Sep 22, 2026 3-5pm ET
Tuesday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Hour 1
BREAKING: Massive MAHA Coalition Representing 63 Million Followers Sends Open Letter to Trump and RFK Jr. Demanding REMOVAL of the mRNA Platform A coalition of 168 physicians, scientists, researchers, lawmakers, activists and public figures has sent an open letter to President Donald Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. demanding substantially stronger federal action against mRNA vaccine technology and warning that members of the MAHA and health-freedom movements could withdraw political support if their demands are not addressed. The effort was coordinated by physician Mary Talley Bowden, and signatories include Peter McCullough, Louisiana Deputy Surgeon General Sean Troxclair, Rep. Thomas Massie, former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson, Robert Malone, Aseem Malhotra, Bret Weinstein and others. The organizers say the signatories collectively reach more than 63 million social-media followers. The letter contains six principal demands: removal of mRNA and what it describes as gene-therapy-derived technologies from vaccines; termination of the COVID-19 PREP Act emergency declaration; a recommendation that Congress repeal the PREP Act itself; prohibition of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising; revision of HHS policies the signatories believe financially encourage coercive medical practices; and elimination of conflicts of interest at the CDC, FDA, NIH and NIAID. The letter criticizes the administration for continuing to permit COVID mRNA vaccination, providing federal contracts connected with future mRNA products and approving an mRNA influenza vaccine that the authors contend has inadequate safety and efficacy evidence. It also challenges federal policies affecting pregnant women and children and argues that existing approaches to shared clinical decision-making weaken parental authority. The signatories make numerous additional claims concerning deaths, injuries, reproductive effects, cancer, myocarditis and vaccine-safety surveillance. Those assertions represent the coalition’s interpretation of the evidence and are not independently established simply by their inclusion in the letter. The political component is unusually explicit: the signatories argue that the health-freedom constituency was important to the Trump-Kennedy political coalition and state that continued inaction could cause supporters to back alternative candidates in state races, the midterms and 2028. The article therefore documents a significant internal policy dispute within the broader MAHA and health-freedom coalition. Rather than praising incremental changes to federal vaccine policy, the group is demanding removal of the mRNA vaccine platform and major changes to liability protections, pharmaceutical advertising, healthcare incentives and federal health-agency governance, while directly tying those demands to future political support.
Trump signs executive orders directing federal review of beef policies President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on September 4 aimed at reshaping federal policies affecting cattle producers, meat processors and the beef market, with provisions addressing competition among processors, interstate meat sales, country-of-origin labeling, livestock predators and regulatory burdens. The first order directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to increase staffing and investigative resources for enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, including investigations of alleged unfair or deceptive practices, price manipulation and conduct that restrains commerce. USDA must coordinate with the Justice Department on potential antitrust enforcement and provide a report within 60 days describing current enforcement efforts, resource requirements and plans for the coming year. The administration also wants to expand opportunities for ranchers to sell meat without relying as heavily on the nation’s largest processors. USDA is directed to make it easier for states to participate in federal and cooperative meat-inspection programs, provide technical assistance and training to small and very small processors, modernize inspection procedures and review reporting requirements that do not contribute to food safety. The order additionally calls for a guaranteed-loan program for small and regional beef processors through the Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers Program. A second executive order requires federal agencies to review regulations, guidance and policies affecting ranchers and return recommendations within 90 days. One major component is country-of-origin labeling. USDA and the U.S. Trade Representative must examine whether existing law provides authority for mandatory beef-origin labeling and analyze its economic consequences. Depending on the findings, USDA could pursue regulations under existing authority or recommend legislation to Congress. Mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef and pork was repealed in 2015 after World Trade Organization decisions exposed the United States to retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico. The order also requires the Interior Department to examine whether gray wolves and Mexican wolves have satisfied recovery criteria that could justify changing their status under the Endangered Species Act, while USDA and Interior consider changes to compensation programs for livestock killed by predators. The measures come shortly after Trump temporarily increased the tariff-rate quota for imported lean beef trimmings by 300,000 metric tons, more than 660 million pounds. American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall praised efforts to expand processing competition but opposed the additional beef imports, arguing that recent cattle-price declines could interfere with rebuilding the U.S. cattle herd. Overall, the orders initiate reviews, investigations and administrative actions rather than immediately rewriting every federal beef policy, meaning several of their most consequential provisions will depend on subsequent agency findings and rulemaking.
