees for follow up corrective surgery. So he performed surgery on her on his kitchen table.

            His patient died of sepsis.

            He was sued for malpractice and lost. He did not lose his license to perform surgery. In fact, the California state medical board hid his history of malpractice from the public.

            Contrast this with what they did to Dr Roberts, and you’ll see that the element of CULTS was the motivating factor in taking action against her.


          • You are correct. And not all lawyers appear in court. Much of “lawyering” is advice. Hence the moniker, “counselor”.

            Anywhere you advise someone on their legal options as an attorney (e.g., over the telephone; online; the spare bedroom in Allison’s condo; etc.), you are practicing law.

          • Anonymous, below: but there needs to be an “Attorney-Client ” relationship, or the reasonable belief one existed.

            In law, that agreement is memorialized with a Retainer Agreement.

            Physicians have agreements, too, to authorize a procedure.

            For doctors, there’s emergency exceptions, i.e., arriving at the scene of an accident. But once you begin to act, you cannot act negligently.

          • Alanzo:

            One hurdle I see here is that the Board dictates what is a medical procedure. If one argues ” no it’s not”, It’s challenging the Board in its inherent power.

            Not good.

            Therein lies the tightrope to walk. Damned if you challenge the power, damned if you don’t.

            Of all the tragedies emerging from NXIVM, this, to me, is the worst.

            I don’t know Dr Roberts, but I have no doubt she was otherwise an amazing doctor with an amazing future, and a great inspiration to many.

            My heart truly does go out to her.

            There’s a good person in all these women. but losing a license has a special sting to it.

            After reading the Order, I think collateral, defiance, and yes, cult –” denying she was brainwashed”–was the nail in the coffin.

            Sometimes we have to suck it up and bow to the Powers that Be.

            My opinion.

          • FMN wrote:

            “After reading the Order, I think collateral, defiance, and yes, cult –” denying she was brainwashed”–was the nail in the coffin.

            Sometimes we have to suck it up and bow to the Powers that Be.

            My opinion.

            Non-self-righteous honesty.

            I agree.

            So what do we do to correct the injustice caused by this?


          • Alanzo, this thread is getting too long to follow. Let’s continue it under your article about correcting the injustice– and if it was, in fact, injustice…..

      • You are wrong my2cents. Alanzo loves both Scientology and NXIVM, just as DOSA JISM loves everyone, even stupid tribalists.

  • Where’s my funny boy at?

    Frank, are you blocking this person’s comments? That guy is hilarious and awesome! Come on, Frank, please don’t keep this guy’s posts from coming out! He’s one of the only reasons I read your articles to begin with. You haven’t had very much good material lately, I’m sorry. Just let us have some comedy, bro! It’s all just fun, tongue-in-cheek! I’m sure this guy isn’t really a racist and if he is, who cares? It’s still fun entertainment. Please put up his comments, dude! He’s one of the highlights of FR now! He’s pure comedic gold! I hope he’s going to be a new classic commenter on your website! Maybe even let him do an article and let people fight him in the comments on it! That would be hilarious and awesome! Where’s your funny bone, Frank?! Come on! I really miss him. If you’re not going to post him, I’m going to have to boycott FR! You can want freedom of speech so bad, so come on, dude! Don’t be like that! Don’t censor one of your best comedians in the history of FR! You’re going to make me and probably others want to leave if you do!

  • How much money are Frank Report beta boys Capt. Moonbeam, Alanzo, Keith Ran- rear Doggy dog, and Erasend running up on their credit cards to help fund the ex-doctor’s futile legal appeals fund?

    Hate to break it to you, boys. She’s not going to send you a pair of her worn panties in exchange.

    But, maybe, just maybe, she can hook you up with a set from Kathy Russell.

    • I would check out her camming. Wouldn’t give money, but at least bump her viewer numbers. More watching generally equals more money-making.

      She’s attractive, nothing wrong with noting that. Infamous, famous, same thing really except for people wanting to pretend there is a difference for their own fragile egos. Will never meet her so personality is irrelevant. It’s like caring if some celebrity is nice. Why care? Their seeming to be nice impacts you how? Not at all except for a delusion that it does. Even then, they will wave it away if hero-worship is high enough.

  • I have compassion for Danielle and I hope she’s eventually able to make a decent living one way or another.

  • And? One more thing. Danielle trained in osteopathy. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Keith spent some time writing patents for her. But did she ever study mental health? I’m sure she knows some people can be born without all their limbs but does she realize and that other people can be born without empathy or other social/functional mechanisms? Is she aware that neurotypical divergence could be mistaken for brilliance?

  • Oh man. I’ve only made it to page 25 and I already feel bad for Danielle again.

    They make a truly excellent point that anybody, I mean? Even just think about your massage therapist or yoga teacher or hairdresser or anyone who is doing some kind of bodywork on you. Don’t you normally receive an intake form and are you not normally presented with a request for informed consent? They say Danielle was well aware of such standards of conduct but willfully chose to ignore them and it’s true.

    And? It will probably just add more fuel to Keith’s fire and continue to demonstrate her lack of total commitment and the unreliability of women in general. In his opinion, she should have done so many things better.

    When will she ever stop listening to him?!!

    How does she not see this man is destructive beyond belief? He had Brandon Porter conducting very sick and unlicensed human experiments and Danielle conducting unlicensed human branding.

    And now? Both of their legitimate and deserved licenses have been revoked.

    But after voluntarily showing people scenes of graphic murder and violence and then blackmailing them, lying to them, holding them down to tables, branding them and taking videos while they did it? How is this a surprise or even unfair?

    Sometimes I actually wonder if the remaining DOS people aren’t living under some terrible threat of retribution if they don’t keep standing up for this guy. It’s really hard to understand their motives otherwise.

  • All too typically for a certain mentality, Roberts deflects blame and denies responsibility, implies a virtual conspiracy against her rather than acknowledging her role, and completely ignores inconvenient essential facts such as that victims were mislead about the actual nature of the brand (which made her part of a real conspiracy) because otherwise they might not have consented.

    This just further demonstrates the poor judgment, lack of contrition, and incorrigible attitude, that must have lead the board to revoke her license.

    • Or, she’s defending herself, her rights, and her livelihood against an onslaught of mainstream conformity waged by tribal ninnies like you.


      • Or, “she’s defending herself, her rights, and her livelihood against an onslaught of mainstream conformity” AND what AnonyMaker typed.

        • 🥜Job-

          Do you mean being nonconformist vs conformist within the standard deviation of the mean of mental health?

          Or do you mean nonconformists like the Chicagoan who lives at the library, partakes in the free toilet paper and free internet service?

          Please clarify!

        • A solid non-tribal point, Nutjob.

          But, as reported here on the Frank Report, and lied about by “AnonyMaker”, is this testimony in her hearings with the NYS medical board:

          “Roberts knew the symbol included KAR to represent Keith Raniere’s initials as one of its meanings. Roberts said she did not disclose it to the women because she believed it wasn’t her role to do so, and believed they may have already been told by their DOS masters, as she was. She says she was not the lead in the organization and her role was branding technician in an initiation ceremony.


          He simply denies the facts to wage his character assassination of Dr. Roberts because she is a member of a minority subculture and he hates that.

          He’s a prejudiced and pinheaded anticultist, and it’s a public service to call him out on it.


          • Hi, Alanzo, hope you’re doing well. You’re mentioning anti-cultists, so I thought I’d ask the same question I asked in a different thread a while back which you never answered. If Raniere deprogrammed someone from a cult, does that make him an anti-cultist?

          • A question and a point…

            Question – Do you and AnonyMaker have any non-Frank Report history?

            Point – Keith was big on teaching that non-disclosure was fine. “I prefer not to disclose” was almost encouraged. In Danielle’s NXIVM-trained mind, it was fine not to disclose details (like Keith’s initials being the brand). It was even fine to allow misinformation about what the brand was. “Not my spot to disclose. I’m just doing the branding.”

