April 11, 2024 3-5PM ET
Thursday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
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.
Rep. Jackson Lee ripped after defending her moon gaffe and blaming it on GOP: ‘Vote better people’: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee faced criticism after inaccurately stating the moon is “made up mostly ofgases” during a speech at a Houston high school. The Texas congresswoman, who also referred to the moon as a “planet,” was speaking ahead of a solar eclipse. After her comments went viral, Jackson Lee attributed the backlash to Republicans focusing on trivial matters rather than pressing issues like prenatal care and affordable housing. She claimed her mention of gases was a reference to the sun, not the moon. Critics, including public figures and commentators, mocked her response, highlighting her previous role on the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee and questioning her competency.
Exactly What Are WHO Member States Voting for?: As WHO Member States approach voting on a new Pandemic Agreement and amendments to theInternational Health Regulations (IHR), the absence of a universally agreed definition of “pandemic” raises significant concerns. The term’s ambiguity could potentially lead to expansive authority granted to the WHO without a clear understanding of the criteria or conditions that constitute a pandemic. Historical perspectives on pandemics emphasize the variability in severity and impact, further complicating the establishment of a concrete framework for future pandemic preparedness and response. The article highlights the potential consequences of conflating pandemic preparedness with Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC), suggesting a need for clarity and specificity in defining pandemics to avoid confusion and ensure effective and equitable global health governance.
Chevron, Murthy, and ‘Supreme’ Hypocrisy: This analysis discusses the implications of two Supreme Court cases on the powers of government agencies and the issue of censorship. The article contrasts the court’s consideration of rolling back the Chevron deference, which currently grants broad interpretive authority to regulatory agencies, with its handling of the Murthy v. Missouri case concerning government censorship. The piece argues that while Chevron and government censorship may seem unrelated, both centralize state power by endorsing agency expertise over law interpretation and enforcing a narrow view of truth through censorship. Highlighting recent efforts to control the narrative around COVID-19 and the 2020 election, the author suggests that allowing such unchecked government control poses a direct threat to free speech and democracy. The potential rollback of Chevron deference juxtaposed with the court’s seeming tolerance for censorship reflects a critical tension in American legal and political philosophy, raising concerns about the future of individual freedoms and the balance of power between government entities and the public.
Ten Doctors on FDA Panel Reviewing Abbott Heart Device Had Financial Ties With Company: A significant number of doctors on an FDA advisory panel evaluating an Abbott heart device, specifically theTriClip G4 System, had previously received payments from Abbott, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest. The Open Payments database revealed that 10 out of 14 voting members of the panel had financial ties to Abbott, with the total payments amounting to approximately $650,000 from 2016 to 2022. Despite these connections, the panel voted almost unanimously in favor of the device’s benefits outweighing its risks, leading to FDA approval. Critics argue that such financial relationships should have been disclosed for transparency, as they could influence the objectivity of the committee’s decision-making. The situation underscores ongoing debates about the influence of the medical industry on regulatory processes and the importance of ensuring advisory panel members’ impartiality.
Junk Food and Junk Advice: The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) is pursuing a strategy to establish state-level monopolies over the practice of nutrition, excluding other nutrition professionals, some of whom may be more qualified than registered dietitians. This move is particularly alarming due to AND’s documented ties to junk food companies. A new tactic involves the Dietitian Interstate Compact, aimed at allowing registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) to practice across multiple states without individual state licenses, effectively sidelining other qualified nutrition professionals. This effort has so far succeeded in Nebraska, with bills pending in nearly a dozen other states. Critics argue that this creates a monopolistic environment, limits consumer choice, and ignores the diversity and expertise of other nutrition practitioners, potentially jeopardizing the practice of health coaches and excluding certified nutrition specialists.
House Kills FISA Bill, Republicans to ‘Regroup’: In a significant setback for Speaker Mike Johnson, the House defeated a motion to allow a vote on thereauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), with nineteen Republicans joining Democrats. The defeat necessitates a regrouping of House Republicans to address the bill’s contentious aspects, particularly the absence of a measure requiring federal agents to obtain warrants for surveilling American citizens implicated in foreign surveillance. This issue remains a sticking point, with some demanding the inclusion of warrant requirements directly in the bill. The bill’s future is uncertain as the deadline for FISA’s authorization approaches. Opposition from figures like Donald Trump, who criticized the FISA’s past misuse, and the insistence of the Biden administration on reauthorizing FISA without warrant requirements, further complicates the matter.
Hour 2
As bans spread, fluoride in drinking water divides communities across the US: The use of fluoride in drinking water, a long-standing public health strategy aimed at preventing tooth decay, is facing growing scrutiny and opposition across various communities in the United States. As the presence of fluoride in numerous dental care products has become more widespread, a segment of the population and some local governments argue that the additional fluoridation of drinking water might no longer be necessary. This stance is rooted in concerns over potential health risks and the belief in personal freedom to choose fluoride exposure. On the flip side, many public health experts and dental professionals strongly advocate for the continuation of water fluoridation, emphasizing its proven benefits in reducing dental cavities and promoting oral health, especially among communities with limited access to dental care. This division reflects broader debates on public health policies, individual rights, and the role of government in regulating health interventions. As bans and restrictions on fluoride use in public water supplies spread, the topic remains a contentious issue, highlighting the challenge of balancing public health benefits with individual choices and perceived risks.
Ultra-processed foods linked to higher glaucoma risk, study warns: A recent study from the Nutrients journal reports a significant association between high consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) andincreased risk of glaucoma among participants of a prospective cohort study in Spain. The research focused on 19,255 university graduates, tracking their health outcomes over 13 years. The findings indicate that participants with the highest intake of UPFs, defined as more than four servings per day, showed a notable increase in glaucoma incidence compared to those with the lowest intake. Particularly, sweets were found to pose a significant risk. This relationship was primarily observed in older, physically active, non-smoking males over 55 years with a low omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acid ratio. These results underline the impact of diet on ocular health and suggest that high UPF consumption, especially of sweets, may contribute to the development of glaucoma through mechanisms like increased oxidative stress and inflammation. The study emphasizes the need for improved dietary habits, suggesting a shift towards less processed food to mitigate the risk of this serious eye condition.
EXCLUSIVE: Suspended Doctor Reveals How Regulators Punished Her For Prescribing Ivermectin: Dr. My Le Trinh, a General Practitioner in New South Wales, Australia, was suspended by medical regulators for prescribing Ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Dr. Trinh contends that the suspension was unjust, stemming from false complaints. She describes a convoluted process involving unusual complaint filings, including one from a junior doctor under directive and another fabricated one from an individual named “John Smith.” Dr. Trinh argues that her use of Ivermectin, following the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance protocol, was effective in treating a patient with COVID-19, challenging the regulators’ decision to suspend her license based on what she views as fraudulent complaints. The controversy highlights ongoing debates around the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 and the actions of regulatory bodies in response to such treatments.
On today’s “Homeopathic Hits” featured on The Robert Scott Bell Show, we delve into Sulphur Iodatum, a unique homeopathic blend of sulphur and iodine’s healing attributes.
Esteemed for addressing enduring respiratory ailments and skin conditions, Sulphur Iodatum presents a holistic remedy for those contending with these widespread yet often stubborn health challenges.
Discover the multifaceted benefits of Sulphur Iodatum for respiratory and skin health.
Download the Information Sheet
Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!
