One kind of treatment a person can get is testosterone injections, which is injected into a muscle and will artificially increase testosterone. You can give yourself these injections in the confidentiality of your home with no extra visits to the doctors. On the first visit you doctor can train you to inject yourself. An injection of testosterone in the muscle is a very efficient way of delivering the hormone and is extremely cost effective. Like with any kind of treatments, as well as the pros, there are cons. Injecting yourself can be painful and these injections may cause a low and high in your testosterone levels. You may get an upsurge of testosterone when you first give yourself an injection, but then it begins to fall as you get closer to your next injection, which could end up in sexual highpoints and lowpoints. Injections are sometimes given every two to four weeks.

The following option would be testosterone pills, which are placed under the skin and then the testosterone is released into the body. These pellets melt uniformly without the highpoints and lowpoints of the injections. Sadly, an incision needs to be made in your skin in which to put the pellets, but you only need african mango to have this done every three to six months.

There’s also testosterone cream or gels that you rub on specific parts of your body so as to have more testosterone. These creams and gels are effective, not distressing to use and you do not have to any incisions made. The only consideration to using creams or gels is you can accidentally transfer the testosterone to other people thru contact by skin to peel.

If you’re ashamed to ask your GP about low testosterone treatment then there are treatments that do not require a trip to the doctor or a prescription. This suggests that you can raise your testosterone level the natural way by eating certain types of foods, making absolutely sure that you are getting the right minerals and vitamins either in the food you eat or by taking supplements, particularly zinc and vitamin B.

Another natural treatment for low testosterone treatment is usually to switch your snug fitting underclothes for looser fitting boxer shorts. You can also try yoga techniques and meditation to help scale back your levels of stress. Make sure that you are getting lots of sleep and exercise using compound exercises and weight lifting as a natural remedy for low testosterone levels.

If you’re not affected by low testosterone for medically-based reasons, but principally due to aging, then trying some of the natural tactics would be the correct way to go. If the natural techniques don’t help, then you might need to make a visit to visit your physician for the injections or a prescription cream or gel.

Incoming search terms:

• natural ways to treat low testosterone
• natural way to treat low testosterone
• how to cure low testosterone
• how to treat low testosterone
• low testosterone natural treatment
• low testosterone treatment
• natural vitamins for low testosterone
• vitamin treatment for low testosterone
• how to cure low testosterone naturally
• Testosterone cure

William Branigin wrote an article appearing in the February 20, 2000 issue of the Washington Post. This article discussed the CBS miniseries “Sally Hemings: An American Scandal”.

The article starts out asking two questions, was the relationship possible and was it fact? The answers were yes and no respectively. The author of the article calls the miniseries unsettling because the affair between Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson is so far from certain. He goes on to say that the miniseries tells us more of what the thinking of today is than what went on in the late 1700’s. This drama is historical revisionism, one that is driven by the entertainment industry. Other cases of this practice are cited such as Oliver Stone’s “JFK” and Disney’s “Pochantas”.

The difference with this story is that there is scientific evidence and research that is presented as “proving” the tale. These presentations of proof, which have been accepted by many at face value, of course make for a much better story.

Branigin explains the origin of the story. James Callender, whom Jefferson refused to name as postmaster in Richmond, accuses the president in a newspaper article of fathering “several children,” including a son called Tom, by his wench Sally. There was also oral history handed down by Heming’s descendants. The DNA study in 1998 supported some of that oral history, showing that one of at least eight Jefferson males was probably the father of Heming’s last child. This same study also called into question the oral history of the descendants of Thomas Woodson; the one referred to by Callender in his article. (The study found no relationship between ANY Jefferson and Woodson.)

Dianne Swann-Wright said this is a Hollywood production, not history. Swann-Wright was head of a research committee that produced a report from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation that concluded there was “a high probability” that Jefferson fathered Eston and “most likely” the five other Hemings children. The report eliminated Woodson from consideration and even expressed doubt that Woodson was the biological son of Sally Hemings.

Herbert Barger, a Jefferson family historian disagrees with the foundation’s view of log furniture. He argues that the likeliest suspect for Eston’s father is Randolph Jefferson, Thomas’ brother. Randolph was a fun loving farmer who was 12 years younger than Thomas, was single at the time of Eston’s conception and had been invited to Monticello nine months before Eston’s birth.

