Nov 14, 2025 3-5pm ET
Friday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Hour 1
I Was a Healthy Physician Who Took the Covid Shot — Now I’m Paralyzed: ‘We’re the Vaccine Industry’s Dirty Little Secret’ The article by Sally Beck features firsthand accounts from previously healthy individuals who developed transverse myelitis (TM) — a rare neurological condition causing paralysis and chronic pain — shortly after receiving Covid vaccines from major pharmaceutical companies. The piece follows orthopedic surgeon Dr. Joel Wallskog, Oxford University lecturer Sally Bayley, and British business owner Rebecca Thommen, each of whom describes the abrupt onset of TM symptoms within weeks of vaccination. Wallskog, a father of four and former surgeon, became partially paralyzed days after receiving Moderna’s vaccine in December 2020. He recounts numbness, collapse at work, and subsequent disability that ended his career, saying the medical system “didn’t want to get involved” and that victims like him are treated as “the vaccine industry’s dirty little secret.” Bayley, who took the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot during the UK’s rollout, describes rapid neurological decline, severe exhaustion, and eventual paralysis, claiming doctors dismissed her symptoms as anxiety before diagnosing probable post-vaccine TM. Thommen, who took Pfizer’s vaccine, recounts near-total loss of leg function and months of hospitalization, later confirmed by Liverpool University Hospital as “probable post-vaccination transverse myelitis.” The article references official data showing thousands of TM cases reported to VAERS in the U.S. and the MHRA’s Yellow Card system in the U.K., noting that while regulators list TM as a potential adverse event for AstraZeneca, it remains unlisted for Pfizer or Moderna. Beck connects these personal stories to a broader pattern of regulatory denial, referencing AstraZeneca’s 2024 admission that its vaccine caused blood-clotting disorders “in very rare cases.” The piece underscores patients’ frustration over being dismissed or “gaslit” by doctors and institutions reluctant to acknowledge vaccine-related injuries. It concludes by emphasizing the ongoing legal challenges in the U.K. against AstraZeneca, the lingering disabilities faced by those affected, and the growing call for transparency and accountability regarding long-term vaccine safety.
What a pro-vaccine doc learned at an anti-vax conference | STAT From the start I knew I was visiting a rough neighborhood—one filled with vaccine skeptics and free-thinking health advocates—but nothing prepared me for the cohesion, conviction and operating strategy of the movement I encountered at the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) conference in Austin. As a public-health professor and emergency-medicine physician, I went in determined not to change anyone’s mind, but to genuinely listen. What I found was not merely disarray or fringe posture—it was a disciplined and ideologically grounded community. Speakers declared “God is an anti-vaxxer” and urged maintaining pressure and organization; members lauded the loss of friends, careers and certification as rites of passage and markers of authenticity. There were few traditional science slides or open Q&A sessions; instead it was identity, grievance and mobilization that held the floor. What’s more, the gathering made it clear that their agenda is less about one-off protest and more about sustained political influence: litigation, legislation at the state level, media creation and alternative narratives. The challenge for public health is not a missing statistic—it’s that trust in our institution is fractured, and facts alone may no longer close that gap. If we want to engage this movement, we must move beyond charts and journals and into the relational space where the belief and community exist. By the end of the weekend, I was certain more of my colleagues should attend, not to debate, but to understand.
Everyday Pesticide Exposure Linked to Slower, Weaker Sperm Dr. Joseph Mercola warns that pesticide residues from everyday foods are quietly undermining male fertility, even among young, healthy men with no occupational exposure. A small study published in Antioxidants found that men with higher urinary levels of organophosphate pesticide metabolites had sperm with significantly lower motility and weaker performance, despite normal hormone levels. Mercola explains that organophosphates disrupt calcium signalling in sperm cells, impair mitochondrial energy production and oxidize sperm membranes — thereby reducing movement and viability. He cites a global review involving nine studies and 766 men which found consistent links between pesticide exposure and diminished sperm quality: lower count, poorer shape, reduced motility. Importantly, these effects were seen in men simply eating conventionally grown produce, not only in agricultural workers. Mercola argues that sperm health serves as a “canary in the coal mine” for wider metabolic and oxidative stress issues that affect overall health. To counter the threat, he advises a series of lifestyle measures: prioritize organic fruits and vegetables, use filtered water, maintain regular exercise and sauna use, optimize sleep and nutrition — habits that support detoxification, mitochondrial resilience and sperm regeneration (which takes roughly 70-90 days). He concludes that modern chemical exposures are degrading fundamental vitality and fertility, and only proactive, clean-living choices will stem the tide of ever-weaker sperm.
