The post Ostrya Virginica appeared first on The Robert Scott Bell Show.

Friday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:

Hour 1

Nine in ten research papers disputing definition of ultraprocessed foods have industry ties, study finds A new study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that 91 percent of academic papers criticizing the NOVA food classification system had at least one author with financial ties to the food industry, raising concerns about corporate influence over scientific debates that could shape future food regulations. Reported by Sasha Chavkin in The Examination on October 15, 2026, the findings come as policymakers in the United States and internationally consider restrictions on ultraprocessed foods, which have been associated with obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other health problems. Developed by Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro in 2009, the NOVA system divides foods into four categories based on their degree and purpose of processing, ranging from minimally processed foods to industrial formulations containing ingredients and additives not commonly used in home cooking. Researchers led by Erica LaFata of the Oregon Research Institute examined published criticisms of NOVA and investigated authors’ professional and financial connections using publicly available biographies, employment histories and LinkedIn profiles. They found that more than two-thirds of industry-connected authors did not disclose those relationships in the papers examined. LaFata cautioned that undisclosed affiliations do not necessarily constitute violations of journal policies, which frequently leave conflict-of-interest determinations to individual researchers. Food manufacturers and industry associations argue that NOVA is overly broad because it categorizes some products with beneficial nutritional characteristics, including certain whole-grain breads and flavored yogurts, alongside foods such as sugary beverages and packaged snacks. Rhonda Bentz of the Consumer Brands Association criticized definitions that could encompass a substantial proportion of the American food supply. Nutrition researchers supporting NOVA acknowledge that classification challenges exist but maintain that these limitations do not invalidate the framework or the broader evidence linking ultraprocessed food consumption with adverse health outcomes. University of North Carolina researcher Lindsey Smith Taillie argued that the prevalence of industry affiliations should influence how policymakers evaluate criticisms of NOVA, comparing the pattern to earlier corporate efforts to challenge public health science. The issue has become politically significant as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seeks to reduce ultraprocessed food consumption, while White House officials reportedly remain concerned that a broad federal definition could create regulatory and legal consequences for manufacturers. Similar disputes are occurring in Latin America, where the Pan American Health Organization supports NOVA-based policies. The study does not establish that every industry-connected researcher produced invalid findings or that financial relationships caused particular conclusions. It does, however, highlight the importance of transparent disclosures, independent research and careful evaluation of competing scientific claims when developing nutrition policy.

 Natalie Nicole – Slaying Big Sugar with Dulsa and Rebuilding Health

Natalie Nicole is on a mission to take down Big Sugar—one sweet scoop at a time. After years of meeting her at events and hearing about her secret formula, the moment finally arrived: the launch of Dulsa, a botanical sweetener that’s pure, functional, and outrageously good. No stevia. No artificial junk. Just prebiotic fibers, metabolic support, gut-friendly ingredients, and flavor so good even kids can’t believe it’s healthy.

Dulsa is powered by ingredients like blue agave inulin, allulose, yacon root, monk fruit, thalmatin, bamboo extract, and fulvic acid. It’s zero glycemic, gut-supportive, and free from sugar alcohols. And it’s Dr. Judy Mikovits approved. Even better? It’s bakeable. That’s right—you can finally make cookies without the chemical aftertaste.

Natalie’s background isn’t in chemistry—it’s in construction, bodybuilding, and functional fitness. But her years of research into mitochondria, minerals, gut health, and metabolic disease led her to create something truly radical: a sweetener that heals instead of harms. Try it at https://dulsalife.com/rsb and use code RSB for a discount. This is sweet rebellion—and it’s delicious.