An anthropologist, Dave Murray, who directs research at the Statistical Assessment Service, a nonprofit group that evaluates reporting of scientific findings, says that political correctness weighs in on this issue. He states that a Jefferson-Hemings affair is on the verge of becoming official history, and that your motives are suspect if you don’t buy this. Murray warns, “It’s dangerous to be less than scrupulous about what we do and don’t know.”

Branigin thinks there is a story to be told about Tom and Sally. It’s just that we don’t know what that story is and we may never know.

Washington Post
When ‘Thomas Met Sally’ Is No Way to See History
By William Branigin
Sunday, February 20, 2000; Page B01

Incoming search terms:

• thomas jefferson mini series
• sally hemings washingtonpost
• thomas jefferson affair with sally hemings
• www genesecurity net
• wsummary of a washington post article
• thomas jefferson sally hemings summary
• sally Hemings and thomas jefferson sumary book
• was Thomas Woodson sally hemings son
• dianne swann-wright
• thomas jefferson washington post

David N. Mayer
Professor of Law and History, Capitol University

• Thomas Jefferson’s relationship with the slave Sally Hemings and her descendants has entered the realm of mythical significance. Many people, for reasons that have everything to do with political power and little to do with historical accuracy, passionately want to believe that Jefferson, the great spokesman for liberty and equality, was the father of mixed-blood children by a slave mistress. The accusation has been aired, since it was first published by a notorious slanderer in 1802, mostly on the basis of innuendo and assertions made on insufficient evidence. We have badly needed a book likeAnatomy of a Scandal, which subjects the question to exhaustive research by the strict standards of true historical investigation. This meticulous, balanced, and reasonable book contains more real and substantial information on the Hemings affair than all the other published material put together.

Clyde N. Wilson,
Professor of History, University of South Carolina

• Anatomy of a Scandal handbags is the definitive study of the oldest scandal in American presidential history. Drawing on their experience and skills as medical practitioners and amateur genealogists, Rebecca and James McMurry make a compelling argument against the allegation that Sally Hemings was the slave lover of Thomas Jefferson. The authors meticulously sift through the DNA evidence, social and political histories and genealogical documentation in their research to arrive at the conclusion that the Jefferson-Hemings paternity claim is likely a fabrication of Jefferson’s political enemies and jealous relatives.

W. Wesley McDonald
Associate Professor of Political Science, Elizabethtown College

Published from Anatomy of a Scandal: Thomas Jefferson and the SALLY Story by Rebecca L. McMurry and James F. McMurry, Jr., 2002. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED-No part may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher, White Mane Publishing Co., Inc., P.O.Box 708, Shippensburg, PA 17257 (OR) email:marketing@whitemane.com

Anatomy of a Scandal can be ordered from Amazon.com with the link on the right.

Incoming search terms:

• thomas jefferson scandal
• sally hemings scandal
• thomas jefferson and sally hemings scandal
• www genesecurity net
• thomas jefferson slave lover
• link:www genesecurity net
• Jefferson Scandal
• jefferson and hemings scandal
• thomas jefferson scandal sally hemings
• Sally hemings and thomas jefferson scandal

Why would Dr. Foster state to me on February 2, 1998, nine months prior to the Nature article, “Thanks very much for the information about Isham Randolph Jefferson. This is exactly the kind of information that will have to be considered if it turns out that there is Jefferson Y-chromosomal DNA in Hemings descendants. The DNA evidence in itself can’t be conclusive for a variety of reasons” and then issue a report that does not consider this type of information?

Why would Dan Jordan, on November 1, 1998, invite Dr. Foster to act in the capacity of scientist and “historian” after Dr. Foster repeatedly stated in his famous quotes that he knew nothing about the history of Jefferson and would leave that to others…why didn’t he?

Why was I not invited to stand along side Dr. Foster, as a Jefferson family historian, to present to the media the historical information that Dr. Foster had told me would be the kind of information that needed to be considered if there were a match?

Why would Dan Jordan, after announcing the appointment of a research committee on this issue, which was charged with examining all available evidence, reject my ideas and opinions on this topic based on 25 years of research?

