Dec 4, 2025 3-5pm ET
Thursday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Hour 1
Special Guest: Jonathan Emord
For the past 37 years, Jonathan W. Emord has litigated against the federal bureaucracy, winning over and over again. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “an expert in constitutional theory and history” and “an expert litigator with a long string of legal victories over the federal bureaucracy.” George Noory calls him “a Knight in Shining Armor” and “a warrior out to save our rights.” Congressmen Dan Burton and John Doolittle describe him as “an intellectual warrior for the rights and freedoms of people in America.” Jonathan has a unique, detailed knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, the deep state. He knows how to defeat it. Jonathan graduated from the University of Illinois (BA, political science and history, 1982) and DePaul University College of Law (JD, 1985). He served as an attorney in the Federal Communications Commission during the Reagan administration. A leading constitutional law and litigation expert, he is the author of five critically acclaimed books. He has won more cases against the Food and Drug Administration in federal court than any other attorney in American history, earning him the nickname “FDA Dragon Slayer.” He is a columnist for Townhall.com, PJ Media.com, Americangreatness.com, and the U.S.A. Today Magazine. He frequently appears on national radio and television programs. He is married to Sheryl Emord, and they have two children, twins Justice and Angelica. They reside in Clifton, Virginia.
ACIP Set to Make Historic Decision on Hepatitis B Vaccine The article reports that at its December 4–5, 2025 meeting, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) may vote to revoke its longstanding recommendation that every newborn receive the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth — a change described as “historic.” It notes that removing the birth-dose recommendation would align U.S. vaccine policy with many other nations whose immunization schedules omit a universal newborn Hepatitis B dose, and that proponents within the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement and broader vaccine-safety community view the shift as overdue and a victory for informed consent and individual risk assessment. The article frames the potential decision as a response to what it describes as a mismatch between the perceived risk of Hepatitis B in neonates (especially when mothers test negative) versus the rationale for administering a lifelong prophylactic vaccine at birth. It presents critics — including pediatric and public-health authorities — warning that eliminating the birth dose could increase vulnerability to Hepatitis B infection later in life, particularly in cases of false-negative maternal screenings or postnatal exposure. The piece also highlights that the committee will examine other aspects of the U.S. immunization schedule, including vaccine ingredients such as aluminum adjuvants, implying a broader potential revision of long-standing vaccine-policy norms. The article concludes that whatever ACIP decides will likely shape the future of U.S. vaccine policy, with strong endorsements from vaccine-skeptic and “health freedom” groups — and strong opposition from mainstream medical institutions.
WHO Rolls Out ‘Future’ COVID Pandemic Plan Using U.S. Labs for ‘Global Sentinel Surveillance’ The article reports that World Health Organization (WHO) has released a new strategic plan for monitoring and managing future coronavirus-disease threats by establishing a global surveillance network that leverages laboratories in the United States and elsewhere to continuously monitor pathogens. The plan — described as a “global sentinel surveillance” framework — aims to detect emerging variants or new threats early by integrating data from a decentralized network of labs rather than relying solely on national reporting, which advocates say could speed up outbreak detection and response. According to the author, this system implicitly shifts significant power toward international coordination of infectious-disease monitoring and may reduce the ability of individual countries to independently control surveillance and response policy. The article expresses concern that such a centralized global surveillance architecture could erode national sovereignty and individual privacy by creating a permanent, worldwide health-monitoring infrastructure with real-time data sharing and automated alerts. The author argues that the true risk lies not just in improved detection, but in potential misuse of data and lack of transparency about how the information will be stored, accessed, and used globally. The piece warns that under the guise of “public health readiness,” the plan could pave the way for overreach, population-level tracking, and international oversight of domestic health decisions — claiming that what is presented as pandemic preparedness may amount to a blueprint for global biological surveillance.
A Sewer, Not a Swamp The piece contends that the recent resignation announcement by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene reveals not just a typical mid-term departure from Congress but a profound indictment of the institutional rot permeating Washington DC — turning what is often metaphorically called a “swamp” into what the author calls a “sewer.” The article argues that her resignation letter should be treated as a historically significant document because it exposes systemic corruption, deceit, blackmail, death threats, and even assassination as ordinary tools wielded within the halls of power, rather than aberrations. The author compares Greene’s departure to past congressional resignations, noting that while many exits are routine or driven by career moves, scandal, or opportunism, hers is unique — depicted as a conscious escape from pervasive institutional decay. The “sewer” metaphor is chosen deliberately: unlike a natural swamp that filters water and sustains life, this “sewer” is man-made, toxic, and destructive — a place designed for concealment, waste, and corruption. The article grounds this assessment in Greene’s claim to have “descended into the sewer” herself, endured its toxicity, and escaped to warn others. By framing her resignation as a refusal to continue participating in a system built on lies and moral compromise, the article suggests her exit should not just register as another turnover, but as a call for reform and a cautionary sign of how deeply public institutions may be compromised.