The ‘Hateful Eight’ Seed Oils Most Americans Don’t Know – But Should Dr. Cate Shanahan argues that eight industrial seed oils—soy, corn, canola, cottonseed, sunflower, safflower, grapeseed and rice-bran—constitute what she dubs the “Hateful Eight,” deeply embedded in the modern food system and driving metabolic dysfunction. She contends that these oils are not simply innocuous fats but are chemically processed, heat-damaged, oxidation-prone substances that undermine cellular metabolism, disrupt fat tissue composition and set off insulin resistance, obesity and chronic inflammation. Shanahan frames the problem as less about the plant source and more about the refining process: seeds whose oils are industrial-extracted (using heat, solvents and bleaching) result in a product that is neither nourishing nor safe. She contrasts these unstable polyunsaturated fats with traditionally rendered animal fats such as butter, lard or tallow, which she claims are naturally oxidation-resistant and far less likely to provoke metabolic damage. Drawing on historical dietary shifts, she notes that in 1909 the average American consumed only about two teaspoons of seed oil daily, whereas today consumption is six to eight tablespoons—a nearly 1,000 % increase—and cites body-fat biopsies showing a rise from 5-10 % to 20-30 % of fatty acids being polyunsaturated over a few decades. She argues that this dramatic shift in fat composition correlates with the rise in chronic metabolic diseases. Shanahan emphasizes that the issue is not simply seed-oil intake but that our fat-tissue chemistry has been hijacked by these oils, impairing mitochondrial function and energy regulation. She closes by asserting that, while the term “seed oil” may evoke a broad category, it is precisely these eight refined seed oils—pervasive in restaurant fryers, snack foods and even “health” foods—that deserve scrutiny.
Hour 2
What the ‘Godfather of Vaccines’ Said Under Oath — and Why It Matters Even More Today The article revisits the 2018 sworn deposition of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, dubbed the “godfather of vaccines,” using it as a lens to examine what author Maryanne Demasi calls the ethical rot and institutional arrogance of modern vaccinology. Under oath, Plotkin acknowledged receiving royalties from nearly every major vaccine manufacturer and defended controversial research on vulnerable populations, including orphans and the mentally disabled. Demasi argues that his unguarded testimony laid bare the incestuous relationship between industry, academia, and public health regulators — a dynamic she says persists today through revolving-door appointments and funding dependencies. Plotkin’s admissions that many vaccines were licensed without proper placebo controls and that long-term safety studies were rare, Demasi writes, should have provoked major reform but instead were ignored by media and policymakers. She frames this silence as evidence of a broader capture of science by profit-driven interests, warning that the same mindset now fuels mandates and censorship of dissenting doctors. In a tone both investigative and indignant, Demasi contends that Plotkin’s deposition represents a moral crossroads: society must choose between transparency and technocratic control. The piece closes with a call for accountability — demanding independent safety testing, ethical oversight, and open debate — arguing that public trust in vaccination depends not on suppression of questions but on the courage to confront uncomfortable truths.
EPA Panel Warns Plastics Threaten Kids’ Health — Bayer Says Evidence Lacking The article by Brian Bienkowski reports that the EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee has urged stronger regulation to shield children from plastics and related chemicals that pose risks across every stage of production—from fossil fuel extraction to disposal. Signed by 23 scientists, public health officials, and advocates, the committee’s letter cites clear links between plastic pollution and increased risks of developmental, reproductive, immune, and cancer-related disorders, particularly in low-income and minority communities disproportionately exposed to environmental contaminants. The panel recommends reducing nonessential plastic use, supporting an international plastics treaty, and strengthening enforcement of the Clean Air Act and Toxic Substances Control Act to curb emissions of compounds such as BPA, PFAS, and phthalates. In contrast, a lone dissenting voice—Dr. S. Eliza Lockwood of Bayer Crop Science—submitted a separate letter claiming there is “very little evidence” linking plastic exposure to human toxicity outside of e-waste scenarios and calling it “alarmist” to label plastics as chemicals of concern. Bienkowski highlights the broader political backdrop: the Biden-era request for scientific review now sits under a Trump administration rolling back environmental regulations and opposing production caps in global plastics negotiations. Environmental scientist Veena Singla emphasized that children inhale, eat, and drink more relative to body weight, making them uniquely vulnerable, while committee members criticized federal agencies for failing to meet prior promises on child protection. The piece concludes with the EPA’s response that it is reviewing the recommendations, underscoring a widening rift between scientific caution and industrial skepticism over plastics’ health impacts.