Why would the Editor-In-Chief of Nature, Philip Campbell, not reply to my letter of November 24, 1998, requesting a “corrected scientific statement?” Why, after I had complained to Nature about the lack of a reply, did I receive the following on January 11, 1999, “I am sorry that you have not received a reply from us before.” Referring to the 2nd Nature article of January 7, 1999, Dr. Jane Rees of Nature replied, “We felt that these two complementary papers highlighted the ambiguity about paternity, and that Foster’s reply clearly stated that the leader title could be misinterpreted, and acknowledged your own help with the original study. Foster did see a precursor to the title used before publication, and so we do not feel that the title used was imposed on him in any way.”

Why did Dan Jordan, President of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF), Dr. Foster, DNA Coordinator of the DNA study, whose story was “twisted” by a false headline, and Bob Gillespie, President of the Monticello Association, whose ancestral grandfather had again been lied about, and in a scientific journal yet, not complain toNature about their inaccurate and misleading headline of one of our founding fathers? I suggested to all three that they jointly request a retraction or some other means of apology for disgracing Mr. Jefferson. Others and I did complain which at least resulted in the Nature article of January 7, 1999.

Why would Dr. Peter Donnelly of Oxford, one of Dr. Foster’s scientific collaborators, tell me, after I had asked him who the historical collaborators were, “You are absolutely right that the DNA evidence cannot distinguish between Thomas Jefferson, and his brother, and several other paternal male relatives being the father?” He goes on to say that Nature chose the headline and of course the press was quick to follow that line. He further states, “My position would thus be that the DNA provides strong support for the hypothesis that one of these handful of men was the father.” He went on to say “historical evidence was not his expertise.” So who were the historical collaborators? We must balance science with history here, or does that really matter? Some of the Madison Hemings descendants seem to discount DNA science, as does Lucian Truscott IV. They prefer to be happy with oral history.

Why would Dr. Foster reply to me, after I asked him the same question I had asked Dr. Donnelly, “Who were your historical collaborators?” His response was “I made those decisions.” Remember, Dr. Foster admits that he is no expert on history or family history and will leave that to others, so, who made the historical evaluation which the media and certain book sellers wish to make the public aware of when they state, “When DNA is matched with history, the simplest finding is that it was Thomas Jefferson.”

Why did these three researchers, Dr. Foster, TJMF and Monticello Association (now represented by James Truscott), not take action to try and obtain DNA samples from a deceased son of Madison Hemings (which took me 17 months to locate)? This could have possibly added to the scientific information of the study. Rustic bedding This would have been just a continuation of the original study.

Why did the eight descendants of Madison Hemings originally give me their oral approval to exhume William Beverly Hemings and then refuse to give written approval just a few days later?

Why would Dan Jordan not list the book of his predecessor, James Bear, Jr., “Thomas Jefferson and His Unknown Brother” on his Monticello webpage? I brought this very prominent omission to his attention and to my knowledge, as of this date, it still is not listed, even though the study group did cite it as a reference. This little book has many little bits of information, and when properly assessed, make some important revelations, thus why have it available for possibly “muddying the water?”

Why wouldn’t Dan Jordan know why one of his senior historians, Cinder Stanton, and a member of the research committee, had changed her opinion on Thomas Jefferson fathering the Hemings’ children after 1993? I have since read that this was the time the Oral History Project was beginning at Monticello.

Why would Dan Jordan on January 26, 2000, again invite Dr. Foster to be present at his media event and not myself (one who has recently located an extremely crucial and important DNA source) and one most closely associated with the study from day one? I was responsible for locating descendants and in some cases persuading them to participate in the DNA study.

Why would Dan Jordan, in his January 26 announcement, fail to tell the public that he had been informed in October 1999 that another source of DNA has been located? I even suggested that he delay his announcement pending further scientific research. It was William Hemings’ father, Madison, who stated that he and his siblings were children of Thomas Jefferson. Thus, this DNA would be a vital continuation of the study. Why would Dan Jordan go ahead and give the public an incomplete study at this time, what motivated him to do this?