Get Rid Of It — Trump Suggests He’ll Soon Slash/End Income Tax The article reports that Donald Trump has suggested federal income tax could soon be dramatically reduced or eliminated entirely, claiming future government revenue from tariffs, foreign investment returns, and import duties will become large enough to replace the need for taxing individual wages. His economic team is described as promoting an “External Revenue Service,” a system designed to shift the financial burden of funding the federal government away from American workers and onto foreign exporters and global trade flows, with Trump asserting that Americans could eventually keep “100 percent” of their paychecks. Supporters frame the idea as a historic restructuring of U.S. fiscal policy, asserting that rapidly rising tariff revenues demonstrate the feasibility of the plan. Critics counter that tariffs cannot replace the roughly $2.7 trillion generated annually by individual income taxes and warn this approach could fuel deficits, worsen inflation, and destabilize federal finances unless external revenue increases dramatically. The article positions Trump’s statement as both an ambitious campaign promise and a contentious economic proposal whose viability depends on whether external revenue can realistically sustain the federal budget.
Illinois Law Granting Student Financial Aid to Illegal Aliens Goes into Effect January 1 A law signed by the governor of Illinois expands eligibility for state and local grants, scholarships, stipends, and other taxpayer-funded student financial aid to include undocumented immigrants, and is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. The law, known as House Bill 460, extends benefits previously reserved for citizens and lawful residents to students living in Illinois regardless of immigration status — a move proponents say provides parity for all residents seeking higher education. Supporters argue the measure helps undocumented students, who are disqualified from federal aid, gain access to education and the state workforce. Critics, including some state senators, contend that the expansion could reduce available grants and scholarships for citizens and legal residents, arguing that Illinois families already pay among the highest taxes in the nation and should not subsidize college aid for immigrants living in the country illegally. The controversy deepened after U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit in September 2025 challenging Illinois’ tuition and aid laws, arguing they violate federal statutes that prohibit states from offering higher-education benefits to undocumented immigrants that are not available uniformly to U.S. citizens and lawful residents.
Brooke Rollins: USDA to Halt Federal Funding to States Not Sharing SNAP Data The article reports that U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the USDA will stop sending federal administrative funds to states that refuse to turn over detailed recipient data from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), citing efforts to root out alleged fraud. According to Rollins, in February the USDA asked all states to provide names, Social Security numbers, immigration status, and other identifying information for SNAP beneficiaries, but only 29 states complied. She claims that data from those states revealed cases such as deceased individuals still collecting benefits and people receiving duplicate payments. Rollins said that as of next week, funding to the 21 non-compliant states — led by Democratic governors — will be paused until they comply. The move targets administrative funding used to manage SNAP at the state level rather than benefits themselves. The article frames the decision as a crackdown on what Rollins describes as rampant fraud in a program serving roughly 42 million Americans, though critics argue the data request violates privacy protections and that withholding funds could destabilize food assistance programs in states that depend on SNAP.
Hour 2
Do Psychiatry Journals Know Who’s Paying Their Authors? The article examines a study of 27 U.S.-based physician-authors who published original research in two leading psychiatric journals between 2020 and 2022 and finds that a significant portion of industry payments to these authors was never disclosed to the journals despite mandatory reporting requirements. According to the analysis, the federal Open Payments database shows $4.54 million in payments to this group, of which $645,135 — roughly 14 percent — went unreported to the journals. Most of the undisclosed funds were research payments, and nearly all were tied to authors conducting randomized controlled trials, with the majority of the undisclosed money concentrated among a small number of high earners. Disclosure compliance varied substantially: some authors fully reported their financial relationships, some disclosed none, and others disclosed inconsistently. The rate of undisclosed payments was higher for authors publishing in JAMA Psychiatry compared to those in The American Journal of Psychiatry, suggesting differences in policy enforcement or journal oversight. The findings raise concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest, given that undisclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical or medical-device companies may influence study design, data interpretation, or publication outcomes. The article concludes that the lack of consistent disclosure undermines trust in psychiatric research and highlights the need for stronger verification practices by journals to ensure accurate reporting of industry ties.
Americans trust AMA over CDC on vaccine safety The article reports that recent polling shows many Americans now express greater trust in American Medical Association (AMA) than in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) when it comes to vaccine-safety guidance — a significant shift from past decades when both institutions had largely similar messaging. The shift in trust is attributed to what the public perceives as divergences between CDC recommendations and the opinions or statements of practicing physicians, leading some individuals to favor sources they view as more grounded in direct medical practice rather than federal public-health policy. The trend appears amid increasing skepticism toward centralized public-health guidance, particularly following recent controversies over autism-vaccine debates and evolving federal vaccine messaging. Some experts and commentators quoted in related reporting note that the decline in CDC confidence may reflect broader concerns about transparency, consistency, and decision-making in public-health institutions. Despite the drop in institutional trust, many Americans continue to express confidence that childhood vaccines are effective, though fewer say they are very confident about the adequacy of safety testing or the existing vaccination schedule. The article implicitly raises questions about how changes in public trust may shape future vaccine uptake, public-health communications, and the role physicians and national institutions play in guiding health decisions.