Nearly 40% of FDA Advisory Meetings Included Patient Representatives With Ties to Pharma Nearly 40 percent of U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory committee meetings between 2013 and 2022 included patient or consumer representatives affiliated with organizations receiving pharmaceutical industry funding, according to research published in Health Affairs Scholar. Reported by Children’s Health Defense on October 15, 2026, the study raises questions about whether existing federal conflict-of-interest safeguards adequately address financial relationships involving patient advocacy organizations. Researchers Genevieve Kanter and Toni Mankowitz of the University of Southern California examined the participation of patient and consumer representatives in FDA advisory meetings, which provide recommendations concerning the safety and effectiveness of medications, vaccines and other medical products. They found that 38 percent of meetings included representatives connected to industry-funded advocacy organizations. More specifically, 11 percent involved representatives whose affiliated organizations received funding from the manufacturer of the particular product under consideration. The researchers emphasized that these relationships were sufficiently widespread to warrant closer examination of FDA policies rather than being treated as isolated incidents. FDA advisory committees generally include scientific experts alongside consumer and patient representatives, whose purpose is to bring patient experiences and practical treatment concerns into regulatory deliberations. While scientific committee members face established financial disclosure requirements, the researchers suggest that indirect relationships between pharmaceutical companies and advocacy organizations have received comparatively limited attention. Pediatrician Dr. Elizabeth Mumper described the findings as troubling because financial relationships could compromise the independence of participants evaluating drug safety and effectiveness. Physician Dr. Meryl Nass suggested that the actual prevalence of industry connections could be higher, particularly when considering relationships involving medical institutions and research organizations. The FDA defended its procedures, stating that committee members subject to federal ethics requirements must disclose relevant financial interests, employment relationships and research funding, which the agency reviews before meetings. The agency also said it continually evaluates its screening procedures to address potential conflicts while retaining qualified advisers. The findings align with earlier research showing substantial pharmaceutical funding of patient advocacy organizations. A 2020 systematic review published in The BMJ found that between 20 and 83 percent of patient organizations received industry funding across the studies examined, while disclosure of those relationships was often incomplete. The article also references the American Pain Foundation, which received extensive pharmaceutical industry support before closing in 2012 amid scrutiny of its positions on opioid prescribing. Another investigation found that 10 of 14 voting FDA advisers reviewing Abbott Laboratories’ TriClip heart valve device had financial relationships with the manufacturer totaling approximately $650,000. These examples illustrate concerns about financial influence across different forms of advisory participation. However, an organizational funding relationship does not independently demonstrate that an individual representative acted improperly or that a particular FDA recommendation was influenced. The study’s central finding is that indirect industry connections are common enough to justify greater transparency and scrutiny of how patient representatives are selected and evaluated.

New US Customs Rules Threaten Your Access to Natural Health New U.S. Customs and Border Protection requirements scheduled to take effect on October 22, 2026, could make it more expensive and complicated for Americans to purchase dietary supplements, natural health products and certain medications from overseas suppliers, according to the Alliance for Natural Health USA. The organization warns that regulatory changes affecting low-value international shipments may disproportionately burden smaller businesses and limit consumer access to products that are difficult to obtain domestically. Previously, many imported packages valued below $800 benefited from simplified customs entry procedures under a low-value shipment exemption. The new rule eliminates that exemption for international mail and imposes additional requirements on products regulated by agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration. Although electronic processing remains available for certain shipments, importers may need to provide more detailed product information, identify a legally responsible importing party and obtain a customs bond guaranteeing compliance with applicable obligations. These requirements can create additional administrative costs, particularly for small suppliers without dedicated customs specialists. ANH-USA acknowledges that stronger border enforcement can protect consumers from contaminated, mislabeled or illegally marketed products, including unapproved injectable peptides sold through poorly regulated online suppliers. However, it argues that legitimate businesses selling compliant supplements could face similar procedural burdens despite presenting different levels of risk. The article highlights animal-derived dietary supplements, including desiccated thyroid and adrenal extracts, as products that may require extensive documentation concerning animal origins, processing methods and supply chains. Many such documentation requirements already exist, but the new customs procedures could make compliance more difficult. The organization also raises concerns about patients importing medications unavailable through domestic manufacturers, warning that delivery delays could disrupt access to treatments. Importantly, the rule does not prohibit all imported medicines or eliminate the FDA’s existing personal importation policy. Rather, ANH-USA argues that additional costs and paperwork could make otherwise permissible importation impractical. Smaller suppliers may withdraw from the American market, while larger companies could absorb compliance expenses more easily, potentially reducing competition and increasing prices. The organization also questions whether disclosure of detailed sourcing information could expose commercially sensitive business relationships. It notes that the changes were implemented through administrative rulemaking rather than new congressional legislation and suggests that their legal authority could face judicial scrutiny. ANH-USA advocates a risk-based approach that concentrates enforcement on genuinely unsafe or unlawful products while establishing manageable procedures for reputable suppliers. Consumers who depend on imported supplements or medications are encouraged to contact their suppliers about availability, potential fees and delivery delays, and to coordinate with healthcare professionals before prescribed medications run low. The article’s central concern is that stronger import oversight should not unnecessarily restrict access to lawful natural health products.