Why would Dan Jordan state in his study findings of January 26, in the Jeffersonian tradition, “follow truth wherever it may lead?” Dan is quite proud to present his version of Mr. Jefferson’s statement of 1820, but he seems to forget the remainder of the statement, “…nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left to combat it.” It is this entire statement that motivates those of us who pursue the truth to continue on and to use it as our motto.

Incoming search terms:

• unanswered questions in history
• unanswered historical questions
• william beverly hemings
• cinder stanton
• thomas jefferson dna study
• lucian truscott thomas jefferson
• unanswered questions about dna
• unanswered questions about history
• madison hemings dna
• questions for thomas jefferson

During a one-sided conference at the University of Virginia in March 1999, Annette Gordon-Reed said that no one had ever raised the idea that Thomas Jefferson’s brother, Randolph, might have been the father of any of Sally Hemings’ children.

John d’Entremont, a Professor at Randolph Macon Women’s College in Lynchburg, VA, commented during another one-sided panel discussion, that the focus in the 19th century was primarily on Peter and Samuel Carr and only now when the nephews are ruled out scientifically do some people, grasping at straws, come up with his brother.

The research committee of Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Report states “…there are no known references (prior to the 1998 DNA results) to Randolph Jefferson as a possible father of Sally Hemings’ children”. Some of these research committee members were also participants in the above mentioned panels.

In fact, Herbert Barger, based on his own research, raised the idea of Randolph Jefferson as well as one of Randolph’s sons, Isham, as the possible father of children of Sally Hemings to Dr. Foster well before the DNA study was concluded. However, Dr. Foster did not provide this essential material to Nature.

In addition, Mrs. Rebecca McMurry has provided a written statement that she was told by her mother “that the ‘yellow people’ at Monticello were the offspring of Mr. Jefferson’s brother, Randolph.

On February 23, 1999, WAVA 105.1 Radio, aired a call-in program with host Janet Parshall and guest David Barton. A caller named Diane had this to say:

Janet: Do you remember when this story broke, do you remember what you thought when it was reported that in fact he had fathered Sally Hemings’ youngest son?

Diane: Well, I was pretty skeptical because my father is an amateur historian who grew up by Monticello and my father told me right off the bat, that it was not Jefferson, it was his brother.

Janet: Really?

Diane: And I never heard that reported anywhere and that’s why I was so fascinated when I flipped on your show and heard David talking about it, because my father had told me immediately that’s not true, it was the brother, and I never, ever heard anybody else even suggest that it might have been, so that’s why I’m thrilled to hear this.

Janet Parshall: Oh good, Diane thank you so very much for being with us. (Note to Diane, Please contact Herbert Barger or the TJHS if you read this.)

In the 1980′s, Mrs. Karyn Traut, a playwright living in North Carolina, also reached the conclusion, after seven years of Jefferson research, that Randolph was the father of Sally’s children. She spent two years writing a inspirational quotes based on this research, called “Saturday’s Children“. For her, the DNA study indicated that her research had been correct. A Jefferson did father at least one of Sally’s children.

The TJMF argues that Randolph is unlikely to have fathered any of Sally Hemings’ children because no one else had ever thought so prior to the DNA study. Since this isn’t true, the argument is not valid. Just because they were not aware of what other people thought, doesn’t mean it can’t be so.

Incoming search terms:

• randolph jefferson sally hemings
• thomas jefferson\s brother
• thomas jeffersons brother
• thomas jefferson dna
• thomas jefferson brother
• thomas jefferson sally hemings DNA
• sally hemings jefferson\s brother
• thomas jefferson brother sally hemmings
• Sally Hemings randolph jefferson
• Sally Hemings and Randolph Jefferson

by Cynthia H. Burton and James A. Bear, Jr.

If you thought DNA proved President Jefferson fathered a child of his slave — think again! Fresh from Jefferson country, a local researcher sheds new light on the old legend. For the first time ever, the reader is introduced to the president’s

younger brother, Randolph Jefferson, and his sons. New findings that focus on the infamous, yet inconclusive DNA; Jefferson’s health and his activities;  accounts of witnesses; origin of the myth; and the possibility that Sally’s children were fathered by other men carrying the Jefferson Y chromosome are discussed. Numerous sources are examined in an attempt to resolve ambiguities and to determine relevance and credibility. The author follows the Hemingses in their trek west revealing little-known facts about an extraordinary family in their fulfillment of the “American dream.” Along with the most thorough examination of the Sally Hemings controversy to date, new discoveries and details are revealed as never before available to the general public. As the subtitle implies, this volume exposes “fallacies, omissions, and contradictions in the Hemings genealogical search.” This book is a must-have reference for everyone interested in the stories behind the headlines of a unique slave family and their relationship to a great American president. Continue reading from the News Release

Available for ordering on Amazon.com.

