Mar 19, 2026 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.
A Temporary Ruling Against RFK’s HHS A federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order on March 13, 2026, halting implementation of several recent HHS vaccine policy changes under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including the December 2025 ACIP vote narrowing routine childhood immunization recommendations and shifting COVID-19 vaccination to shared clinical decision-making rather than universal guidance, pending a full hearing on a lawsuit filed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and a coalition of medical organizations alleging the actions violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act, exceed statutory authority, and endanger public health by reducing vaccination coverage without adequate scientific justification or procedural safeguards. The TRO, granted after an emergency ex parte motion, freezes enforcement of the revised ACIP recommendations nationwide, reinstates prior guidance for school and healthcare settings in the interim, and prohibits HHS from acting on post-reconstitution ACIP votes until the court can assess whether the committee’s reconstitution—dismissing 17 longstanding members and replacing them with appointees perceived as vaccine-skeptical—complied with FACA requirements for balanced expertise, transparency, and impartiality. The plaintiffs argue the changes lack rigorous evidence-based support, ignore decades of safety and efficacy data, and create irreparable harm by increasing risks of preventable disease outbreaks, particularly among vulnerable pediatric and pregnant populations, while undermining state public health authority that often aligns with federal recommendations for school mandates. HHS countered that the Secretary possesses broad statutory discretion under the Public Health Service Act to appoint ACIP members, adjust immunization guidance based on evolving evidence, and prioritize individualized risk-benefit assessment over blanket mandates, asserting that judicial intervention would improperly infringe on executive authority committed to agency discretion by law. The department also maintained that no private right of action exists under FACA for challenging committee composition and that the policy adjustments constitute non-reviewable discretionary functions rather than final agency actions subject to APA scrutiny. The judge found the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on claims of procedural violations and potential irreparable public health harm from reduced coverage, granting the TRO to preserve the status quo while scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing within 14 days. The ruling represents a significant, though temporary, setback for the Make America Healthy Again agenda’s early vaccine policy reforms, with implications for ongoing litigation, state-level mandate enforcement, public confidence in immunization programs, and the balance between executive discretion and judicial oversight in federal health policymaking. Both sides indicated they will continue vigorous advocacy ahead of the injunction hearing, with HHS emphasizing the need to address chronic disease drivers and restore trust through transparent, evidence-based adjustments, while plaintiffs insist the changes prioritize ideology over established science and population-level protection.
Big Pharma, Big Food Control Natural Healthcare Industry in U.S. Pharmaceutical and processed food corporations exert pervasive influence over the natural healthcare industry in the United States through regulatory capture, lobbying, funding of medical education and research, media partnerships, and strategic acquisitions that marginalize or co-opt alternative practitioners, supplements, and holistic approaches while protecting conventional drug- and processed-food-dominated models that prioritize symptom management and chronic disease perpetuation over root-cause prevention and natural healing. The article details how Big Pharma and Big Food interests have shaped FDA and FTC policies to classify many natural substances as unapproved drugs or adulterated products when marketed with therapeutic claims, while allowing synthetic pharmaceuticals with far higher risk profiles to reach market through accelerated pathways with minimal long-term safety data. Examples include repeated attempts to reclassify longstanding supplements like vitamin D, NAC, CBD, and certain herbs as drugs requiring prescription status, effectively restricting access and increasing costs while favoring patented alternatives. Lobbying disclosures show billions spent annually by pharmaceutical and food industry groups to influence legislation, block natural health-friendly bills, and maintain liability protections under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and PREP Act that shield vaccine makers from most civil suits. The piece highlights how medical schools receive substantial funding from drug companies, resulting in curricula heavily skewed toward pharmacology over nutrition, lifestyle medicine, and integrative approaches, producing generations of physicians unfamiliar with or skeptical of non-pharmaceutical interventions despite evidence supporting their efficacy for chronic conditions. Acquisitions of natural product companies by large corporations—such as Nestlé buying Garden of Life or Bayer purchasing natural supplement brands—allow Big Food and Big Pharma to control distribution, reformulate products to reduce potency or add synthetic ingredients, and limit competition from truly independent natural brands. The report criticizes the revolving door between regulatory agencies and industry, where former FDA officials join pharmaceutical lobbying firms or corporate boards, shaping policy to favor conventional medicine while imposing disproportionate burdens on natural health practitioners through scope-of-practice restrictions, licensing attacks on chiropractors and naturopaths, and FTC crackdowns on supplement claims even when supported by peer-reviewed evidence. It argues this control perpetuates a sick-care system profitable for corporations but devastating for public health, with chronic disease rates soaring despite trillions spent on drugs and processed foods engineered for addiction rather than nourishment. The article calls for breaking corporate capture through grassroots advocacy, support for independent natural health research, demand for transparency in regulatory funding and conflicts of interest, legislative reforms to protect access to supplements and holistic providers, and renewed emphasis on informed consent, parental rights, and individual choice in healthcare decisions free from pharmaceutical and processed-food industry dominance.