The Anti-Hunger Advocate Who Couldn’t Say Coke Is Bad for Kids A congressional exchange involving anti-hunger advocate Gina Plata-Nino has renewed debate over whether federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits should be used to purchase soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages, particularly for children. In an October 15, 2026, commentary published in The DisInformation Chronicle, investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker criticizes Plata-Nino, a former Biden administration adviser who works with the Food Research & Action Center, for declining to give a direct answer when questioned during congressional testimony about whether SNAP should pay for children’s soda purchases. Thacker argues that the exchange illustrates a disconnect between efforts to combat food insecurity and public health concerns about excessive sugar consumption. The dispute follows proposals supported by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and several Republican governors to restrict purchases of soda and candy using SNAP benefits. Governors in Arkansas and Indiana previously sought federal permission to impose such restrictions, while anti-hunger organizations opposed the proposals on grounds that they could stigmatize low-income households and impose purchasing rules not applied to other consumers. Plata-Nino told the Associated Press that available research did not establish that SNAP participants purchase sugary beverages or snack foods at higher rates than other Americans. She also questioned whether singling out SNAP recipients would meaningfully improve nutrition. The Food Research & Action Center subsequently participated in litigation challenging state restrictions on SNAP purchases of candy and soda. Thacker contrasts that position with research conducted by economists affiliated with Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Chicago. Their analysis examined policies restricting sugar-sweetened beverage purchases in ten states and reported reductions in soda purchases among SNAP households. The researchers estimated that a nationwide restriction could generate approximately $1.1 billion in annual net benefits, with roughly 70 percent attributed to reduced healthcare expenditures, including potential savings associated with lower type 2 diabetes risk. These estimates depend on the study’s modeling assumptions and should not be interpreted as directly observed nationwide savings. Thacker also references research examining the relationship between sugary beverage consumption and childhood obesity, arguing that public health evidence supports reducing children’s intake of these products. However, the policy debate involves questions beyond the nutritional value of soda, including consumer autonomy, administrative complexity, food insecurity and whether targeted purchasing restrictions are more effective than incentives for healthier foods. The article presents Thacker’s criticism of Plata-Nino’s testimony and her organization’s opposition to restrictions, rather than a comprehensive assessment of all arguments surrounding SNAP reform. Its central question is whether nutrition assistance programs should prioritize unrestricted purchasing choices or incorporate additional limits intended to reduce consumption of products associated with chronic disease.

Welcome back to another “Homeopathic Hits” episode on The Robert Scott Bell Show!

Today’s Homeopathic Hit is Ostrya virginica, commonly known as Ironwood.

Boericke highlights it for anaemia associated with malaria, bilious conditions, and intermittent fever, with a gastric picture of a yellow-coated tongue, poor appetite, frequent nausea, sickening pains, and dull frontal headache.