—–

The Jefferson-Hemings Myth

An American Travesty

by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr.

This book carefully examines the facts and finds that, contrary to the way the matter has been portrayed in the news media, there is no substantial evidence at all to support the charge that Thomas Jefferson had a relationship with Sally Hemings. In fact, the best evidence indicates it never happened. The book details how evidence that would exonerate Jefferson was ignored, how the news media were manipulated, how dissent was suppressed, how one early document was altered to reverse its meaning, and how the scientific evidence was given a misleading headline in order to make it appear that Jefferson was guilty. Dr. James McClellan of London University described it as “An incredible new book that really destroys the case that Jefferson had a relationship with Sally Hemings.”

Available for ordering on Amazon.com.

—–

Anatomy of a Scandal:

Thomas Jefferson and the SALLY Story

by Rebecca L. McMurry and James F. McMurry, Jr.

Read a variety of reviews on this work here.

Available for ordering on Amazon.com.

—–

Jefferson, Callender and the Sally Story

by Rebecca L. McMurry and James F. McMurry, Jr.

The 1802 story of “SALLY” of Monticello is told by extracts from the original newspaper articles of Callender, who first told the story, and his newspaper opponents. A short biography of James T. Callender is included. It concludes with the newspapers of 1805, which reprised the story.

Limited availability on Amazon.com.

—–

Thomas Jefferson, Man versus Myth

by David N. Mayer

Thomas Jefferson is one of the giants of Enlightenment thought and political activism. Yet to the historical record of his accomplishments, several myths have been added by both admirers and detractors of Jefferson. In this work, historian David N. Cabin beds Mayer investigates several of those myths, including the claims that Jefferson was “the father of American democracy,” that he had an extend affair with Sally Hemings and fathered some or all of her children, and that he was an atheist. In addition, Dr. Mayer identifies some of Jefferson’s shortcomings despite his genius and many outstanding accomplishments.

Available for ordering on Amazon.com.

—–

The Real Thomas Jefferson

by Andrew M. Allsion

The true story of America’s Philosopher of Freedom.

As the English novelist Samuel Butler once noted, “Though God cannot alter the past, historians can.” His observation is especiallyapplicable to our changing perceptions of great historical personalities, most of whom are relentlessly “reinterpreted” by each new generation of biographers. It is doubtful whether many of these renowned characters of yesteryear would even recognize themselves in some of the publications devoted to them today. Continue reading this description at the National Center for Constitutional Studies

Available for ordering through the National Center for Constitutional Studies.

—–

The Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission Report

by Robert F. Turner

Available for ordering through the Carolina Academic Press.

Incoming search terms:

• www genesecurity net
• Robert F Turner Jefferson
• recommend books thomas jefferson
• robert turner jefferson
• recommended books thomas jefferson
• Robert turner Sally Hemings
• recommended books on thomas jefferson
• tom and sally myth
• Robert F Turner Jefferson and sally hemigns
• robert f turner jefferson-hemmings

His remains are in Section 28, Row 7, Grave #12 at the Leavenworth National Cemetery, Leavenworth, Kansas. Address: Leavenworth National Cemetery, P. O. Box 1694, Leavenworth, Kansas 66048, Phone             913-758-4105      .

The information used in this chart came from american drew furniture the book “Down from the Mountain: The Oral History of the Hemings Family” 1990 by Judith Price Justus. According to her book, William Beverly Hemings was in the Civil War from Huntington Township, Ross County, Ohio and also was the executor of the estate of his father, Madison Hemings.

Herbert Barger, Jefferson Family Historian, assisted Dr. Eugene A. Foster with the original Jefferson/Hemings DNA Study as reported in the science journal Nature, 11/5/98. Mr. Barger spent many months searching for a male descendant of Madison whose DNA could be matched against the Jefferson and Carr DNA. Since it was Madison who stated that he descended from Thomas Jefferson, it is most important that this study continue, to support or refute Madison’s oral and written claims.