Special Guest: Liz Reitzig
Liz spent 10 years working in PR and marketing for a small firm in Washington DC. She brings her knowledge on branding, marketing, social media, and engagement to her consulting work for small farms and food-based businesses. As an activist, writer, spokesperson, and the mother of five healthy children, Liz has spent well over a decade working on the politics of food access in support of small farmers and those who wish to obtain food directly from them. Her work on several key cases and her proactive approach to policy and activism have helped shape national and state level food and farming policies. She finds it vitally important that we stay engaged politically to preserve our food freedom. In 2007 Liz founded Grassfed On The Hill, a local buying club for GMO-free and fresh farm foods, serving the greater Washington DC metro area. Her work pioneering buying clubs in the region created a niche for consumers seeking direct farm fresh foods and gave Liz a unique perspective into the habits and needs of consumers as well as the challenges facing local producers. She writes at NourishingLiberty.com where she covers everything from food politics, permaculture, gardening, and recipes to special moments in parenting. Liz earned an English and Literature degree from the University of Maryland. In 2017 she fulfilled a decade-long dream and became certified in Permaculture Design. She founded the Real Food Consumer Coalition (RFCC), a non-profit dedicated to advocacy and lobbying, on behalf of small farmers and the consumers who depend on them. She has been featured on The Food Network, NPR, Wall Street Journal, and the John Stossel Show. She has been subject matter in national newspapers and has been featured in the much acclaimed documentary Farmageddon.
Welcome back to another “Homeopathic Hits” episode on The Robert Scott Bell Show!
Today’s Homeopathic Hit is Myosotis symphytifolia, commonly known as Forget-me-not.
Boericke highlights this remedy for chronic bronchitis, phthisical states, night-sweats, and respiratory complaints marked by profuse muco-purulent expectoration, gagging, vomiting during cough, and pain in the lower left lung.
Download the Information Sheet
Hour 2
Government by Consent of the Governed – Later On George Ford Smith argues that the American government’s claim to derive its authority from the “consent of the governed” differs substantially from ordinary understandings of consent because government frequently acts first and obtains public acceptance afterward, if at all. Writing from the Mises Institute’s libertarian perspective, Smith uses war, monetary policy and the growth of the national-security state to develop his argument that Americans have gradually accepted government powers they never individually or explicitly authorized. He cites the Gulf of Tonkin episode and subsequent escalation of the Vietnam War as an example of government action based on misleading information, then discusses the Trump administration’s 2026 military action against Iran as another example of what he views as public opinion being conditioned before major government action. Smith also revisits World War II, relying heavily on Garet Garrett’s interpretation of Franklin Roosevelt’s pre-Pearl Harbor policies. These historical interpretations, particularly Smith’s characterizations of presidential motives and military events, reflect the author’s libertarian analysis rather than uncontested historical conclusions. Smith then turns to monetary policy, arguing that Roosevelt’s 1933 departure from the domestic gold standard and subsequent development of the fiat-dollar system occurred without meaningful public consent. He notes that the dollar has lost roughly 96% of its purchasing power as measured by the Consumer Price Index since that era and contrasts the 1933 and contemporary gold prices to illustrate currency depreciation. The article then challenges James Madison’s famous argument in Federalist No. 51 that government is necessary because people are not angels. Drawing on historian Robert Higgs, Smith argues that Madison effectively assumed the legitimacy of coercive government without resolving the deeper philosophical question of when one group may legitimately compel another. Smith concludes that Americans have become financially and institutionally dependent on government programs, making fundamental reform increasingly difficult. His central argument is philosophical rather than empirical: modern government operates primarily through coercion and generalized political acceptance rather than explicit individual consent, and restoring a system based more heavily on voluntary exchange would require reconsidering assumptions about taxation, war, monetary policy and the legitimate scope of government.
