For a long time now, we’ve known these pedophile “elites” use code words to describe their horrific acts.

Like “cheese pizza”…

And “hot dogs”…

And “walnut sauce”….

And a bunch more.

More on all of that here in case you haven’t seen it:

Remember When Obama Flew In $65,000 of “Hot Dogs” To The White House?

But today we got a new one and it might be the worst of all of them, if that’s even possible.

“Beef jerky”.

This video below explains it in more detail, but essentially the belief is that “Beef Jerky” is code for essentially eating the human flesh of young children.

I am not making this up.

See here:

‼️ HOW THEY FIND OUR CHILDREN ‼️

“Pictures are the big picture”

If you went to school in the U.S. in the last 80 years, you’ll remember Lifetouch. They did all our yearbook photos. 📸

The ENTIRE LIFETOUCH DATABASE is in THE EPSTEIN FILES 👀

They could run database queries… https://t.co/syQOgbM7kP pic.twitter.com/t7btSOdNc4

— Dr. James Joyce (@drjamesbjoyce) February 9, 2026

But now an important Fact-Check….is that actually true?

Parts are true, but not the main claim.

From Grok:

No Evidence of Lifetouch Database in Epstein Files

No, there is no credible evidence that the entire Lifetouch database—or any part of it—was found in the Epstein files. This claim appears to stem from viral social media posts and videos circulating in early February 2026, which speculate on connections between Lifetouch’s parent company and Jeffrey Epstein but lack substantiation from official sources or investigations.

---

Background on the Claim

• The allegation gained traction from an X post (and related TikTok video) by @drjamesbjoyce on February 9, 2026, which asserted that Lifetouch’s database of student photos, addresses, and details was used to “harvest” children for Epstein’s network. This post went viral, with over 6,000 likes and thousands of reposts, sparking petitions, boycotts, and parental concerns.

• Similar claims appear in Reddit threads, Instagram reels, and Facebook discussions, often linking it to broader fears about child data privacy. However, these are user-generated and echo the same unverified narrative without primary evidence.

---

What the Epstein Files Actually Show

The U.S. Department of Justice released over 3 million pages of Epstein-related files in late January and early February 2026, including emails, calendars, investigative reports, and victim diagrams. These build on prior releases (e.g., from 2019-2024) and focus on Epstein’s ties to prominent figures.

 

• Epstein is documented as maintaining a database of his victims, based on flight logs and other records from 2001-2019, as alleged in a 2020 U.S. Virgin Islands complaint against his estate. This was not connected to Lifetouch or school photos.

• No released files mention Lifetouch by name, nor do they include any school photo databases. Searches of the DOJ’s Epstein file repository (e.g., datasets from the releases) yield no matches for “Lifetouch” or related queries.

---

The Real Connections and Concerns

Ownership Ties

Lifetouch, a major U.S. school photography company serving millions of students annually, is owned by Shutterfly, which was acquired by Apollo Global Management in 2019. Apollo was co-founded by billionaire Leon Black, who had documented financial dealings with Epstein:

+1

 

• Black paid Epstein $158 million for tax and estate advice between 2012 and 2017.

• Black settled a $62.5 million lawsuit with the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2023 over allegations tied to Epstein’s activities (though Black denied wrongdoing).

   

• Emails from the 2026 releases show Apollo’s current CEO, Marc Rowan, consulting Epstein on tax issues.

Conclusion

These links have fueled speculation about data misuse, especially since Lifetouch collects and stores student information (photos, names, schools, grades, contact details) even if photos aren’t purchased. However, no evidence from court records, investigations, or the files themselves indicates that Lifetouch data was shared with Epstein or his associates.

Broader privacy risks exist with aggregated student data, but claims of direct Epstein access remain unfounded and appear to be an exaggeration of the ownership connections.