            Ok, fine. But, you live by Raniere, you die by Raniere. Keith led Danielle to where she is today. While Danielle may be correct in a lot of things she says, she still fails to see that Raniere never had her best interests in mind. She fails to see that Raniere is a fraud. When you blindly follow a fraud, bad shit happens. Now, I don’t expect Danelle to have a lightbulb go off and one day realize this – but her not being able to be curious about the possibility of this being true is the problem. In her defense, Keith taught her this, and she is blindly following him.

            “Don’t read anything bad about Keith and certainly don’t entertain negative thoughts about him – it will screw up your internal representation of him.” How many times was this hammered into her?

            Everything Keith did or taught was not bad. There was a lot of value in NXIVM. NXIVM wouldn’t have worked if this wasn’t true. There was also a dark side and a fraudulent side to NXIVM. It is sad that Danielle is still only open to seeing part of the truth.

          • Nutjob wrote:

            “Everything Keith did or taught was not bad. There was a lot of value in NXIVM. NXIVM wouldn’t have worked if this wasn’t true. There was also a dark side and a fraudulent side to NXIVM. It is sad that Danielle is still only open to seeing part of the truth.

            I enjoy your thoughtful and experienced posts, Nutjob. You make very good points.

            But here I think you are making judgements and decrees for other peoples’ lives that you have not lived.

            Do you know Danielle?

            If not, why do you presume your decision-making would be better for her life than her own?

            Why would you presume to know what was going on in her mind when she said that she assumed they’d been told what the brand was, just like she had been? Just because Keith Raniere said something related? So you conclude that was what she was REALLY thinking – despite what she herself testified to?

            Do you have more evidence for your conclusion?

            We’re talking about a highly educated, highly disciplined, highly accomplished human being here. Most here on the Frank Report are dehumanizing her, and placing their reductive projections of what they think NXIVM is onto her. They very arrogantly think they know what she was thinking..

            So why are you, specifically, treating her this way?

            Is your internal representation of Danielle Roberts only the teachings of Keith Raniere?

            (ha! See what I did there??)


          • Spewing facts, dude. Keith was into young girls. Keith was into not paying taxes. Keith was into non-disclosure. Why the emotional reaction to first-hand info that isn’t debatable? Another close to being indisputable fact is that Keith only had Keith’s best interests in mind.

            Another fact – Nancy and others told people not to listen to or to think anything negative about Keith because it would negatively impact their internal representation of him. This has been reported on Frank Report (independently of me reporting the statement), and I heard this directly out of Nancy’s mouth when I was around ESP. Danielle was in NXIVM waaay longer than me. Pretty close dots to connect if you want to assume Danielle was well aware of this order from the higher-ups.

            Another assumption I made is that Danielle understood Keith’s feelings on non-disclosure. This was taught in one of the core 20 modules, so again, close dots to connect. If you reread my post, I was careful not to pass judgement on Danielle for not disclosing that it was a “KR” brand. My post was to give (add to her already provided) a logical rationale for why she thought this was ok.

            Here’s where I may be wrong (I’m not following this part of the saga as much as some) – my post assumed Danielle knew it was Keith’s initials she was branding. Am I wrong in that assumption? If I’m wrong, do what you want with the rest of my comment.

            If I had to critique my post, I’d say it is not my position to judge how Danielle thinks, or for me to act like I know what she thinks. To your point – I don’t know Danielle. Maybe she is open to – or has previously been open to – considering Vanguard has some fraud in him.

          • To Alanzo and/or AnonyMaker – Do you two have any history outside of Frank Report? circle YES or NO

            If you two have a history (Anonymaker knows Scientology very well, and apparently you “Scios” and “anti-Scios” have special online spots you like to take your tiffs, and to call each other sock-puppets), it will help me decide when or if to barge in on one of your frays.

        • NutJob,
          What a truly novel, profound, and *non-tribalist-not-a-cult-hater statement.

          *Please Note: Eons ago, my superior intellect necessitated the creation of my very own lingo.

  • Which of the commenters here are the disgraced, dumb, pitiful defrocked former-doctor Danielle?

    I wonder how well MLM insurance scams pay? That’s what she’s been reduced to.

    Karma is a bitch.

  • You suckers keep posting about how hot this over-the-hill used up witch is. You fantasize about kissing Keith’s initials on your way to showing her what a good boy you are.

    Idiots. She won’t touch you with a ten foot pole–your submission disgusts her.

  • And her hair dresser who knows how to cover the inevitable marks around her ears.

    Well done!

  • To the Roberts Groupies:

    “I will do no harm or injustice to them.”
    (Hippocratic Oath)

    Keyword fellas, injustice!

    I guess Roberts forgot this part of the oath. She tattooed the women with a brand and lied about the brand’s true meaning, hence, she committed an INJUSTICE to the other woman branded not to mention the harm of searing flesh.

    Definition of Injustice:

  • The sex assignments were not “rumors”. That depravity really happened.

    You lose any remaining chance of credibility when you continue to lie.

    A lie out of the gate makes the rest of this post hard to believe at all.

    And, Danielle, it’s obvious you also had sexual contact with Keith. It took India a long time to admit too. Counseling will help.

  • It is not surprising that her argument that her medical license should not have been taken is that they had no jurisdiction. Hopefully, she will change her ways and her license will be restored.

  • Remember that oath you once took, Danielle? Not the DOS slave one or that other NX one to Vanguard and Prefect but that one doctors swear to life and practice by. “FIRST, DO NO HARM?”

    You broke that vow when you used your medical skill to inflict harm.

    But never mind your worthless medical license. How it is that you are not (yet) in prison when you mutilated bodies under coercive, deceitful conditions as you well know, and, further tampered with evidence to mask your crimes, is beyond comprehension to me. Especially given Allison Mack’s sentence, despite her renunciation of Keith and ultimate cooperation.

    I’ve also been wondering about that trip you allegedly took to Mexico in 2019. Vincente said you seemed to be in a sort of haze if I recall. Catch any good beheading, drug cartel snuff flicks while you were there?

    • So, she cauterized tissue not for any of those purposes but for the sake of scarification. She engaged in activities that should be and are relegated to medical professionals for specific purposes for literally branding these women. Good thing they took her license then. She also neglects to mention that other women expressed fear, discomfort and shock at having been branded. Even more reason to take her medical license. I would not want her touching my worst enemy.

      Reading this statement makes me think the board absolutely did the right thing in stripping the now former “Dr” Danielle of her license.

  • A number of you have a low bar for “stunning”. Attractive, above average, etc., are more apt descriptions, but “stunning”, “gorgeous”, “beautiful”, etc., should be reserved for those more worthy of those adjectives.

  • I don’t see any heroes or villains in the branding situation…but that’s what society at large always looks for. It’s so easy to look for someone we can blame and someone who can save us.

    Both sides are attempting to claim a hero or prove a villain.

    Everyone involved in the branding was of age. They all were very familiar with Keith’s teachings and had paid thousands of dollars to continue to be taught from him and his curriculum. They all AGREED to give compromising material that could be held against them. They revered him and his work or they wouldn’t have stayed around. They had been taught the concept of collateral in other workshops and continued on. (Most of us probably can’t imagine doing that!) Most people would run as fast as they could when they heard this, but these women consented to giving compromising material to learn more.

    Many people left after one workshop. Numerous women chose not to get a brand. They said “No” and nothing happened. Others made a choice to continue going down the rabbit hole when there was plenty of evidence of past deception, but now they want someone else to pay the price for their choices.

    Ironic that everyone in this beautiful community of no victims now feels the need to blame someone else for the consequences of the choices they made. BOTH sides!

    So sad. And more evidence that the curriculum wasn’t as effective as they had hoped it would be.

    More evidence that we as humanity need to find empathy for both sides of people who are mixed up and longing for acceptance and belonging.

    We can do that. It’s possible.

    Instead of promoting vitriol and vulgar comments we can pray/hope for continued healing and peace within this feud. We can offer comments and insights that promote critical thinking and care.

    When we have bad intent for them and wish to control their thinking, how are we acting any differently than we are accusing Keith of acting?

    • Pray to your imaginary God/dess all you want.

      No one is trying to control these culties’ thinking.

