Sep 21, 2026 3-5pm ET
Monday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Hour 1
If We Want a New Medical Paradigm, We Must Support the Practitioners Brave Enough to Build It Stephanie Locricchio argues that changing the medical system requires more than criticizing conventional healthcare practices or educating doctors about alternative approaches. Patients and families must also financially and practically support practitioners who are willing to establish independent practices and challenge prevailing medical norms. Writing after attending the Medical Academy of Pediatrics & Special Needs conference, Locricchio describes meeting physicians and other practitioners who said they were learning approaches to children’s chronic health problems that they had not encountered during their conventional medical training. She focuses particularly on a conversation with a practitioner employed by a medical practice that did not accept unvaccinated patients. Locricchio questioned how the practitioner reconciled that policy with informed consent and with information she was encountering at the conference. The practitioner explained that because the practice had no unvaccinated patients, many families simply followed the recommended vaccination schedule without raising questions. Locricchio uses the exchange to illustrate what she sees as a larger conflict between practitioners who begin questioning conventional approaches and the institutional systems in which they work. She also recounts her own family’s medical experiences, including what she describes as secondary infertility following an influenza vaccination during pregnancy and her son’s history of ear, nose and throat problems, ADHD, PANS and food allergies. These experiences led her family to leave their previous pediatrician and seek a physician focused on identifying underlying causes rather than primarily treating symptoms. Her account of a connection between vaccination and her infertility is presented as her personal experience and belief rather than evidence establishing causation. The practitioner Locricchio met at the conference said she had considered establishing her own practice but was afraid to do so, which prompted Locricchio to examine another obstacle: families may encourage doctors to leave conventional systems while simultaneously expecting those independent practitioners to accept insurance. She argues that insurance arrangements and other features of conventional healthcare can restrict the type of practice some physicians want to build. Her central message is that organizations such as MAPS can educate practitioners and expose them to different clinical perspectives, but education alone will not create a new healthcare model. Patients and parents who want greater emphasis on informed consent, individualized treatment and investigating underlying contributors to chronic illness must actively seek out and support practitioners attempting to operate that way. The article is primarily a personal commentary and call for community action rather than a scientific evaluation comparing conventional and alternative medical models. Locricchio concludes that meaningful change requires cooperation between practitioners willing to question established practices and families willing to sustain the independent healthcare models those practitioners create.
Special Guests: Steven Abramowicz
Steven M. Abramowicz is the CEO and Editor of Heartland Journal and Heartland Publishing, where he has transformed a hometown print newspaper into a national platform for the voices mainstream media refuses to amplify. A 33-year Wall Street veteran, Steve made an unlikely pivot from managing millions to giving a microphone to the silenced—and he hasn’t looked back.
Born in the wine country of Napa, California and educated at the University of Southern California, Steve began his career in finance, building a successful wealth management practice. But everything changed when he witnessed corporate media’s coordination firsthand and, later, when his daughter’s swim league policies forced a reckoning. In 2022, he took the helm of Heartland Journal (formerly Mill Creek View) following the passing of its founder, Fred Fillbrook, and began rebuilding it for the digital age.
Steve’s debut book, ***Songs About the Heartland: A Journey from Wall Street to Main Street*** (Heartland Publishing, 2025), captures the extraordinary stories from over 500 podcast episodes. The book reads like a backstage pass to conversations Hollywood doesn’t want you to hear—featuring candid interviews with Kevin Sorbo, Dean Cain, Kirk Cameron, John Schneider, Riley Gaines, and dozens more who risked careers to speak their truth.
Check out the book’s companion song he co-wrote with hit maker Porter Martin.
Part memoir, part manifesto, the book traces Steve’s own unlikely arc: from witnessing River Phoenix’s death outside the Viper Room in 1993 (which drove him away from Hollywood into finance) to returning decades later as a podcaster amplifying the very voices the industry tried to silence.
Available on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more, the Heartland Journal Podcast reaches over 1.2 million monthly listeners across all 50 states. The show features doctors who questioned the narrative, scientists who lost everything, actors blacklisted by Hollywood, FBI whistleblowers, trafficking rescuers, and everyday Americans fighting for faith, family, and freedom.