Why The Left Is More Distressed, Anxious & Filled With Hate Than The Right A growing body of psychological and sociological research indicates that self-identified liberals and left-leaning individuals in the United States consistently report higher levels of emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and negative affect compared to conservatives, with differences emerging across multiple large-scale surveys, longitudinal studies, and clinical data sets over the past two decades, while liberals also exhibit greater hostility, intolerance of opposing views, and expressions of hate toward political outgroups, particularly conservatives, according to analyses published in journals including Personality and Individual Differences, Social Psychological and Personality Science, and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The article synthesizes findings from nationally representative samples showing liberals score higher on neuroticism and negative emotionality traits, report more frequent mental health diagnoses (particularly anxiety and depression), and express elevated concern about existential threats such as climate change, systemic racism, inequality, and political authoritarianism, which correlate with increased subjective distress even when controlling for socioeconomic status, education, and urban/rural residence. Conservatives, by contrast, tend to score higher on conscientiousness, orderliness, and positive affect, with lower rates of reported mental illness and greater life satisfaction, often attributing this to stronger religious faith, family structures, community ties, and belief in personal agency and traditional values that buffer against perceived chaos. Explanations for the disparity include liberals’ greater openness to experience and sensitivity to harm/injustice, which heighten awareness of societal problems and amplify negative emotions when threats appear uncontrollable or systemic; conservatives’ emphasis on loyalty, authority, sanctity, and individual responsibility fosters resilience through meaning-making frameworks that view adversity as surmountable or divinely ordained. The piece also points to ideological asymmetry in hate expression: liberals show higher outgroup hostility toward conservatives on social media and in survey measures of dehumanization, threat perception, and punitive attitudes, while conservatives direct negativity more toward abstract systems or elites rather than broad personal animus. Cultural factors such as urban concentration, higher education exposure to critical theories emphasizing structural oppression, and media consumption patterns that amplify threat narratives contribute to liberal distress, whereas conservative communities often emphasize gratitude, patriotism, and local social capital that mitigate anxiety. The article argues these patterns have intensified since the mid-2010s, coinciding with social media polarization, identity politics, and events like the 2016 election, Covid policies, and cultural shifts that heightened perceived threats for left-leaning individuals. While acknowledging that correlation does not imply causation and that both sides exhibit bias and intolerance, the analysis suggests liberal ideology’s focus on systemic injustice and moral purity may paradoxically increase subjective suffering and outgroup hostility by framing the world as irredeemably flawed unless radically transformed, whereas conservatism’s acceptance of hierarchy and tradition provides psychological buffers against distress. The piece concludes that understanding these asymmetries is crucial for addressing rising mental health burdens and political polarization, advocating for greater ideological diversity in mental health research, media, and academia to avoid one-sided narratives that exacerbate rather than alleviate emotional suffering across the political spectrum.