CDC Working on Parameters for Counting Measles Deaths as Cases Rise The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is developing a standardized definition for determining when a death should officially be classified as caused by measles, amid a disagreement between federal officials and Pennsylvania authorities over several deaths involving people who had measles. As of September 18, the CDC reported 3,471 confirmed U.S. measles cases and 301 hospitalizations during 2026 but listed zero measles deaths for the year. The agency said it had not received death records identifying measles as the underlying cause and is working with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists to establish standardized parameters so states and counties classify measles deaths consistently. Pennsylvania, however, reported four “measles-associated” deaths as of September 16. The cases include an infant whose coroner said died from measles, an adult whose death was attributed to measles complications, and another infant who tested positive for measles but whose coroner reportedly concluded the infection was not responsible for the death. The disagreement became political when Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro alleged that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. personally directed the CDC not to include the Pennsylvania deaths in federal statistics. Kennedy denied that characterization and said the CDC was applying a national standard rather than allowing individual jurisdictions or political officials to determine federal mortality classifications. Kennedy said deaths would be counted when National Center for Health Statistics records identify measles as the underlying cause. CDC Director Dr. Erica Schwartz similarly emphasized the importance of distinguishing between someone dying while infected with a disease and dying because of that disease, comparing the issue with disputes over COVID-19 mortality classification. The CDC reported three measles deaths in 2025, involving two children in Texas and one person in New Mexico, whose state authorities attributed the deaths to measles, although Kennedy has emphasized that those individuals had underlying medical conditions. The immediate issue is therefore not whether the Pennsylvania patients had measles, but what criteria should be required before measles is recorded as the underlying cause of death in national statistics. The CDC’s proposed standardized definition is intended to make that determination more consistent across jurisdictions.
FDA Warned COVID Vaccine Safety Tool Was Broken, Then Silenced Doctor Who Told Them, Report Finds Federal health officials were warned in early 2021 that a statistical method being used to identify potential COVID-19 vaccine safety problems could miss important signals, according to a BMJ investigation summarized by StudyFinds and based on internal government correspondence obtained through public-records requests and Senate investigators. The controversy centers on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, and two statistical approaches intended to detect unusual patterns among adverse-event reports. FDA medical officer Ana Szarfman and statistician William DuMouchel identified a potential “masking” problem because Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines accounted for more than 90% of approximately 1.1 million VAERS reports received during the rollout. If two similar vaccines generated elevated reports of the same condition, comparing one against a database dominated by the other could make the condition appear less unusual and prevent the algorithm from generating a signal. Szarfman and DuMouchel advocated an alternative statistical approach they believed better addressed the problem. Internal correspondence cited in the investigation shows that FDA associate director Craig Zinderman asked Szarfman in May 2021 to stop producing and distributing her COVID vaccine data-mining analyses, explaining that other monitoring systems were following potential problems and that changing methodology could create confusion. Former FDA vaccine regulator Peter Marks later complained internally that Szarfman continued conducting analyses after being told to stop. The issue became more consequential when the CDC eventually conducted a different proportional-reporting analysis. According to records examined by The BMJ, 13 consecutive weekly reports between May and July 2022 generated signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s palsy and tinnitus, while the FDA’s method did not flag those conditions during the same period. Myocarditis following mRNA vaccination, particularly among adolescent and young adult males, was subsequently recognized as a rare adverse event. Importantly, a VAERS safety signal does not demonstrate that a vaccine caused a reported condition or establish its incidence. It indicates a reporting pattern requiring further investigation. The investigation’s central finding therefore concerns the effectiveness and handling of the federal surveillance system rather than establishing that every reported event was vaccine-caused.