      Your cookie-cutter New Age drivel is a waste of oxygen. It is arrogance wrapped in a thin veneer of faux compassion.

    • I don’t no if you noticed, but all of the NXIVM cultists are doubling down. And Nicki “Cultess” Clyne is working on her own thing, that I’m waiting for Frank to Report on.

    • “Numerous women chose not to get a brand. They said “No” and nothing happened.”

      What numerous women said no to branding?

      • There were over 100 women in DOS and only 18 received the brand. From what I was told, several women in Mexico were asked and declined. Just as Keith asked some women to be with him and they declined. Just as some women left DOS and their collateral was not released or used as blackmail against them.

        • Interesting, we went from “numerous women chose not to get a brand” to “from what I was told, several women in Mexico were asked and declined.” Anything else you wanna walk back while you’re at it?

        • @ Black & White Hats
          People can’t hear you when million-dollar bills are stuffed in their ears.

          It’s very unfortunate. I honestly don’t think this qualified for a Rico trial.

  • I applaud the Frank Report for giving Dr Roberts a voice here. I support her in taking every avenue to rectify whatever injustice she can.

    Members of minorities have rights against mainstream persecution, and it is in all of our interests to support those rights.

    If we allow mainstream persecution to ruin the careers and livelihoods of innocent people, simply because they do something that is completely legal, but not mainstream, you could very well be next.

    And you know it.


  • “Please contact me if you’d like to help”.
    Those pigs are flying particularly low today!

  • I think Danielle has the full video, not just the edited one. She was there at the time it was recorded, so why wouldn’t she have it? So I read that as a threat to Sarah. That’s a shot across the bow directly to Sarah that Danielle is looking for payback.

    And you know what they say about collateral, where there’s some, there’s more! So I’m pretty sure she just fucked herself over for possessing illegal blackmail material.

    Danielle also conveniently forgot to mention she fucked up her medical license due to the v-week illness fiasco. The review board apparently didn’t like that too much either.

    She is fairly good-looking and has a rippin’ bod, but despite being penniless, hopeless, helpless, and completely unemployable, Danielle’s biggest problem is that she’s going to spend the next fifty years of her life with a very hairy vulva.

  • Well, she could rebrand as an S&M Fetish star. For only $1000 get the real CULT STYLE bondage treatment. Complete with whips, chains, cages, and puppy butt plugs. Beg to your Mistress Danielle.

    There are a lot of sickos in NYC. Airline pilots pay big $$$ for kinky S&M services.

    So, perhaps a new career path is in store for the lovely Dr. Danielle, Mistress of the Night.

  • Q: Can someone please tell me what disease, pain, injury, deformity or condition I was treating?

    A: If you google cauterizing pen infection, the answer is the increased risk of infection due to damaged cells. That is the disease you aren’t treating but are, in fact, helping to create.

    Pain, injury and deformity = also created with your hand.

    Condition = your own belief that as a doctor, what you can do in your free time is actually the exact opposite of YOUR idealism as to what a doctor does in their duty.

    Wake up and smell the coffee.

    • Have to wonder why then that pediatricians treat nose bleeds with cauterization on young children , hmm

      • The DOS slaves were suffering from nose bleeds?

        That’s why they need Keith’s initials branded on the cootchies?

      • because the bleeding constitutes a medical necessity, that more than counterbalances the risks of cauterization.

        it comes down to the medical and scientific calculation of benefits versus risks, something that seems to be poorly understood these days — though it’s also true that humans are just prone, due to various cognitive biases, to make systemic errors in such calculations, as reflected in behaviors such as gambling and criminality, unless they have learned to compensate and judge situations accurately.

        typically, the leaders of abusive control groups such as NXIVM, have personalities similar in many ways to problem gamblers, and Raniere was in fact fascinated with actual casino gambling, as well as having lost larger amounts of followers’ money it what was essentially gambling in the stock market; and he clearly misjudged the rewards of what he was doing (self-gratifying behavior that broke the law), versus the risks (criminal conviction and imprisonment). i don’t know if that could be generalized to followers of such groups, but it would certainly be an interesting hypothesis to look into further, that they get and stay involved at least in part because they misjudge the benefits versus the consequences.

        • AnonyMaker, I agree the general public’s understanding of the scientific calculation of benefits versus risks is abysmal. And then there are the “various cognitive biases, to make systemic errors in such calculations.”

          A good analogy is the age-old, microeconomics vs marketing debate. In economics, people make purchasing decisions based on maximizing utility. Marketing basically states people’s purchasing decisions reflect Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

      • It wasn’t a nose bleed though? It was a visible scar done by a doctor in the area most women will only show to the people they love or want to have sex with! What if you break up or divorce? Many different scenarios that you cannot foresee in life already decided by people that are not the person who should have their own free will, ignoring peer pressure.

        Let’s shuffle your cards…

        You scar the child on the hip and you go to prison. The women you stop nose bleeds to but that didn’t happen.

        You scar the women and stop the child’s nose bleeds. Hmm that is reality.

  • Reminder: that branding video was edited by Lauren and Nicki Clyne on Raniere's direction for release to the media says:

    The Sarah Edmonson branding video was edited by Lauren Salzman and Nicki Clyne. It was edited on Keith’s instructions in order to discredit reports that the branding was traumatic and painful. Dialogue was removed and an attempt was made to make the process appear less creepy and weird. This is what Lauren Salzman testified to under oath and you can read it in the May 21 transcript.

    Q: Ms. Salzman, you testified yesterday that there were videos made of the branding ceremonies for your DOS slaves; is that correct?

    LAUREN: Yes, that’s correct.

    Q: And after DOS was publicly exposed, did you participate in discussions about releasing any of these videos?

    LAUREN: Yes, we did. I did.

    Q: Can you explain that further?

    LAUREN: Yes. We discussed among first-line DOS masters and Keith the idea of possibly releasing the branding video or showing it to — Keith was debating whether we should show it to possibly reporters or release it publicly to discredit from the allegations that were being made concerning what took place during the branding ceremony.

    Q: Were there discussions about editing the video?

    LAUREN: Yes.

    Q: Can you explain those?

    LAUREN: Yes. We edited out the — Keith said that he was considering whether we should show it to the media reporters or release it publicly. And I asked, What about, like, all of it, all the dialogue back and forth? And he said, Well, that part could be edited out and the — it could be blurred. The nudity parts of it could be blurred, and so he instructed us to do that. And in the fall of 2017, so like around September, Nicki and I did that. We edited out the dialogue portions of the branding ceremony from Sarah’s branding video specifically. Those were — that dialogue that was edited out were the things that we discussed yesterday in the book plus other concepts, but things like that I’m committing my labor, my material possessions, my body for unconditional use to my master and that that’s my highest priority.

    Q: Those pieces of dialogue were removed from the tape?

    LAUREN: Yes.

    Q Was one part of the dialogue kept in?

    LAUREN: Yes. The part that said, “Master, please brand me. It would be an honor, an honor I want to wear for the rest of my life,” which each DOS slave was instructed to say at the start of each ceremony.

    Q: And you testified, Ms. Salzman, that during your branding ceremony your arms were held over your head?

    LAUREN: Yes, they were.

    Q Was that something that was done with your DOS slaves as well?

    LAUREN: Yes. I duplicated what was done with me.

    Q When this was discussed with the defendant and the first-line DOS masters, were there concerns about showing the video to press and others?

    LAUREN: Yes, there were several concerns. We thought that them seeing it might things worse. It looked weird. Also some people said it looked sexual in nature because everybody was naked and holding each other down. And so we thought it might make things worse, not better. Also even though it showed laughing and joking, it still looked like what it was. It looked — I mean, the branding ceremony is not a pretty process, and I don’t think it’s — it’s a very mainstream or common process. So I think it was viewed that it would look badly if people saw it, even if it showed inconsistencies.

    Q: At some point did you assist in creating a transcript of the video?

    LAUREN: Yes, I did. Keith discussed several options that we could possibly show it to a reporter who could report on it. We could release it publicly so the public could see it. We could play the audio of it so it could be heard or there could be a transcript. And so I was instructed to just transcribe it and have all of these options ready. And so I did so taking out the same parts that we edited out of the video and leaving in the part about, “Master, please brand me. It would be an honor that I want to wear for the rest of my life.”