Routine Vaccines Paralyzed Their Child — And the Government Denied It A family’s life was shattered when their healthy toddler developed acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) — a rare but devastating polio-like condition causing sudden paralysis — days after receiving routine childhood vaccines, with the parents now publicly sharing their story as evidence that government compensation programs routinely deny legitimate vaccine injury claims while protecting pharmaceutical manufacturers from accountability under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The child, previously meeting all developmental milestones, became limp and unable to move limbs or breathe independently following a standard well-child visit where multiple vaccines were administered simultaneously, leading to a diagnosis of AFM confirmed by MRI showing spinal cord inflammation and gray matter damage consistent with enterovirus or vaccine-triggered immune-mediated injury. Despite extensive medical documentation, temporal association, and exclusion of alternative causes, the family’s claim to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was denied, with the government arguing insufficient proof of causation under the program’s strict standards that require clear biological mechanism or epidemiological evidence often unavailable for rare conditions. The parents describe a system designed to shield vaccine makers from civil liability by funneling claims through a special court where the Department of Justice defends against families using taxpayer funds, with low payout rates, lengthy delays (often years), and frequent denials even when special masters acknowledge severe harm. The article notes AFM cases surged after certain vaccine schedule expansions and enterovirus outbreaks, with some researchers suggesting adjuvants or immune overstimulation may contribute in genetically susceptible children, though mainstream health authorities maintain no causal link and attribute rises to improved detection or viral factors. The family’s experience exemplifies broader criticisms of the VICP: inadequate compensation for lifelong care needs (paralysis requires ongoing ventilation, physical therapy, and assistive devices costing millions), lack of transparency in decision-making, and a structure that discourages manufacturers from improving safety through market incentives. Advocates call for repeal or reform of the 1986 Act to restore civil liability, mandate rigorous pre-licensure placebo-controlled trials on cumulative schedule effects, and establish a more equitable compensation system that presumes causation for certain injuries rather than requiring families to prove what science has not fully studied. The piece frames the case as part of a larger pattern where routine vaccine injuries are minimized, denied, or attributed to coincidence, leaving devastated families without recourse while the pharmaceutical industry remains protected from ordinary tort accountability.
Medical Schools Fill RFK Jr.’s Nutrition Prescription HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s March 2026 directive requiring U.S. medical schools to significantly increase nutrition education in their curricula—mandating at least 40 hours of dedicated coursework as a condition for continued federal funding and accreditation—has been met with widespread enthusiasm among medical students and many faculty members, who view it as a long-overdue correction to a training system that has historically marginalized diet and lifestyle as drivers of chronic disease while overemphasizing pharmacology and procedural interventions. The policy, developed in collaboration with the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, addresses the current average of fewer than 20 hours of nutrition training across most programs by requiring comprehensive coverage of macronutrient metabolism, micronutrient deficiencies, gut microbiome interactions, effects of ultra-processed foods and additives, food toxicology, and evidence-based dietary interventions for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and mental health conditions. Medical students surveyed across institutions including Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and numerous osteopathic and allopathic schools reported 78% overall support for the requirement, with 85% of preclinical students and 72% of clinical students agreeing that enhanced nutrition education would better equip them to address root causes of patient illness rather than relying primarily on pharmaceutical symptom management. Many described existing curricula as heavily skewed toward drug mechanisms, side effects, and acute care while treating nutrition as an elective or peripheral topic, leaving graduates unprepared for the metabolic health crisis affecting over 93% of American adults with at least one marker of dysfunction. Students highlighted frustration at learning more about medication interactions than dietary strategies proven effective for insulin resistance, inflammation reduction, and metabolic resilience, with several noting that continuous glucose monitoring demonstrations—showing dramatic blood sugar and insulin spikes from processed carbohydrates and industrial seed oils compared to whole foods—would empower both clinicians and patients to make informed choices. The initiative includes provisions for ongoing faculty development, integration of