Steve lives in Tennessee with his wife Kara and their two children. A born-again Christian, his mission is simple: speak truth without fear and remind Americans that one voice—amplified with conviction—can still make a difference.
Welcome back to another “Homeopathic Hits” episode on The Robert Scott Bell Show!
Today’s Homeopathic Hit is Muriaticum acidum, Muriatic Acid.
Boericke highlights this remedy for low fever states with high temperature, great prostration, septic decomposition of fluids, haemorrhages, involuntary stool while urinating, and marked involvement of the mouth and anus.
Download the Information Sheet
Hour 2
RFK Jr. takes step toward electromagnetic radiation rules Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is moving the federal government toward a renewed examination of potential health effects from electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation and wireless technologies, including cellphones and Wi-Fi. HHS issued a request for public input as part of the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda, seeking information that could be used to update federal guidance and potentially inform future warnings or regulatory decisions. The Washington Examiner characterizes Kennedy’s concerns about electromagnetic radiation as outside the scientific mainstream, while Kennedy and advocates for stricter wireless-safety standards argue that existing federal exposure limits have not adequately incorporated newer research or changes in how extensively people use wireless devices. The initiative is particularly significant because current federal radiofrequency exposure standards largely focus on preventing harmful heating of human tissue, while an ongoing scientific debate concerns whether long-term exposure below those thresholds can produce other biological effects. Kennedy has previously expressed concern about wireless radiation and has supported calls for additional research into possible relationships with neurological, reproductive and other health effects. The article notes that HHS’s action does not itself establish new exposure limits or prove that everyday wireless exposure causes disease. Instead, it begins a federal information-gathering process that could influence subsequent policy. The Federal Communications Commission historically has had primary responsibility for regulating radiofrequency exposure from communications equipment, while agencies including the FDA have evaluated health evidence. The renewed HHS review therefore could eventually affect how multiple federal agencies approach wireless safety. The broader policy question is whether existing standards remain adequate for today’s levels and patterns of exposure or whether federal guidance should account for research investigating possible effects at exposure levels below those known to cause tissue heating. Kennedy’s move gives that question greater federal attention, but any eventual regulatory changes would require additional scientific assessment and administrative action.
Pennsylvania asks for CDC help on measles outbreak, demands agency recognize measles deaths Pennsylvania requested emergency assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as its measles outbreak expanded beyond 700 confirmed cases across 37 counties, but state officials tied that request to a dispute with federal health officials over four deaths Pennsylvania classifies as measles-associated. Pennsylvania Health Secretary Debra Bogen initiated a request for a CDC Epi-Aid, which can bring federal epidemiologists and other specialists into a state for short-term outbreak assistance. In a letter reviewed by Reuters, Bogen said Pennsylvania would withdraw the request if the CDC did not transparently recognize and communicate information about the four deaths. The dispute involves Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy has questioned whether deaths reported during recent measles outbreaks were actually caused by measles or resulted from other medical conditions and instructed the CDC not to include the Pennsylvania fatalities in its national count. Pennsylvania officials maintain that the deaths are appropriately classified as measles-associated. The distinction between “caused by measles” and “measles-associated” is important because patients can have underlying conditions while an infection contributes to deterioration or death. HHS spokesperson Grace Davis Jamison responded that CDC assistance and the federal method for tabulating deaths are separate matters and accused Pennsylvania of conditioning public-health assistance on a political dispute. Pennsylvania had previously declined additional CDC personnel because state officials believed they could manage the outbreak, but infections subsequently accelerated. When the first two deaths were announced on August 25, Pennsylvania had 393 cases in 28 counties. By mid-September, the outbreak had exceeded 700 cases, and one newly reported fatality occurred in Mifflin County, more than 100 miles from the original Lancaster County epicenter. State-administered MMR vaccinations also slowed from more than 3,500 doses during August to roughly 1,100 during the first half of September. The controversy therefore combines two separate issues: controlling a rapidly expanding outbreak and resolving disagreement between state and federal officials over how deaths associated with the outbreak should be classified and reported.