    Q: And why was a transcript considered as opposed to the actual video?

    LAUREN: Because the transcript was more neutral and they wouldn’t see the part that looked scary or odd.

    I agree with Lauren’s assessment. Even edited to appear less creepy and weird, the whole thing comes across as creepy and weird. Why anyone would use this as evidence that the branding was a positive experience is beyond me.

    • Great info. Nothing beats a witness transcript.

      I am curious what branding video was leaked to the Mexican media. Somebody leaked it. Who was it? The Mexican NXIVM branch definitely were involved in the publication. When was it shown by the Mexican media? Beginning in 2018 or after the arrests? Before or after the trial in 2019?

      Was it the edited version (by Lauren and Nicki), or the unedited version?

      Was it Nicki?

      Whoever it was, that was pretty reprehensible.

    • Because it’s literally staring you right in the face, Lauren was Sarah’s upline (master) and, therefore, the one who didn’t inform her whose initials it actually was!

  • Raniere really had a strong preference for women with manly jawlines who could double as nut-crackers.

    I wish this past-her-prime anorexic cultist would just shut up.

    I do enjoy that she sold her house and spent the money in a vain effort to save her medical license.

    • What is it with all this past your prime crap? Lots of people live into their 90’s
      Is there a movement they have to be sick and decrepit now? Gheez.

      • What man wants to bang a chick over 40 if he’s got the opportunity with one in her early 20’s?

        A beta boy, that’s who.

        Your Vanguard relegated you to the 3rd and 4th string long ago, certainly once you all helped traffic Cami.

  • I read some of the linked decision and the article. The article is written with too much bias to be well regarded. Stick to facts, not emotion. The decision says this was the practice of medicine. It is like for us lawyers when a friend asks for advice – you have to say no in most cases because the professional duty is never not there and it is too risky to try to do that act without doing it as a lawyer. Same with doctors. She was not trained in the device the decision says and yet she used it, etc., etc.

  • Frank, would please post some pictures of Danielle. I went to start a fan club. She’s gorgeous.

    What a waste of her being a doctor. She should be a porn star.

  • Re Sarah Edmondson Video I’ve Seen It:

    Two observations:

    1. I have seen the last few minutes of the Sarah Edmondson branding video. It does appear, Danielle Roberts, is telling the TRUTH.
    At the tail-end of the video Sarah and Lauren Salzman giggle and share a full-on-long kiss.
    The women in the video are all naked holding Sarah down and Roberts is dressed. The video is DISTURBING to watch.

    2. Thanks to Doc Danielle Roberts’ admission of owning and possessing said video, she has tacitly admitted to leaking the video.

    • I do not have any direct information on this topic but I would presume that Danielle received a copy of the tape in conjunction with the NYS Department of Health’s proceedings regarding her medical license. And the leaking of the tape to the Mexican media occurred long before Danielle would have received a copy of the tape.

      • K.R.-

        Doc Roberts was at the branding ceremony. Multiple video copies of nearly all DOS ceremonies were made for blackmail purposes. How does anyone “know” who has or hasn’t a copy?

        Nicki and Allison sent copies of blackmail material to Keith and the middle tier masters sent copies to Allison and Nicki. We have to take their word for how many copies exist. How much is their word worth? I’d trust Shadow 1000 times more than I trust them.

        Side note; I am no longer referring to “collateral” as “collateral. It’s black blackmail material, and has always been blackmail material.

        • Excellent point…I was thinking about the copy of the tape that I presume was part of the discovery process with the NYS Department of Health. But you’re quite correct that Danielle could have easily had a copy of the branding ceremony tape long before that. But even so, whether she’s the one who released a copy of it to the Mexican media is still a matter of conjecture.

          • —Excellent point…

            In regards to NXIVM, my knowledge is vast and is the equivalent of 110 hours of college credit hours. I’m 10 hrs short of PHD. 😉


          • You could have saved a lot of time – and spent a lot more money – if you had pursued your Ph.D. at NXIVM University.

            BTW, do you the true meaning of the various academic degrees: i.e., B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.?

          • —Excellent point….

            In regards to NXIVM, my knowledge is vast and is the equivalent of 110 hours of college credit hours. I’m 10hrs short of PHD. 😉


          • —BTW, do you the true meaning of the various academic degrees: i.e., B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.?

            Uhm, I’d say good insult, but I know you aren’t joking, so that is really insulting. 😉

            I have a B.S.

            FYI: 120hrs is the length of time for most Ph.D. accredited programs.

          • A “B.S.” is, quite obviously “BullShit”.

            And an “M.S.” is simply “More of the Same”.

            As for the “Ph.D”, well that is, of course, Piled Higher and Deeper”.

            Circa 1980.

    • That’s not true. The video was presented as evidence against Dr. Roberts by Sarah herself. Dr. Roberts had the right to possess the video to defend herself.

        • From my quick two minutes of internet research on this topic, it appears that a doctor who loses their medical license is still entitled to refer to themselves as a doctor.

          Here’s the most concise explanation that I found: In the U.S., the license to practice medicine is granted independently by each state. The degree “Doctor of Medicine” (M.D.) or “Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine” (D.O.) is granted by a college or university with an accredited medical school. Therefore, if a doctor loses their license, loses their authorization to practice in that particular state, not their title or degree. The same thing would happen if a nurse lost their license. They would no longer be a registered nurse, but they would still have their degree (BSN, MSN, etc.).

          • Exactly.

            And doctors who lose their license in one state, not infrequently apply for one in a different state with laxer regulations; unfortunately, doctors found guilty of serious malpractice, and even repeat offenses, still sometimes manage to get licensed in a new state, wherein some cases they go on to do further harm. The NY OPMC decision doesn’t even mean that Roberts won’t necessarily be a licensed, practicing physician in another state (or country).

            The medical licensing system tends towards giving doctors the benefit of the doubt, which also means that Roberts had to have been judged incorrigible and dangerous to have had her license revoked, rather than say being subject to a remedial program. I think her various statements, including this, demonstrate that she isn’t repentant about her mistakes and misjudgments, is still in the thrall of ideas and influences that could lead to further malpractice, and is unprofessional.

          • Actually, that is not the case…Although the law is unsettled with respect to several issues concerning who can use terms such as “attorney”, “attorney-at-law”, and “lawyer” (See:https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/tussle_over_titles/)- and even the title of “Esq.” – I think it’s fairly clear that attorneys who have been disbarred cannot use any of those terms. The reason why this is different than “Doctors” is because the degree that law schools graduates earn is generally a Juris Doctorate (J.D.). So, while a medical school graduate who earned a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree can still call themselves “Doctors” even after their medical license has been revoked, an attorney who has been disbarred can not refer to themselves as an “Attorney”.

      • Fair is fair
        Except when it’s an onslaught of pure conjecture and ‘hunting a person ‘ down like happened here on FR

    • It is a complicated topic as to when those who are abused consent and if a cult leader requires you to pretend to be enjoying things. Also, even if they did consent if you read the decision that was not the only issue – other issues were no training in the use of the equipment and much more.

      • Guess you didn’t read where she stated she received training from an expert in the field.

        How many of y’all pierced your own ears or let a friend do it?

        An entire generation!

        • Huntingpeople2 –

          I guess you didn’t read the Board decision, which referred to the expert’s testimony that Danielle did not do the branding like he does. She gave the women second-degree burns! This could have led to dangerous infections.

          Professional branding only burns the very top layer of skin – it is much less painful than what Danielle did to those women, which amounted to torture.

          This was a medical procedure for Danielle, a doctor, in the same way a nose job, done for cosmetic purposes, is still a medical procedure.

          Danielle proved to the Board that she values her oath of complete obedience to Raniere, a criminal, over her oath as a doctor. The potential for future conflict and harm done to others on Raniere’s behalf was too great and she rightly lost her medical license.

          She lacks good judgment, period.

          • Except He wasn’t yet a criminal at the time!