registered dietitians and functional medicine perspectives into clinical rotations, standardized nutrition competency exams for licensing boards, and federal grants supporting schools that exceed minimum requirements through community nutrition clinics, culinary medicine courses, and research into personalized nutrition based on genetics, microbiome profiles, and metabolic biomarkers. While some academic leaders expressed concern that the mandate could strain already packed schedules or divert resources from other essential topics, student advocates countered that nutrition education is foundational to evidence-based practice and that current deficiencies leave physicians ill-equipped to tackle the chronic disease epidemic driving trillions in healthcare costs. The policy aligns with Kennedy’s broader Make America Healthy Again agenda to shift federal health priorities toward prevention, real-food access, toxin reduction, and reduced pharmaceutical dependence, positioning medical schools as key partners in transforming healthcare from reactive disease management to proactive health restoration through dietary and lifestyle interventions.Hour 2
Dunkin’ Brings the ‘Joy of Junk Food’ to Sick Children in Hospitals Dunkin’ Donuts has partnered with several U.S. children’s hospitals to donate free donuts, sugary coffee drinks, and other high-sugar, ultra-processed menu items to pediatric patients, families, and staff as part of morale-boosting and fundraising initiatives, framing the donations as acts of kindness that bring “joy” and comfort to seriously ill children during hospital stays, yet the program has drawn sharp criticism from health advocates who argue it undermines hospital nutrition standards, exposes vulnerable kids to addictive, inflammatory foods that exacerbate chronic conditions, and normalizes junk food consumption in environments where metabolic health should be prioritized. The article highlights specific examples including Dunkin’ deliveries to pediatric oncology wards, NICUs, and general children’s units, where staff distribute donuts, Munchkins, and sweetened beverages to patients undergoing chemotherapy, recovering from surgery, or managing conditions like diabetes, obesity, and autoimmune disorders—conditions directly worsened by refined sugars, trans fats, and artificial additives prevalent in Dunkin’ products. Critics contend that while the intent may be charitable, providing ultra-processed foods to sick children contradicts evidence-based pediatric nutrition guidelines that recommend limiting added sugars to less than 25 grams daily for children, avoiding artificial dyes and preservatives linked to hyperactivity and inflammation, and prioritizing nutrient-dense whole foods to support immune function, wound healing, and recovery. The report notes that hospitals often restrict outside food for infection control or dietary management reasons, yet make exceptions for corporate-sponsored donations, raising questions about corporate influence on hospital policy and the ethics of allowing processed food companies to gain positive brand association by targeting pediatric patients. Children’s Health Defense and allied groups argue the program exemplifies broader issues of Big Food infiltration into healthcare settings, where companies leverage charitable giving to deflect criticism of their products’ role in driving the chronic disease epidemic affecting millions of children, including rising rates of type 2 diabetes, fatty liver, and obesity-related complications in pediatric populations. The article calls for hospitals to reject such donations in favor of healthier alternatives like fresh fruit, nuts, or unsweetened beverages, and urges greater scrutiny of corporate partnerships that may prioritize brand image over genuine patient well-being. Dunkin’ and participating hospitals defend the initiative as a small gesture of support that brings smiles and normalcy to children facing difficult circumstances, emphasizing that occasional treats in moderation pose no significant risk compared to the overall hospital diet and stress reduction benefits. The controversy underscores ongoing tension between corporate philanthropy, hospital fundraising needs, and evidence-based nutrition policy in pediatric care, with critics insisting that true compassion should not come at the expense of metabolic health in already vulnerable children.
Special Guest: Brian Hooker
Brian S. Hooker, PhD, PE, is an Associate Professor of Biology at Simpson University in Redding, California, where he specializes in chemistry and biology coursework. Additionally, Hooker is the Senior Process Consultant at ARES Corporation, working closely on process design for the environment restoration industry. His design efforts focus on industrial biotechnology and chemical engineering principles.
Brian dedicated over 15 years as a bioengineer and the team leader for the High Throughput Biology Team and Operations Manager of the DOE Genomics: Genomes to Life (GTL) Center for Molecular and Cellular Systems at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Dr. Hooker managed applied plant and fungal molecular biology research projects at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, where systems biology researchers are focused on understanding gene and protein networks involved in individual cell signaling, communication between cells in communities, and cellular metabolic pathways.
