Allen ‘Alanzo’ Stanfield has a lot to say on many topics. Here are some of his comments on Dr. Danielle Roberts’ right to fight to win back her medical license. These thoughts came from various comments he made with slight editing and arranging by topic.
Check out his blog — https://alanzosblog.com/]
By Allen ‘Alanzo’ Stanfield
I applaud the Frank Report for giving Dr. Danielle 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.
She’s defending herself, her rights, and her livelihood against an onslaught of mainstream conformity waged by tribal ninnies.
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.
She Wasn’t Branding as a Physician
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.
It’s OK to Brand If It’s a Fraternity
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. People are being emotionally manipulated to engage in a moral panic, and the result is that they hand the government more power to violate all of our rights to live the lives we choose.
How many of those fraternity members are physicians, though? No one here seems to apply the medical board of the State of New York standards to them.
Withheld Info About Brand
As reported here on the Frank Report, 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.
Edmondson Had a Legit Beef About Not Being Informed
The point about not being informed of the meaning of the brand [that it was Keith Raniere’s initials] is a valid point, which I acknowledged when I spoke about Sarah Edmonson’s wholly justified participation in SuperStar Neil’s BigPayDay® Lawsuit.
Sarah Edmondson filed the original complaint against Dr. Danielle RobertsSarah Edmonson went to the New York Times and commercially published a book about this branding ceremony.
Taking a Differing View Is Not Abusing Anyone
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.
The 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.
Any attempt to make any other opinion or experience other 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?
Did Edmondson Weep Throughout the Branding Ceremony?
According to the New York Times, Sarah Edmondson told them of her branding experience, “I wept the whole time. I disassociated out of my body.”
The New York Times reported that 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 Edmonson not weeping, I judge that to mean she didn’t weep the whole time.
Dr. Roberts is telling the truth: Edmonson did not ‘weep the whole time’, as she told the New York Times.
But Edmonson told me she was not told she would be branded with Raniere’s initials. She told me she would never have agreed to that. I believe her.
To me, this makes 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.
The Dossier Project women wrote, “Despite extensive testimony during Dr. Roberts’ license revocation hearing – from women who either received the brand or were about to receive the brand from Dr. Roberts, who said they were not her patients and never once considered Dr. Roberts to be acting as a physician, the panel of three judges chose to side with the one woman [Edmondson] who launched the complaint and claimed the opposite. It is our belief that the board members succumbed to media and political pressure to choose the popular side of a salacious narrative over doing what is ethical and right within the purview of their authority.”
Is this evidence of yet another governing body that believes in “cult brainwashing”?
Let me guess, the one witness they sided with, Sarah Edmondson, had anticult deprogramming, and the multiple others hadn’t. Those others who gave factual testimony about their own experience were considered by the panel to be brainwashed sex slaves, only 3/5ths human.
I tell you, anticult deprogrammers should start their own cult.
They can sell their services to people who are about to engage in some kind of court case or judicial review:
“Deprogramming makes you more understandable to a jury and YOU WIN EVERY TIME!!!”