            I disagree with the torture scenario as I was once a professional cook with many mishaps of burns

            In fact, split HOT bacon Grease all over my arm once during a makeshift breakfast over a fire (due to a hurricane and no electricity )
            Nothing nearby to treat it with either.

            Anyway, it hurt a lot but words like torture
            Hell no.Not when I’ve read of real torture throughout history.

          • Hunting people2 at 11:38pm
            I had to reply to my own post as there was no reply option under yours.

            Raniere was a criminal long before he was arrested and convicted. All the information was there for you Nxians in the 90s when CBI fraudulently tanked, in 2003 with the Forbes article, and again in 2012 with the Times Union articles which cited the police report from the early 90s detailing Raniere’s rape of a 12-year-old, but you refused to consider them or even read them. But, now you’re all crying when you have to face the consequences of your willful blindness.

            I doubt you had a second-degree burn. Even if you did, I doubt it was the size of your palm and that you continuously suffered a second-degree burn over and over each time Danielle stopped and started in her inexperience over the course of one-half hour.

            So, your comparison is idiotic. You have no idea the pain these women went through. It was more than a grease burn, I can assure you.

            How about you stop telling these women what they experienced? You all complain that no one listens to your perspective when you deny the experiences of others.

            Grow up.

    • I’ve seen it too, on Twitter.

      Dr. Roberts is telling the truth: Sarah Edmonson did not ‘weep the whole time’, as she told the New York Times.

      But Sarah Edmonson has told me that she was not told she would be branded with Keith Raniere’s initials. She told me she would never have agreed to that.

      I believe her.

      To me, this makes Sarah Edmondson’s participation in SuperStar Neil Glazer’s BigPayDay Lawsuit® fully valid.

      That’s the full-on, nuanced, non tribal, messy truth.

      And it ain’t for ninnies.


      • Hi Alanzo, hope you are doing well. Just a question. Fair to say that what you watched on Twitter was a Mexican TV broadcast that included some edited clips of a video that Lauren Salzman testified under oath was something she and Nicki Clyne edited, on Raniere’s instruction, for release to the media with the specific intent to discredit Sarah Edmonson? So, in essence, what you watched, and are judging, is basically further edited clips of an already edited video of Sarah Edomson’s branding ceremony?

        • Sarah Edmonson went to the New Times and commercially published a book about this branding ceremony.

          She is not the only one who has a right to comment on it, especially since she herself made this branding ceremony very very public and has benefited commercially from doing so.

          Those people who had careers and lives which were harmed by Sarah Edmonson’s commercial media blitz have a right to discuss it, too, from their side.

          So your characterization of the purpose of commenting on Sarah’s branding ceremony as solely existing to “discredit” Sarah Edmonson is false. Everyone has the right to discuss this, especially Dr. Danielle Roberts.

          Your attempt to make any other opinion or experience than Sarah Edmonson’s seem abusive, or even criminal, is illegitimate.

          I see the fact that the brand was not disclosed to her as Raniere’s initials as the whole problem here, legally. And I commented on that, too.

          Was that an attempt to discredit Sarah Edmonson?

          Why or why not?


          • Hi Alanzo,

            “So your characterization of the purpose of commenting on Sarah’s branding ceremony as solely existing to ‘discredit’ Sarah Edmonson is false.”

            Lauren Salzman testified under oath, which you can read in the May 21 transcript, that she and Nicki Clyne edited Sarah’s branding video for release to the media “to discredit from the allegations that were being made concerning what took place during the branding ceremony.” Here’s the pertinent section of the transcript. (You can read a bigger chunk of the transcript if you scroll up in the comments feed a little bit.)

            Q: And after DOS was publicly exposed, did you participate in discussions about releasing any of these videos?

            LAUREN: Yes, we did. I did.

            Q: Can you explain that further?

            LAUREN: Yes. We discussed among first-line DOS masters and Keith the idea of possibly releasing the branding video or showing it to — Keith was debating whether we should show it to possibly reporters or release it publicly to discredit from the allegations that were being made concerning what took place during the branding ceremony.

            So, fair to say you’re making judgments about what happened based on further edited clips from an already edited video of Sarah Edomson’s branding ceremony?

          • “Inquiring Minds” asked:

            “So, fair to say you’re making judgments about what happened based on further edited clips from an already edited video of Sarah Edomson’s branding ceremony?

            The NYTimes reported that Sarah Edmonson told them that she ‘wept the whole time’ during her branding ceremony.

            The edited version I saw on Twitter showed no weeping.

            So if I saw a video, even an edited one, that showed many minutes of Sarah Edmonson not weeping?

            I judge that to mean she didn’t weep the whole time.

            Are you aware of a version of the video which shows her weeping the whole time?

            If not, why the queries, “Inquiring Minds”?


          • Also, “Inquiring Minds”, discrediting allegations that are false is a totally legitimate and necessary exercise of free speech.

            Characterizing the act of defending against false allegations as “discrediting Sarah Edmonson” herself, is a rhetorical trick that, I believe, has seen its day.

            I hope they don’t try that during SuperStar Neil’s BigPayDay® lawsuit.


          • Hi Alanzo, you still didn’t answer my question. Fair to say that you’re making judgments about what happened based on further edited clips from an already edited video of Sarah Edomson’s branding ceremony?

      • Sarah “told” you. Lol. Sarah told everyone. You probably heard Sarah “tell you” most recently by listening to her podcast featuring Mike Rinder while you rocked in a ball wearing underwear you stole from Mike and crying.

    • Probably Dr. Danielle Roberts had all the recordings of all the women she branded. It’s probably something of a trophy and some sort of documentation for her treatment as a doctor on behalf of Keith Raniere. Equal as collateral and blackmail material to get the victims to keep quiet.

    • Benjcarver-

      If you are interested in buying some premium collateral 4K videos, they’ll be for sale shortly on Etsy and EBay.

      Some yet to be released titles:
      Clare’s Ass, the Last Temptation of Suneel
      Vanguard Chest Hair Unchanged
      Suneely Wipes Dallas

      *Shipping and handling rates may differ state-by-state.

  • It’s not the practice of medicine. She was not acting as a doctor. You might not like what a doctor does in her off duty but that doesn’t make it malpractice. This is wrong

    • Lorretata –

      Dr. Danielle Roberts just admitted
      To possessing an opening video of Sarah Edmondson‘s branding ceremony.

      In the video, Sarah appears naked and shared a deep passionate kiss with Lauren Salzman of a seemingly sexual nature.

      The leaking of the video to the media constitutes revenge porn in New York State. Revenge Porn is a felony. A felon cannot hold a medical license in New York State.

      Danielle Roberts hung herself by her own petard.

      • I do not have any direct information on this topic but I would presume that Danielle received a copy of the tape in conjunction with the NYS Department of Health’s proceedings regarding her medical license. And the leaking of the tape to the Mexican media occurred long before Danielle would have received a copy of the tape.

        • K.R. Claviger, this is an historic moment.
          We finally disagree! You presume innocence and I assume guilt.
          (Please excuse my dramatic *flair.)

          It’s abundantly clear, after reading Danielle’s impertinent letter to the medical license board that she lays the blame for the downfall of NXIVM, her life and the revocation of her medical license squarely on Sarah Edmondson’s head. Who had access to the video in question and who had utter hatred for the victim? We’ll never know the answer.

          The best part about review boards is they don’t have to abide by the law. I don’t feel any of them will stick their neck out for Danielle Roberts.

          *Note, I actually used the correct version of flare/flair. It’s not very often I use the correct homophone. 😉

          My favorite part of Danielle’s letter comes at the end:

          “I will appeal this decision, not just for me, but for all of us.”

          This one sentence may be the most self-serving, self-indulgent, pretentious, and callous sentence I have ever read. And please remember the poisoning incident at the YMCA motel during Vanguard week.

          • What is it that you think we disagree about?

            I believe Danielle leaked the video to the media. I believe you disagree?

          • I really have no opinion about who leaked the video to the Mexican media – but I would guess that it went through one of NXIVM/ESP’s major honchos down there.