Download the  Information Sheet

Hour 2

3D-Printed Salmon Is Hitting US Supermarkets but Shoppers May Not See ‘3D-Printed’ Anywhere on the Label An Israeli food technology company has begun introducing 3D-printed, plant-based seafood and meat alternatives into American grocery stores, raising questions about ingredient transparency, nutritional differences and whether manufacturers should disclose unconventional food production methods on product labels. Steakholder Foods announced the September 3, 2026, commercial launch of its Perfecta product line in the northeastern United States, marking the company’s first placement of these products on American retail shelves. The five products include salmon patties, white fish patties, chicken breast, filet mignon and marbled steak alternatives. Although their appearance and texture are designed to resemble conventional animal products, the foods are plant-based and contain no actual fish or meat. Production involves specialized industrial 3D-printing equipment that deposits food ingredients in carefully arranged layers to reproduce characteristics such as fish flakes, muscle fibers and fat marbling. The seafood printing system uses technology called Drop Location in Space, while the meat alternatives use Fused Paste Layering. The products are manufactured primarily from combinations of soy, rice and wheat proteins, along with oils, starches, flavorings and coloring ingredients. All five products contain methylcellulose, a binding and gelling agent commonly used in processed meat substitutes. Nutritional comparisons reveal significant differences from conventional seafood. A 50-gram Perfecta salmon patty reportedly contains approximately four grams of protein, two grams of fiber and 2.5 grams of saturated fat, providing substantially less protein per 100 grams than Atlantic salmon. The article emphasizes that packaging reportedly does not disclose the 3D-printing process, even though the technology is central to the company’s marketing and production strategy. American food labeling rules generally require ingredient lists, allergen declarations and accurate product identification but do not universally require manufacturers to disclose every production technique. Consequently, omitting the term 3D-printed does not automatically violate labeling regulations. The company has partnered with KeHE Distributors for a phased retail rollout, although it has not publicly identified major grocery chains carrying the products, and independent searches have found limited evidence of widespread availability. The launch follows earlier European commercialization of printed seafood alternatives, including a vegan salmon product introduced in Austria in 2023. Steakholder Foods maintains that its technology can reproduce desirable textures while supporting alternative protein production, but independent comparisons of flavor and consumer acceptance remain limited. The development illustrates the expanding use of food manufacturing technology and the importance of distinguishing nutritional composition, ingredient disclosure and production methods when evaluating new food products.

Pennsylvania Advances Bill That Would Set Limits on Heavy Metals in Baby Foods Pennsylvania lawmakers have advanced legislation establishing enforceable limits for four toxic heavy metals in commercially manufactured baby foods, reflecting growing concern about children’s exposure to contaminants during early development. House Bill 507, introduced by Democratic Representative Liz Hanbidge and known as the Baby Food Protection Act, has passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and moved to the state Senate for consideration. The legislation would establish maximum concentrations of 10 parts per billion for total arsenic, five parts per billion for lead, five parts per billion for cadmium and two parts per billion for mercury in covered baby food products. These metals can enter agricultural ingredients through naturally occurring geological sources, contaminated soil, irrigation water, industrial pollution and other environmental pathways. Exposure to elevated concentrations is particularly concerning during infancy because developing neurological systems are vulnerable to certain toxic substances, and children consume more food relative to their body weight than adults. The bill would require the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to test a representative sample from every batch of baby food manufactured within the state for all four metals. Manufacturers would also be required to place labels on tested products identifying the measured concentrations, giving parents additional information about contaminants that ordinarily do not appear in standard nutrition labeling. The requirements would apply to foods that are pureed or minced for consumption by infants and toddlers younger than two years old. If enacted, the legislation would take effect one year after becoming law, allowing manufacturers and regulators time to establish testing and compliance procedures. Pennsylvania would become the sixth state to enforce heavy metal testing requirements for baby foods, joining Vermont, Illinois, Maryland, Virginia and California. New York’s Senate has also approved similar legislation, although that measure has not yet completed the legislative process. The Pennsylvania proposal reflects broader national concerns about heavy metals in commercial infant foods, including previous investigations identifying detectable concentrations of arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury in certain products. Importantly, detecting a metal does not necessarily mean a food presents an immediate health hazard, because risk depends on concentration, frequency of consumption and cumulative exposure. The proposed legislation seeks to establish consistent numerical limits rather than relying solely on manufacturers’ voluntary practices. Its significance lies in combining mandatory testing with consumer disclosure, potentially encouraging producers to improve ingredient sourcing, agricultural practices and contamination controls. The measure has not yet become law, and its final requirements remain subject to Senate consideration and any subsequent amendments.

New Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights Demands Cancer Warnings, Spray Alerts and Protection for Children Consumer Reports and the Environmental Working Group have introduced a Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights calling for stronger federal protections against pesticide exposure, including cancer warnings, advance notification of spraying, safeguards for children and greater access to legal remedies. Announced October 14, 2026, the initiative outlines six protections that the organizations want Congress to incorporate into federal pesticide law. These include the right to know whether pesticides are associated with cancer or other health risks, where and when pesticides are sprayed, when chemicals have been mishandled and what residues have been detected in food and drinking water. The proposal also calls for stronger protections for children in schools, parks and food supplies, prompt federal reassessment of pesticides banned by other countries for health reasons, and the ability to pursue legal claims when exposure allegedly causes harm. The organizations argue that existing safeguards vary considerably among states, leaving families with different levels of information and protection depending on where they live. California and several other states require advance notification for certain agricultural pesticide applications, but comparable requirements are not universal. The proposal highlights an analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity identifying 4,919 pesticide products containing ingredients the Environmental Protection Agency classifies as likely carcinogens, while only 69 carried EPA-required cancer warnings. The groups also question how frequently the EPA applies the additional child-protection safety factor established under the Food Quality Protection Act. A 2020 analysis by an Environmental Working Group scientist found that the agency retained this additional safety margin in relatively few pesticide assessments. Another concern involves pesticides banned overseas because of health risks that remain authorized in the United States without an automatic reassessment requirement. The organizations also criticize legal restrictions affecting pesticide injury lawsuits, particularly following the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, which narrowed certain legal avenues for claims involving glyphosate-based herbicides. Environmental Working Group official Scott Faber argues that Americans should have greater confidence in the safety of pesticides used around their homes, schools and food supplies. Epidemiologist Tracey Woodruff welcomed the proposal but suggested that it should also address pesticide industry influence over regulatory decisions. The organizations are targeting the upcoming renewal of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, which governs pesticide registration fees and provides Congress an opportunity to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The Bill of Rights is an advocacy proposal rather than enacted legislation and does not immediately change pesticide regulations. Its broader objective is to establish more consistent disclosure, oversight and legal accountability while reducing preventable exposure, particularly among children.

Microplastics are chemically active and could cause biological harm Researchers from Columbia University and the University of California, Berkeley, have identified a chemical mechanism through which microplastics can generate reactive oxygen species when they interact with water, offering a possible explanation for biological damage associated with exposure to tiny plastic particles. The findings, published in Nature on October 14, 2026, challenge the assumption that microplastics are largely passive fragments whose health effects depend primarily on their physical presence or chemical additives. Led by Columbia chemistry and biomedical engineering professor Wei Min, the research demonstrates that the surfaces of small plastic particles can actively change the chemistry of surrounding water. As larger plastics break into progressively smaller fragments, their total surface area increases dramatically, creating more opportunities for chemical reactions at the boundary between plastic and water. The researchers found that these interactions can generate reactive oxygen species, including hydroxyl radicals, which are highly reactive molecules capable of damaging proteins, lipids, DNA and other biological components under certain conditions. Postdoctoral researcher Naixin Qian explained that the process occurs spontaneously when microplastics contact water, potentially making the particles chemically active even without external ultraviolet radiation or added contaminants. Scientists at Columbia conducted chemical and biological experiments, while collaborators led by Berkeley professor Teresa Head-Gordon used theoretical calculations and molecular simulations to investigate the underlying mechanism. Their analysis suggests that hydroxide ions near hydrophobic plastic surfaces can more readily lose electrons, promoting the formation of reactive radicals. The findings are particularly relevant because human tissues contain substantial amounts of water, creating environments in which similar chemical interactions might occur if microplastics enter cells or the bloodstream. The research builds on a 2024 Columbia study that identified an average of approximately 240,000 plastic particles in a liter of bottled water, most of them nanoplastics, substantially exceeding earlier estimates. Other observational studies have reported associations between microplastic exposure and cardiovascular, neurological and other health conditions, although such findings do not independently establish causation. The newly identified chemical mechanism provides biological plausibility for potential harm but does not determine how much exposure would be required to produce disease in humans. Researchers suggest that understanding the surface chemistry of plastics could help manufacturers develop materials that generate fewer reactive compounds. The work also supports further investigation into microplastic exposure from bottled water, plastic manufacturing, synthetic textiles and food packaging, while emphasizing that the magnitude of actual human health risks remains to be established through additional research.