In 1985, Dr. Hooker earned his Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering, from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California. He earned his Masters of Science degree in 1988 and his doctorate in 1990, both in biochemical engineering, from Washington State University, in Pullman, Washington.
Brian Hooker has many accomplishments to his credit including: co-inventor for five patents, recipient of the Battelle Entrepreneurial Award in 2001, and a Federal Laboratory Consortium Recognition Award in 1999, for his work on “Reactive Transport in 3-Dimensions.” The breadth of Hooker’s 60 science and engineering papers have been published in internationally recognized, peer reviewed journals.
He has a teenage son with autism and has been active in the autism community since 2002.
Will Ruling Against RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Policies Stand? Legal Experts Weigh In A federal district judge in Massachusetts granted a temporary restraining order on March 13, 2026, blocking several recent vaccine policy changes implemented by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including the December 2025 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) vote narrowing routine childhood immunization recommendations and shifting COVID-19 vaccination to shared clinical decision-making rather than universal guidance, pending a preliminary injunction hearing, with legal experts offering sharply divided predictions on whether the ruling will hold on appeal or be overturned as an improper judicial intrusion into executive health policy authority. The TRO, issued after an emergency motion by the American Academy of Pediatrics and a coalition of medical organizations, freezes nationwide enforcement of the revised ACIP recommendations, reinstates prior guidance for school and healthcare settings in the interim, and prohibits HHS from acting on post-reconstitution ACIP votes until the court determines whether the committee’s reconstitution—dismissing 17 longstanding members and replacing them with appointees viewed as vaccine-skeptical—complied with the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s requirements for balanced expertise, transparency, and impartiality. Plaintiffs contend the changes lack rigorous evidence-based support, disregard decades of accumulated safety and efficacy data, violate procedural norms under FACA, and create irreparable public health harm by increasing risks of preventable disease outbreaks, particularly among vulnerable pediatric and pregnant populations, while undermining state public health authority that often aligns with federal recommendations for school mandates. Legal scholars supporting the plaintiffs argue the ruling rests on solid ground under the Administrative Procedure Act, asserting that significant policy shifts constitute reviewable final agency action, that FACA violations provide a basis for injunctive relief, and that courts retain authority to halt arbitrary or procedurally deficient administrative decisions that endanger public welfare. Conversely, experts defending Kennedy’s authority contend the TRO represents judicial overreach into core executive discretion under the Public Health Service Act, which grants the HHS Secretary broad power to appoint ACIP members, adjust immunization guidance based on evolving evidence, and issue public health recommendations, with the “committed to agency discretion by law” exception under the APA shielding personnel and scientific judgment calls from meaningful judicial review. They note the absence of a private right of action under FACA for challenging committee composition and emphasize that policy adjustments fall within non-reviewable discretionary functions rather than final rules subject to APA scrutiny. The article surveys opinions from constitutional law professors, administrative law specialists, and health law experts, with predictions ranging from likely reversal on appeal—due to deference to executive health policy authority and separation of powers concerns—to potential affirmation if higher courts find clear procedural violations, arbitrary action, or demonstrable public health harm from reduced vaccination coverage. The case highlights escalating legal battles over federal vaccine policy under the current administration, with implications for the balance between executive discretion and judicial oversight in public health decision-making, potential precedent for challenging future HHS or CDC guidance, and ongoing tensions between established medical organizations and the Make America Healthy Again agenda prioritizing scrutiny of pharmaceutical influence and individualized risk assessment over universal recommendations. 
Welcome back to another “Homeopathic Hits” episode on The Robert Scott Bell Show!
Today’s Homeopathic Hit is Baryta acetica, or Acetate of Barium.
Boericke describes this remedy as producing paralysis beginning in the extremities and spreading upward, along with symptoms of mental indecision, lack of confidence, and pruritus in the aged. Its sphere includes neurological decline and rheumatic involvement of muscles and joints.
Download the Information Sheet
Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!