          • The odds seem low that the person who leaked the tape to the Mexican media was Danielle Roberts, or for that matter, based in the US. You have to remember that even knowing which reporters to contact, how to initiate a hand-off, and particularly how to do it all and maintain confidentiality requires some facility with the language. It’s more probably someone in Mexico was involved, and more than likely was the primary instigator.

            According to the testimony, Lauren left the branding video on a hard drive in Mexico with Jack Levy. Jack Levy is also who Lauren testified she was told to call when Raniere was arrested in Mexico. Secondly, Rosa Laura Junco’s role in DOS was head of collateral and she evidently had a safe in her house in Albany which had the physical collateral in it. Presumably, she took the contents of the safe with her when she returned to Mexico. Rosa Laura also has deep family connections in the media industry. Lauren also testified that she left some digital media/collateral with Rosa Laura in Mexico. It’s most likely that one or both of these folks were involved with the decision to release the branding video to the Mexican media. Personally, I think it was Rosa Laura.

            Incidentally, Rosa Laura has been dark for years, except in August she popped up on Twitter to like something that Nicki retweeted.


            It appears she may still be on Team Raniere. Keep that in mind things like that when people like Suneel mention that friends of Keith continue to fund his activities.

    • I don’t agree. My father was a doctor. He always knew in a sense he was always on duty. It is what professionals are required to do. Same for me as a lawyer – I cannot under the rules just switch off being a lawyer which is why professionals need to steer clear of these kinds of things as they can have permanent professional duties you cannot just switch off. If she had been unsure, she could have called her professional body for advice: e.g., am I allowed to use this pen for which I am not trained and will I be doing it outside my professional duties and got their response in writing before going ahead.

      • How on earth can one think of informing oneself beforehand about the consequences of one’s own actions. At NXIVM you have no doubts of your own, Keith Raniere is the supreme legal and ethical-moral authority. Anyone who believes otherwise is an apostate who has disintegrations.

      • I agree with Jane. Danielle probably should have consulted with her professional body instead of assuming this practice was acceptable to them.

  • With that bod, she should give some serious thought to becoming a dominatrix. Give me a call, Doc we can talk.

  • I believe her. She wore “nice slacks” for the brandings.

    That’s all I ever needed to know or hear.

  • Danielle,

    Let’s pretend there was no collateral hanging over the women’s heads before the branding. (Which there was definitely blackmail hanging over the “slaves”)

    Let’s pretend there was no audio (played in court) of Keith directing a plan to video the fully nude brandings to be used for more blackmail.

    You still knowingly lied about Keith’s initials in the brand. And Keith being “grandmaster” of a group alleged to be all women. You knew the videotapes were to be used against them as (further) blackmail. And that a man was watching these horrifying naked tapes.

    Keith is recorded while SCRIPTING the branding ceremony so that the women seem/appear to be consenting freely and willingly.

    Sarah’s tape was edited. And then released to punish her.

    All of that is really fucked up and shows very poor judgement on your part for participating in this pain and disfigurement. As a doctor. And just as a human being.

    You think branding all these unsuspecting women with Keith’s initials near the vagina is reasonable behavior for a doctor? And is not super creepy, weird and dishonest?

    You believe in lying to your “friends” because Keith Raniere told you to and he knows best. That’s terrifying.

    You are incompetent and very misguided at best. You should not be giving medical treatment or advice until you get yourself sorted out.

    Get some outside counseling and try to see this from a non-DOS/Nxivm perspective.

    • “Oh, ex Dr. Danielle…” Do some research and get your facts straight about the case before commenting. Having the media as your only likely source of information won’t help you. All you are doing here is writing garbage, which no one who knows anything about the case, would take seriously.

      • So you alone know the truth? Let’s talk.

        But don’t boss me around. I ain’t your DOS slave. Nor vanguard’s bitch. I’ll do as I want

        • Do your homework. I am not here to teach you. Bossing you around? If you don’t like being called out for not having done any homework, stop making up stories.

          • It’s not “homework” and this isn’t a school. You clearly have nothing to say. Big surprise

            “The media” isn’t my only “likely source”. You are very arrogant and bitter.

            If I had information that could change hearts and minds and that mattered to me (as it clearly dies to you) – I would supply it. Happily. Not be nasty when someone is open to engaging.

            You called out nothing. You added nothing. You’re just being petulant and not someone I would ever ask to “teach” me a thing. That’s hilarious!

            I’ve heard there’s some “tech” a real genius developed that could help you stop being so triggered and reach your full potential…

      • Your Vanguard will die in jail. Everyone outside of your cult thinks you are a bunch of dupes. Enjoy your five minutes of fame.

  • “I was stripped of my medical license as a result of a fear campaign incited by one woman willing to lie, the careless and fervent appetite of our culture for gossip, the lack of integrity and rigor of our media to fact check, and the moral weakness of our political leaders and elected court officials.”

    I see it differently, Danielle. Sarah told her friends, NXIVM members and the press about being branded by you. That’s not a lie. That’s a fact. She was not a consenting adult because you and Lauren lied about the brand: it was not a “small tattoo” and it was KR’s initials. That deception voids any consent. The New York Times published a story about DOS and the branding. You can argue if every detail was 100% accurate, but overall the story was true. The picture of the brand on Sarah was real, not fake. I think the free press did an excellent job informing the general public about DOS. They were instrumental in stopping this terrible organization before it could get any worse and more women would be deceived, collateralized and possibly sexually trafficked to Keith (like India, Sylvie, Jay and Nicole were). And yes, some media outlets did exaggerate the narrative. That’s America.

    Why you, Sarah and all the other DOS members participated in such an idiotic endeavor is beyond me. Women empowerment? It is the exact opposite. Not “bad-ass bitches” but dumb bitches in my book…..

    • Great points stevenj

      There is a video of one of the cult slaves boasting about discussing the brand with her husband pre creepy ritual

      So…not some big “sacred” secret just for DOS women?

      Why is that disclosure cool but in Sarah’s case it was “breaking her vow” and “betrayal”?


  • I tell the tattoo artist what design I want.

    Did your customers tell you what design they wanted? Did you tell them you were scarring them with another man’s initials? Or was it a surprise?

    Was that fair?

    Sounds like a customer had buyer’s remorse when she realized the surprise she received was Vanguard initials.

    Whether it medical is up to the board. Whether it’s deceitful is up to the recipient, and subject to opinion.

    • you make a very important point. particularly that there was not proper informed consent; even body modification artists have a professional standard of requiring more explicit informed consent for something like a branding, and its design, than Roberts did – which points to the lack of medical professionalism and proper practice, that resulted in her losing her license.

  • Since you state you are like a tattoo artist….tattoo artists have to get a license and follow regulations.

    Did you follow these regulations?

    Did you register with Health Dept or Consumer Affairs? What was your license number?

    You’re crazy…you knew these women were forced into believing this was good for them. You’re no different than Keith. You were taking advantage of vulnerable women who trusted you because of your title as Doctor, not because of you as a person.

    • Rich, get your facts straight and learn to read. There are no license regulations for branding in New York State. You are really flaunting your ignorance here. If you have some information that says there are licensing requirements for branding in New York State, that would be valid. I recommend getting some counseling.

      • § 461. Permit required.

        No person shall be a body piercing specialist or tattooist and no person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other association shall operate a body piercing studio or tattoo studio without first obtaining a permit from the department.
        All body piercing or tattooing shall be performed in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the commissioner pursuant to the public health law.
        The department shall issue a permit if the body piercing specialist and body piercing studio or tattooist and tattoo studio are in compliance with this article, the penal law and the state sanitary code and are not otherwise disqualified under this article.

        • You do realize that branding, body piercing and tattooing are three different things? Do some homework. Looking for information to confirm your biases is not the same thing.

          • Branding and scarification, along with other forms of body modification, are not exempt from the rules — except in nxivm wishful semantic la-la land.

          • And anon? You’re right! Tattoos are not the same thing as branding. Scarification is permanent in a way that tattoos are not. There’s loads of public policy research done on the subject and it’s illegal in some places where tattoos are totally allowed.