“Forever chemicals” pollute more than 80% of tested US waterways A new nationwide analysis found per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS or forever chemicals, in 83 percent of the 1,602 American lakes, rivers and streams included in monitoring data collected between 2022 and 2024. Published October 14, 2026, by Environment America Research & Policy Center, the report draws on federal, state and nonprofit testing records and identifies more than 114 different PFAS compounds across the sampled waterways. These synthetic chemicals have been used in industrial processes, firefighting foams, water-resistant coatings and numerous consumer products, and many persist in the environment because they resist natural breakdown. Certain PFAS exposures have been associated with increased risks of specific cancers, elevated cholesterol, liver damage, thyroid disorders, reproductive problems and reduced immune responses. The report identifies extensive contamination in major waterways, including the Mississippi River and Lake Ontario. PFAS were detected at all 39 monitored locations along the Mississippi River in Minnesota and Wisconsin and at every sampled location in and around Lake Ontario. One of the highest reported concentrations occurred in Brunswick, Maine, near an executive airport where a 2024 firefighting foam spill contaminated surrounding water. State testing detected approximately 1,040,000 parts per trillion of PFOS in a nearby retention pond, compared with the Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking water limit of four parts per trillion for that compound. The comparison illustrates the magnitude of contamination but does not mean the retention pond was a drinking water source. John Rumpler, the report’s co-author, emphasized that PFAS contamination of surface water creates risks extending beyond municipal drinking water systems because the chemicals can accumulate in fish and wildlife. Tony Spaniola of the Great Lakes PFAS Action Network described the findings as evidence of a much larger contamination problem, recalling decades of pollution associated with military firefighting foam use near the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda, Michigan. The report also examines changes in federal regulation. In May 2026, the Trump administration proposed rescinding drinking water limits for four PFAS compounds, including GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS, while retaining limits for PFOA and PFOS. Administration officials cited procedural concerns involving the earlier rulemaking process, while environmental advocates warned that weakening standards could increase exposure. The report’s authors argue that drinking water treatment alone cannot adequately address contamination already present throughout aquatic ecosystems. They recommend stronger industrial discharge controls, restrictions on PFAS-contaminated sewage sludge applied to farmland and policies designed to prevent additional releases. Because monitoring locations were not randomly selected, the 83 percent detection rate should not be interpreted as proof that precisely 83 percent of all American waterways contain PFAS. Nevertheless, the findings document widespread contamination among tested sites and reinforce concerns about persistent chemical pollution affecting drinking water sources, fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.

Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!

The post Ultra-processed Food Industry Ties, Natalie Nicole, Dulsa Life, FDA Pharma Conflicts, Natural Health Product Access, Soda Industry Influence, Ostrya Virginica, 3D Printed Salmon, Baby Food Heavy Metals, Pesticide Safety Rights, Microplastics Health Risks, Forever Chemical Pollution, and MORE! appeared first on The Robert Scott Bell Show.

The post Ornithogalum umbellatum appeared first on The Robert Scott Bell Show.