Pfizer Gave $500,000 to Groups That Lobbied to End Religious Exemption in Massachusetts Pfizer’s publicly disclosed 2024 funding records show that the company provided a combined $500,000 to two nonprofit organizations that later joined an effort supporting Massachusetts legislation to eliminate the religious exemption from school vaccination requirements, although the available disclosures do not establish that Pfizer provided the money specifically to lobby for that legislation. Pfizer reported providing $400,000 to the American Society for Meningitis Prevention for “Policy Efforts for comprehensive Meningococcal Meningitis Vaccination” and another $100,000 to the March of Dimes Foundation for a “Vaccine Policy Campaign Maternal Immunization.” More than a year later, both organizations appeared among approximately two dozen signatories to a June 1 letter supporting Massachusetts House Bill 2554. The legislation would eliminate the state’s nonmedical religious exemption for required school vaccinations, leaving medical exemptions, while also expanding vaccination-data collection and reporting. Representatives of both organizations signed the legislative letter. Children’s Health Defense emphasizes the financial relationship because Pfizer manufactures vaccines and therefore has a commercial interest in vaccination policy. However, Pfizer’s disclosed descriptions of the two grants concern broader meningococcal and maternal-vaccination initiatives rather than H.2554 specifically, and the article reports no evidence showing that the $500,000 was earmarked for the Massachusetts lobbying effort. Supporters of H.2554, including the Massachusetts Medical Society, argue that eliminating nonmedical exemptions can increase vaccination rates and reduce the likelihood of outbreaks in schools, pointing to states including California, Connecticut, Maine and New York that have eliminated religious exemptions. Opponents argue that the proposal infringes religious freedom and parental authority and could force families who object to vaccination on religious grounds to remove their children from conventional schools. The article quotes several medical-freedom advocates who contend that pharmaceutical funding of organizations involved in vaccine-policy advocacy creates a conflict of interest and should receive greater public disclosure. Neither funded organization responded to The Defender’s requests for comment, according to the article, and Pfizer also did not respond. The documented facts establish a financial relationship between Pfizer and the two organizations followed by those organizations’ support for the Massachusetts legislation, but they do not by themselves demonstrate that Pfizer directed or purchased their positions on the religious-exemption bill.
Talking It Out Helps People Spot Fake News, Study Finds Discussing questionable news stories with other people may improve people’s ability to recognize false information more effectively than simply thinking about the same material alone, according to an experiment involving 111 college students published in PLOS ONE. Researchers organized participants, whose average age was approximately 21, into groups of three and presented them with four news stories, two categorized as genuine and two as false. Participants initially rated each story individually on a scale ranging from likely false to likely true. They then considered some stories independently by writing out their reasoning, while discussing others with their group over Microsoft Teams for up to six minutes. Participants subsequently rated the stories again. Accuracy in identifying the false stories improved following group discussion, whereas individual reflection produced no meaningful improvement. Accuracy for genuine stories changed relatively little under either condition. Researchers also found evidence of a carryover effect: participants who first discussed one false story with other people subsequently became better at evaluating a different false story on their own. When participants’ discussion partners had initially been more accurate, about 73% improved following the conversation. When partners were initially less accurate, only about 36% of participants moved toward the incorrect assessment, suggesting that in this experiment accurate judgments exerted a stronger influence than inaccurate ones. Researchers investigated whether the effect could simply reflect social pressure, familiarity between participants, fear of judgment, enjoyment of group interaction or greater effort, but those factors did not adequately explain the improvement. Even among four groups in which every participant initially believed a false story, five of the 12 participants changed their assessment to false after discussing it. The researchers caution against applying the results too broadly. The experiment included only four news stories, all participants were college students, approximately 79% were female, participants encountered stories repeatedly, and the exploratory study was not preregistered. The findings therefore do not demonstrate that group discussion will reliably defeat misinformation in the general population or on social media. They do suggest that collaborative reasoning can expose people to arguments or perspectives they may not generate independently and that this process may improve subsequent evaluation of questionable information.
Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!