            On the plus side? Maybe the rules will be changed now and no more unlicensed scarification will be allowed. Good for you! Maybe you really did change the world or at least the health regulations in the state of New York! But what a heavy price Danielle has paid for potentially correcting this technicality. Very sad.

      • Just like lawyers don’t need a license to practice/ open a real estate brokerage in NYS.

        If you want it changed, after the fact, then it’s incumbent on you to call your legislature to change the law.

      • Hmm, anon. Kinda makes me wonder if that’s why ya’ll settled on branding instead of a tattoo. You thought because it’s not specifically included as body modification under the local health authority that it means the unlicensed act is absolutely permittable? Interesting.

        • You guys have a wild imagination. You are assuming I had any part in the branding. As far as I am concerned, tattoos, branding, body piercings are silliness. I wouldn’t ever choose any of these.

        • I am not part of this group but I do believe the law should be clear for all. It avoids this kind of mess after the fact

  • What nonsense. The silly claim that the women she branded weren’t her patients? Practicing medicine outside the office, not billing for the procedure, it’s still practicing medicine.

    The doctor was using a cauterizing pen (a medical device). They all knew she was a doctor. Raniere chose her for the role because she was a doctor. This gave the barbaric ritual a gloss of legitimacy.

    Note that the definition of the practice of medicine she uses doesn’t fit cosmetic surgery. Are nose jobs, boob jobs, and tummy tucks not medicine? Isn’t an MD required to perform them? Don’t doctors get sued for malpractice when they botch these operations?

    Ex-Dr. Roberts branded a sex cult leader’s initials onto the pubic areas of women who had been coerced, blackmailed, and lied to as part of a sex trafficking operation. And she’s surprised she got her medical license revoked? Gimme a break.

  • Nxivm women claimed they were victims, such as Lauren and Nancy and others. If they were victims, you shouldn’t have done anything.

  • Ah the so-called “Doctor” Danielle Roberts! The friend of the annoying, obnoxious, ugly, nerdy, wannabe fashion icon, and uppity little cult propagating house nigger Michelle Hatchette! Fighting to do what she her sub-species was always destined to do by God!

    See! All these idiots get so upset about the hallowed and sacred Confederate flag for nothing! Michelle Hatchette and her cronies are the reason that flag will always fly high!

    Frank, the reason I fly my confederate flag is simple…………… I just fly it TOOOOO SAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY:


    (Patriots Chanting)




    ✊🏻IF WE BELIEVE!✊🏻

    Remember, Frank! Multiple whip lashes to their backs each day drives all the uppity nigger’s egos away! 😉

    • Behold the anticultist mindset.

      The person who wrote this comment embodies all the ideals of late stage anticultism.

      When you start out in anticultism, you think you are fighting to free the minds of deluded cult members. You start targeting anyone who doesn’t think, or believe, or look, like you as belonging to a “cult”.

      Then your self-righteous spleen starts running you, you get a rush believing you belong to something larger than yourself, and by humiliating, discrediting and destroying the lives of “cult members” you are saving the world from evil.

      Pretty soon that process ends you up like this guy.

      In a free society, intolerance must not be tolerated. It’s a paradox outlined by the mathematician and philosopher of science Karl Popper.


      So anticultists – get out now while you can. Start practicing tolerance of those who believe and appear different than you do. Allow people to live the lives they choose, and defend their right to do so. Distinguish between what is illegal and what is only immoral to you. Help prosecute specific criminals for their specific crimes, but distinguish between those criminals and others who are innocent.

      Defend the rights of minorities, and do not engage in the intolerance of anticultism.


      • ‘Behold the anticultist mindset.’

        Behold the crypto-marxist mindset.

        ‘The person who wrote this comment embodies all the ideals of late stage anticultism.’

        Ah! So you’re Alanzo! It’s your leg that is constantly humped by some of the idiots on here! I’ve heard about you! But now I see that you being the one who wrote this imbecilic comment, are the one who embodies all the ideals of the beginning stage of marxism!

        ‘When you start out in anticultism, you think you are fighting to free the minds of deluded cult members. You start targeting anyone who doesn’t think, or believe, or look, like you as belonging to a “cult”.’

        When you start out in marxism, you think you’re fighting to free the ‘poor minorities’ over the original design of a country! You start targeting everybody who holds true patriotic nationalism as a ‘racist’, a ‘nazi’, ‘intolerant’, and ‘full of fear’!

        ‘Then your self-righteous spleen starts running you, you get a rush believing you belong to something larger than yourself, and by humiliating, discrediting and destroying the lives of “cult members” you are saving the world from evil.’

        Hey you spelled out what the Marxists like you do, point blank! I know that you’re trying to project it into me like a true marxist does, but I’m already aware of your tactics!

        ‘Pretty soon that process ends you up like this guy.’

        Yeah pretty soon the marxist process ends you up like this overrated, pseudo-intellectual joke!

        ‘In a free society, intolerance must not be tolerated. It’s a paradox outlined by the mathematician and philosopher of science Karl Popper.’


        Oh! Karl Popper! The anti-nationalist piece of fucking shit! Of course somebody like you would quote him! Wow! You use Wikipedia as one of your sources?! You must not have really good sources do you?! You know what’s cute?! All the idiots who spew this garbage like you are never ‘tolerate’ of our views! Isn’t that the ultimate irony in your discussion on ‘tolerance’?! Who are you going quote next?! How about Karl Marx?! You can use his Wikipedia page too! 😉

        Yeah sure, why don’t we ‘tolerate’ murders, rapists, thieves, and all sorts of degenerates?! Oh wait! We already do! And F.B.I. statistics say the vast majority of them ARE THE MINORITIES! Should we ‘tolerate’ Rosa Parks and many of the civil rights activists being marxists who encouraged blacks to ‘kill all white people’?! Should we ‘tolerate’ BLM, Antifa, and all the other radical domestic terrorist groups that have been allowed to form by idiots like you?! We’ve been forced to do your bullshit for decades and look at the hellhole our country has become! Look at how we’ve lost our jobs, income, and benefits because of all of this! Look the crime rate and degeneracy of our society now! I know you don’t know shit about history, but if you study history, you will find that any tyrant who wanted to weaken a country to invade it, would use multi-culturalism and use idiots like you to do their bidding to convince the public into it with the exact same type of recycled platitude garbage that you spew! You’ve given right into what the Deep State wants and you are a hatchet man for the New World Order!

        ‘So anticultists – get out now while you can.

        Anybody who listens to this idiot and reads his bullshit website, get out while you still can! Start practicing ‘tolerance’ of Nationalism and putting the success of your country and its rightful race first!

        ‘Start practicing tolerance of those who believe and appear different than you do. Allow people to live the lives they choose, and defend their right to do so.’

        Oh yeah sure, the typical what they ‘look like’ platitude argument! What about they themselves promoting an evil group think amongst their own race and bullying and shunning those of their race who don’t truly ‘represent’ them?!

        For example, if another black doesn’t agree with the ghetto survival of the fittest mentality and that ‘pussy’, ‘money’, ‘street smarts’ and ‘dope’ is all that matters no matter who you step on, steal from, or even kill to achieve it and that morals don’t matter! And if any black disagrees and dares attack that evil ideology, then they ‘aren’t black enough’ and are acting like a ‘white boy’! They’re shunned as ‘uncle toms’ and ‘coons’!

        What about the Aztecs and them holding festivals of child sacrifice?! Maybe we should’ve been more ‘tolerant’ of them and let them ‘live the lives they choose’ also! We were just being so ‘hateful’ to stop them! Should we also be more ‘tolerant’ of the conquistadors and their way of live when they thought that what the Aztecs were doing was evil and wiped them out or should we be more ‘tolerant’ to the ones killing the infants and eating their hearts in front of other children and their community while they all ‘celebrated’ their festival?! Gee wiz! Decisions, decisions! 🤔

        Should we ‘tolerate’ the fact that if we followed what the founding fathers wanted for this country and took a stand against multi-cultural issues to begin with, that all the evil that NXIVM did would’ve never existed?! And we wouldn’t even be discussing the shit Danielle Roberts did under the influence of kikes! Without the Jews, Keith Raniere and Nancy Salzman and the Bronfmans to back them up, all the pain, hurt, and devastation that they caused would’ve never happened! Also Keith wouldn’t have raped Camilla and she would’ve been in her own country without having to have gone through any of the hell that she went through and in Mexico ‘living her own live the way that she chooses’! Should we ‘tolerate’ the fact that anti multi-culturalism protects not only the race of the nation, but also protects minorities from abuse by other minorities?! No of course not! That’s ‘hateful’ to even propose that! It certainly isn’t irresponsible and evil to ‘tolerate’ something like that!