Trump says he will demand some childhood vaccines be split into five shots President Donald Trump said on September 18 that his administration would push pharmaceutical manufacturers to separate some combination childhood vaccines into as many as five individual injections administered over a longer period, presenting the proposal as a way to reduce what he believes are risks associated with giving multiple vaccine components together. Trump suggested spacing the shots approximately six months apart and connected the proposal to his administration’s broader effort to revise the childhood immunization schedule. He did not specify exactly which combination vaccines would be divided into five products, how the proposed schedule would operate clinically or what scientific evidence supported the specific five-shot approach. Trump also linked the proposal to autism, but large epidemiological studies and reviews have not established that routine childhood vaccination causes autism. The announcement follows an August executive order directing federal agencies to restructure childhood vaccine recommendations and encouraging the use of separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines rather than the combined MMR vaccine. A major practical obstacle is that individual measles, mumps and rubella vaccines are not currently licensed and available in the United States, meaning manufacturers would have to develop or reintroduce products and obtain regulatory authorization before such a policy could be broadly implemented. The administration’s changing vaccine policy also reflects priorities advanced by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has advocated reconsideration of the number, timing and combination of vaccines recommended for children. Supporters of separating vaccines argue that parents should have more control over which vaccines their children receive and when, while mainstream medical organizations generally support combination vaccines because they reduce the number of medical visits and injections needed to achieve immunization. Trump’s statement represents a policy objective rather than an immediately operational requirement. Implementing it would involve regulatory, manufacturing and clinical questions, including whether appropriate single-component vaccines are available, how revised schedules would affect the timing of immunity and what evidence would be required to support changes to existing recommendations.
Medical Procedure Without Consent Is ‘Assault’: CHD Science, Legal Departments Respond to HHS Request for Comment Children’s Health Defense leaders submitted comments to the Department of Health and Human Services responding to an August 2026 request for public input on how the federal government categorizes vaccine recommendations, how shared clinical decision-making should operate and what changes might rebuild public confidence in federal vaccine policy. CHD scientists Brian Hooker and Karl Jablonowski argue that informed consent and shared decision-making should apply to every vaccination decision rather than functioning as a distinct recommendation category. Their position is that a “routine” federal recommendation should communicate the government’s public-health judgment without implying that individual discussion, parental permission or patient consent is unnecessary. They also call for greater disclosure of the scientific evidence underlying recommendations, including clinical-trial and post-marketing surveillance information, uncertainties, conflicts of interest and adverse-event data. Their comments argue that public trust should result from institutional transparency rather than being treated primarily as a communications objective. CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg separately focused on parental authority, religious freedom, bodily integrity and state school-vaccination requirements. She welcomed an August 10 executive order emphasizing parental choice but argued that legal protections should extend further, particularly for families seeking religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements. CHD Advocacy Director Michael Kane similarly supported stronger federal protection of parental choice and religious exemptions. CEO Mary Holland argued that federal agencies should acknowledge variation in individual vaccine risks and benefits rather than relying on broad assurances, while attributing rising childhood chronic illness in part to vaccination. That causal interpretation is CHD’s position and remains disputed within the scientific and medical literature. The article therefore functions primarily as a compilation of CHD’s policy and legal arguments submitted to HHS rather than an independent scientific analysis of vaccine safety. Its central recommendation is that federal vaccine policy should distinguish government recommendations from individual consent, make the underlying evidence more publicly inspectable and give parents and patients greater authority over vaccination decisions.
Question of The Day!
I have a tonsillar mass or inflammatory process of the left tonsil. I had swollen lymph nodes of the left side of neck as well as the back of neck. I discovered the lymph nodes back in August 2025 and the tonsil mass a few months after. A few weeks back the lymph nodes returned to normal except there are a few on the back of my neck that are still mildly enlarged. I had been seeing an ENT and did get one CT of the neck. Today the ENT cleared me but never gave me steps to try to get rid of the mass which is a little smaller than a quarter. What do you recommend to try and resolve this issue and what could have caused this in the first place. – Patrick
Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!