Landmark Glyphosate Safety Study Retracted for Monsanto Ghostwriting A 2000 paper widely cited to support the safety of Glyphosate — the active ingredient in weedkiller products such as Roundup — has been retracted by the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology after 25 years, following revelations that the paper was ghostwritten by employees of Monsanto and was based solely on unpublished internal studies rather than independent research. The original authors — listed as Gary Williams, Robert Kroes and Ian Munro — concluded that glyphosate posed no health risk under normal exposure; however, the retraction notice cites “lack of authorial independence,” undisclosed compensation, misrepresentation of contributions, and the omission of numerous long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies available at the time as grounds for withdrawing the paper. The ghostwritten study played a central role in regulatory decisions worldwide, influencing policy and public health narratives for decades: even after documents from the 2017 “Monsanto Papers” litigation exposed the corporate involvement, regulatory agencies and scientific reviews continued to cite the paper uncritically. The retraction follows a 2025 analysis by researchers including Alexander Kaurov and Naomi Oreskes that documented the paper’s outsized influence — placing it in the top 0.1% by citation count among glyphosate-related academic literature — and argued that its withdrawal underscores systemic failures in journal oversight and the risks of industry-driven science shaping public health and environmental regulation.
ADHD diagnoses are growing. What’s going on? The article describes a significant rise in ADHD diagnoses across several countries, particularly in the United States, where more than 11 percent of children have now been diagnosed at some point, up from roughly 8 percent two decades ago. It explains that greater awareness, broader diagnostic criteria, and improved access to care may partially account for the increase, but these factors alone do not fully explain the speed or scale of the upward trend. Researchers suggest that behaviors once labeled as general learning or conduct issues are increasingly being classified under ADHD, reflecting shifts in educational expectations and social norms rather than a clear biological rise. The piece also discusses possible environmental and lifestyle contributors, including increased screen exposure, disrupted sleep patterns, and heightened stress, though evidence remains inconclusive. Rising diagnosis rates bring concerns about potential overdiagnosis, uneven access to assessment, and inconsistent treatment across socioeconomic groups, all of which place additional strain on mental-health systems already struggling to meet demand. The article argues that more rigorous longitudinal research is needed to determine whether ADHD prevalence is truly increasing or whether diagnostic and societal changes are driving the numbers, stressing the importance of distinguishing between improved detection and genuine shifts in neurodevelopmental conditions.
Ozempic doesn’t stop dementia The article reports on recent results indicating that Semaglutide (the active ingredient in Ozempic/Wegovy) does not slow cognitive decline or prevent progression of dementia in people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, based on data from large trials. Despite earlier observational studies and real-world evidence suggesting possible reduced risk of dementia for people using GLP-1 receptor agonists — including lowered incidence of Alzheimer’s diagnoses and dementia in some populations with type 2 diabetes — the latest controlled research failed to show meaningful benefit on cognition or memory once dementia symptoms began. The negative findings highlight the gap between promising associations and the rigorous testing required for a disease-modifying therapy. While semaglutide remains approved for diabetes and weight management, and some prior research indicated potential brain-health benefits through metabolic improvements, vascular protection and reduced inflammation, the new data suggest those mechanisms do not translate into slowing or reversing neurodegeneration once Alzheimer’s has started. Clinicians and researchers thus caution against viewing Ozempic/Wegovy as a preventive or therapeutic tool for dementia at this time, emphasizing the need for continued study rather than premature clinical use for neurodegenerative disease prevention.
Welcome back to another “Homeopathic Hits” episode on The Robert Scott Bell Show!
On The Robert Scott Bell Show today, we shine a light on Sanicula aqua — a remedy Boericke describes with several unmistakable features: constipation with enormous stools, painful fissures, highly offensive perspiration, and peculiar appetite disturbances
It is particularly noted for constipated children who pass stools so large and dry they cause tearing, as well as for individuals with unusual cravings and foul foot sweat.
Download the Information Sheet
Why science says smelling your own farts could be good for you Researchers at Johns Hopkins Medicine report that small amounts of Hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) — the gas that gives flatulence its characteristic rotten-egg smell — may protect aging brain cells from Alzheimer’s disease by preserving a biochemical process called “sulfhydration,” which helps regulate protein behavior in brain cells and maintains cellular health. In a seminal study, scientists administered a compound that slowly releases H₂S to mice genetically engineered to mimic Alzheimer’s, and found that the treated mice showed about 50% improvement in cognitive and motor functions compared with untreated controls, as well as reduced pathological markers associated with neurodegeneration. Because natural sulfhydration levels decline with age — and are found to be lower in Alzheimer’s-affected brains — the researchers argue that re-establishing healthy H₂S signaling could mitigate the molecular processes that lead to memory loss and neuronal death. While H₂S can be toxic in large amounts, these findings suggest that low-level exposure — similar to the small amounts produced endogenously or present in flatulence — might have protective neurological effects. The article underscores that this line of research remains preliminary, based primarily on animal models, and that far more work is needed before drawing conclusions about the health benefit of “smelling your own farts” in humans.
Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!