        We should in fact be more ‘tolerate’ about all of that! We should also be more ‘tolerant’ of every kind of political system, ideology, religion and way of life! how about nihilism and cannibalism?! We certainly should not have any kind of objective morality as a standard to distinguish right from wrong, right?! No we shouldn’t ‘tolerant’ that! Much like you can’t even ‘tolerate’ a joke I made, despite the fact that it wasn’t even as big of a bad joke as you are!

        ‘Distinguish between what is illegal and what is only immoral to you. Help prosecute specific criminals for their specific crimes, but distinguish between those criminals and others who are innocent.’

        So who gets to ‘distinguish’ that?! Is there any kind of objective standard to achieve it?! Should we ‘tolerate’ the government making oranges illegal if they chose and therefore ‘distinguish’ those who would dare drink a glass of orange juice with their waffles at breakfast as a ‘criminal’?! You may laugh at that, but the government has banned many plants before, so why not?! What if they ban ‘meat’ (vegans don’t even start your shit with me)?! Should we ‘distinguish‘ those as ‘criminals’ who cookout a steak on their grill and their family members and children with them as ‘accomplices’?! Should we ‘help prosecute’ those ‘specific criminals for their specific crimes’?!

        Who gets to decide who’s ‘innocent’?! Is it political parties with an agenda who want to let loose and bunch minorities who raped and killed people point blank and now want them out and if you don’t agree, then you’re ‘racist’?!

        If you haven’t noticed the whole point of the criminal law to begin with, WAS to hold ‘immoral’ people accountable! The law is supposed to be based upon an objective standard or morality and to criminalize what is immoral to stop degeneracy in society! I get so tired of these idiots like you who do this ‘criminal vs subjective morals’ argument! You obviously are pitifully historically illiterate! Otherwise morality is subjective and whoever has the most money to legalize and/or criminalize whatever they want as long as they have the money, resources, power, and influence to do it! You can make anything illegal and slap somebody with the label ‘criminal’ that you want and likewise you can legalize anything you want and call anybody ‘innocent’ that you want, with that mentality! You sound fucking ignorant, just stop talking, you dumbass!

        ‘Defend the rights of minorities, and do not engage in the intolerance of anticultism.’

        And what ‘rights’ are those, you little marxist piece of fucking shit?! The ‘right’ to take our jobs, steal our tax dollars so they can sit on their ass while they collect welfare and promote thug behavior amongst our youth and murder against other minorities and to ‘kill all white people’ through our music, movies, and pop culture and if you don’t shut up about it, then you’re not being ‘tolerant’?! What ‘rights’ did our founding fathers, who CLEARLY wanted this country to be a white nationalist republic, think they had?! What ‘rights’ do I have to go to China or any other country and demand citizenship and control over their politics (and rightfully so)?!

        Hey here’s a question for you! Why are you so focused on the bullshit marxist political philosophy to ‘defend the rights of minorities’ instead of fighting to ‘defend the rights’ of the descendants of the founding fathers who established this country?! What about their ‘rights’?! I really think you’re not white or you are a traitor! Hey what about the law stating that people like you are to be arrested, given a fair trial, and once lawfully convicted, executed! Where’s your ‘tolerance’ on that?! Oh wait! That’s right! You don’t have any while you sit here and hypocritically yap about ‘tolerance’!

        The truth is what you really want people to ‘tolerate’, whether you acknowledge it or not, is a philo-semitic marxist, pro multi-culturalism, zionist zog being used by the Deep State, and every other tyrant throughout history, as weapon to weaken and overthrow this country! A weapon they they have boastfully admitted countless times in their books and interviews while laughing at idiots like you who bought it and nobody cares to see the truth even though the very people who established it and pedaled it have already boldly and shamelessly publicly admitted their evil intentions! And if we don’t go along with it, then we are all ‘intolerant’ much like you are ‘intolerant’ to what the principles established this country and that’s why you want to help overthrow it right along with our constitution instead of ‘defend the rights’ of its existence! But we just need to ‘tolerate’ it all and be good little ‘white-knight angels’ like you standing up for the unconstitutional ‘rights’ of paper-‘Americans’ rather than ACTUAL Americans by their blood and birth right! What a perfect little inspirational angel you are! 😇👼😇

        The paradigm of ‘Pro-cultism vs anti-cultism’ is a false dichotomy who enslaved idiots like you and your listeners who fail to see the Hegelian dialectic that it is! Once again, who defines what is and isn’t a ‘cult’?! On what basis do they judge that?! The true answer is this: the pro-cultists want have their lives dictated by an objectively evil systematic authority, while the anti-cultists want to be their own narcissistic god and make their own choices for themselves without any authority outside of themselves, which is impossible, seeing the fact that every single person on this planet is both consciously and unconsciously motivated and influenced by external forces! The latter being far worse than it’s conspicuous former because it’s of its subliminal permeating infections while under the guise of ‘true freedom’! Unless you have an objective standard of morality, then it will be society, culture, and emotions that dictate the spectrum of each, then their ultimate supreme authority: the God-vernment will enforce it and if you don’t obey it’s systemic whims, then you’re a ‘criminal’ which is the true and whole paradigm and spectrum of a cult!

        An outcome of which you help propagate under the guise of a falsely balanced mindset of the kind of thinking that you hypocritically claim to be against! The overthrow of this country and our rights will be because of idiots like you and your ‘tolerance’ of it! But thankfully, they will not succeed and we will take this country back and put to death all people like you and silence all of your thought crimes against our country and have what our founding fathers wanted ONLY for the whites of this country, ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’! If the minorities want that, then they can have it in their own countries that they will be deported back to!


        ✊🏻IF WE BELIEVE!✊🏻

        ✊🏻THERE’S A BETTER WAY!✊🏻

          • Hey Ginzo!

            I’m not a “lady”! How many times are you going to keep saying that?! Why don’t you just shut the fuck up, respect my freedom of speech and post all my shit without all your autistic repetitive guido-talk and damn it, shut the fuck up about “meds” as well as in general?!

          • Yes I know you are not lady, but you are still female and Black and beautiful – in spirit. Lord knows not everyone can be attractive physically. But for your weight, and proportions, you are not repulsive to many.

          • “Yes I know you are not lady, but you are still female and Black and beautiful – in spirit. Lord knows not everyone can be attractive physically. But for your weight, and proportions, you are not repulsive to many.”


  • If Ms. Roberts, who is no longer a physician, wants to take legal action, let her do so. I will not read her statement. There is nothing new to say about this, and what Ms. Roberts says are certainly not new and better arguments than those she has made so far. I will wait to see how the courts and appeals bodies rule when the time comes. I will not address this matter again until there is significant new information and a court ruling. And I am not interested in a statement from Ms. Roberts denying her wrongdoing.

  • Can’t say I am surprised her license was revoked. Under normal circumstances likely would not have been but her infamy pretty much guaranteed it. Public relations drive most decisions more than people probably care to consider.

    Dang, she is photogenic. If she needs the money, she should consider going the route of Onlyfans and camming. Might be able to turn that infamy into money. A whole lot of women have experienced financial independence as a result of platforms like that so don’t be too dismissive. But only recommend if exhibitionist at heart since once on the internet, always on the internet.

    • Agree about OnlyFans. It’s safer than other forms of um, hands-on prostitution. Her body is clearly her temple—more lean and spartan chapel if you ask me, even more radical than that— very, ‘here I stand’— besides a dumpster truck, outside a prison house. It’s a niche. Could be a nice little earner with the right branding.

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com