Mr. Barger’s search has resulted in obtaining a picture of William Beverly Hemings’ headstone which indicates that he was a member of Company H, 73rd, Ohio Volunteer Infantry. Research indicates that he enlisted on February 10, 1864, held the rank of Private and was mustered out on July 20, 1865 at Louisville, Kentucky. The 73rd was made up mostly of Ross County, Ohio soldiers.

As reported in the Kansas City Star, 1/5/00, a document from the National Archives in Kansas City showed that William had a sister, Mary A. Johnson, and a niece, Ellen Jones. This information matches that of Hemings’ genealogy.

A document from the soldiers home provides additional information about Hemings. He was a farmer and received a $12 a month pension and had a bad heart when he died.

Herbert Barger
Jefferson Family Historian
301-292-2739

Incoming search terms:

• beverly hemings
• william beverly hemings
• Herbert Barger
• madison hemings photo
• william beverly jefferson
• www genesecurity net
• william hemings grave
• beverly hemings photos
• william hemings
• william beverly hemmings

Yes, Thomas Was There, But So Were Others Who Had Jefferson DNA and Jefferson Characteristics!

Section V of the TJMF Report, Report of the Research Committee on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, “Randolph Jefferson’s Sons,” provides information on other Jefferson males being present at Monticello. By their own records and research they found that Thomas Jefferson Jr. (son of Randolph) born 1783, was a resident at Monticello for extended periods of schooling in 1799, 1800 and possibly 1801. In order to be there for schooling he would have been there when Thomas came home. Thena (conceived April 1799) and Harriet II (conceived September 1800) were conceived when Thomas Jr. was there. The TJMF researchers conclude he is an unlikely candidate for paternity because of his youth. He was 16 years of age when Thena was conceived and 17 when Harriet II was conceived. This doesn’t make it unlikely, but absolutely possible.

Robert Lewis Jefferson, son of Randolph, born 1787, carried a letter dated July 9 for Thomas Jefferson to Monticello in July or August 1807. Mr. Jefferson arrived at Monticello August 4 and received the letter August 8th. This 20 year old nephew (with Jefferson DNA and Jefferson physical characteristics) is also placed at Monticello according to their own records. This period of time is the conception period for Eston Hemings who was conceived in late August and was born May 21, 1808. Once again the TJMF researchers conclude that even though Robert Lewis Jefferson, 20 years of age, may have been at pulaski furniture Monticello during the 1807 conception period, he is also an unlikely candidate to be the father of Eston Hemings, because of his “youth” and his intermittent presence.

We also know about another Randolph Jefferson son, Isham Jefferson, born 1781, as being “reared” by Thomas Jefferson, who would have been about age 14 1/2 when Harriet I was conceived in January 1795, and born October 5, 1795. He would be age 26 when Eston, the last of Sally’s children, was conceived and loved bathroom accessories.

Why would these TJMF researchers gloss over all of this “glaring” evidence and arrive at such an inappropriate conclusion? If an unbiased researcher looked at this entire study with an eye toward a “level playing field” or believing Thomas Jefferson innocent until proven guilty, we would see that a much different conclusion by Dan Jordan and the TJMF should have been reached.

Why didn’t Dan Jordan give this greater weight? Yes, Thomas was there, but so were these three nephews at the time periods in question. If indeed these two male Jeffersons, Thomas, Jr. and Robert L., were to be implicated and another male in France implicated for fathering Thomas Woodson, it would show three different fathers for Sally’s children, a pattern that closely follows that of her mother and her sister. The TJMF did not want to give this appearance since they portray her as being monogamous and having a long-time affair with Thomas Jefferson.

Herbert Barger
Jefferson Family Historian

Incoming search terms:

• characteristics of thomas jefferson
• thomas jefferson characteristics
• randolph jefferson sally hemings
• www genesecurity net
• thomas jefferson physical appearance
• isham jefferson
• thomas jefferson appearance
• thomas jefferson sons
• Thomas Jeffersons physical characteristics
• thomas jefferson at age 14

Incoming search terms:

• www genesecurity net
• SONDNA