Special Guest: Michael Boldin
Tariffs: The First Economic Battle Under the Constitution Michael Boldin recounts how America’s first great economic fight under the new Constitution was not over banks or infrastructure but tariffs — the question of how, and for what purpose, Congress should wield its new taxing power. He explains that after years of paralysis under the Articles of Confederation, James Madison viewed tariffs as “the subject of the greatest magnitude,” essential for generating “revenue alone” to fund the new government. Yet Madison’s modest plan for a simple import duty was quickly overtaken by protectionist amendments pushed by Pennsylvania’s Thomas Fitzsimmons, who sought to shield local manufacturing. That move ignited a fierce regional struggle: New Englanders protested molasses taxes as “ruinous,” Southerners warned that shipping duties would devastate their trade, and nearly everyone labeled tariffs they disliked as “oppressive to the poor.” Despite bitter clashes, compromise prevailed, and on July 4, 1789, George Washington signed the Tariff Act of 1789, the second law in U.S. history. Boldin follows how the debate reignited when Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Public Credit and Report on Manufactures transformed tariffs from simple revenue tools into subsidies for favored industries—what Hamilton called “virtual bounties.” Meanwhile, Jefferson and Madison countered by advocating tariffs as weapons of foreign policy, proposing retaliatory duties against nations like Britain. The conflict culminated in the controversial Jay Treaty, which narrowly averted war but enraged the public. Boldin concludes that while the Founders argued over purpose and policy, they all agreed tariffs belonged solely to Congress—not the President—illustrating an early and now-forgotten consensus on constitutional limits to executive power.
They Aren’t Patriots. They’re a Trojan Horse. In this piece, Michael Boldin argues that the real danger to American liberty isn’t an obvious foreign enemy but the disguised internal threat of power-grabbers posing as defenders of freedom. He frames the famed Trojan Horse as a timeless analogy: rulers or elites who wrap themselves in the mantle of liberty only to erect tyranny from within. Boldin traces this pattern from ancient empires to the early U.S. founding era, observing that many of the Constitution’s safeguards—including the Tenth Amendment—were designed precisely to prevent those who claim to protect our rights from quietly seizing them. He warns that modern movements or leaders who embrace patriotic rhetoric but support centralization, indefinite executive power, or expansive federal authority are doing the same trick. Boldin writes with urgency and conviction, asserting that the “patriots” who demand loyalty, sacrifice and obedience may in fact be the Trojan Horse undermining the very liberty they profess to defend. He concludes by calling readers to vigilance: true freedom requires constant attention to who is claiming to defend it—and whether their actions align with the original constitutional limits on power.
A Revolution Before Tomorrow Morning In this essay, James Roguski argues that the conventional narrative of fractional-reserve banking is fundamentally flawed and that the true mechanism for money creation—and hence a source of profound economic control—lies with the banking elite and central planners rather than everyday commercial banks. He rejects the notion that banks simply lend out deposits, asserting instead that new money is created at or above the level of central banks and large financial institutions, then flows downward through debt and credit channels. Roguski frames this as part of a broader system of debt-slavery engineered by a financial class which he calls “the head of the snake,” financing both sides of wars and orchestrating economic crises to concentrate power. He views the current monetary system not merely as misguided policy but as a deliberate architecture of control, one that fuels social and political dysfunction by indebting individuals, nations and generations. Roguski warns that the viewpoint of “we just need better regulation” misses the deeper reality: the entire system is designed to extract value, suppress dissent and funnel sovereignty upward. The essay closes with a call to comprehension and resistance—urging readers to stop believing the lie of decentralised banking and instead recognise the financial axis around which modern tyranny rotates.
Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!