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

New Evidence Raises Questions About Whether Military’s COVID Vaccine Mandate Was Legal Testimony emerging from a federal defamation lawsuit has renewed questions about whether the U.S. military lawfully implemented its 2021 COVID-19 vaccination mandate, particularly regarding the distinction between vaccines authorized for emergency use and those receiving full FDA approval. The lawsuit was filed in May 2025 by Dr. Terry Adirim, a former acting assistant secretary of defense for Health Affairs, against attorney and retired Army Special Forces officer Ivan Raiklin, along with the CIA and its director. The dispute originated from remarks Raiklin made during an October 2024 podcast interview accusing Adirim of helping implement an unlawful military vaccination policy. At issue is a September 14, 2021, memorandum signed by Adirim stating that Pfizer-BioNTech’s emergency-use-authorized vaccine was interchangeable with the fully licensed Comirnaty product and could be administered to service members when Comirnaty was unavailable. Although the FDA considered the products medically interchangeable, its authorization documents identified them as legally distinct, a distinction that Raiklin and supporters argue was critical because federal law imposes additional requirements when emergency-use products are administered to military personnel. Former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had issued the military vaccination mandate in August 2021, shortly after Comirnaty received FDA approval. During a recent deposition, Adirim acknowledged authoring the memorandum and recognizing the legal distinction between the products. Raiklin’s supporters also contend that she relied on FDA assessments rather than independently evaluating vaccine safety and had been informed about myocarditis cases among young male service members. Most of Adirim’s original claims were dismissed in February 2026, but her defamation allegations against Raiklin remain pending, with a summary judgment hearing scheduled for October 30. The article reports that approximately 8,500 service members were separated for refusing vaccination, while others experienced career restrictions or left voluntarily. It also describes testimony from Army physician Dr. Theresa Long, who is investigating whether vaccination contributed to more than 2,500 military deaths and has examined approximately 55,000 adverse-event reports. Those investigations and reports do not establish that the vaccines caused the deaths or reported medical conditions. The Department of Defense previously characterized the mandate as unlawful in its implementation, although the pending defamation case has not produced a final judicial determination resolving every legal question surrounding the policy. The dispute highlights the importance of distinguishing medical equivalence from regulatory authorization, particularly when military personnel face disciplinary consequences for refusing medical interventions.

Drug company gifts, meals, and payments to doctors lead to worse prescribing, review of 93 studies finds A systematic review of 93 studies published October 9, 2026, in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews found that pharmaceutical industry gifts, meals, payments and promotional activities are associated with physicians prescribing more medications, selecting less appropriate treatments and increasing prescription costs. The international research team examined studies involving millions of physicians across different specialties and clinical settings, including cancer, diabetes, asthma, depression, osteoporosis and pain management. Eighty-two studies originated in the United States, while eleven were conducted in the United Kingdom and Europe. Researchers evaluated several forms of pharmaceutical marketing, including visits from sales representatives, sponsored educational programs, consulting fees, speaking payments, free meals, gifts and drug samples. They found particularly consistent evidence that physicians receiving gifts or payments were more likely to prescribe medications that were unnecessary, less clinically appropriate or more expensive than available alternatives. The researchers reported high-certainty evidence linking gifts and payments to poorer prescribing appropriateness, while also finding evidence of increased prescribing volume and costs. Lead author Dr. Barbara Mintzes of the University of Sydney emphasized that even inexpensive meals can influence prescribing behavior despite physicians frequently believing that small gifts cannot affect their professional judgment. One study associated each additional pharmaceutical-sponsored meal with a 9.3 percent increase in opioid prescriptions during the following year. Other research linked industry payments to higher opioid doses and increased use of particular medications that offered limited clinical value. The review also found that promotional advertising and industry-sponsored education were associated with less appropriate prescribing and higher costs. Conversely, hospitals and medical schools implementing conflict-of-interest restrictions generally experienced improvements in prescribing practices, with some evidence of fewer prescriptions. Policies limiting sales representative access, gifts and pharmaceutical-sponsored educational activities appeared particularly relevant. The researchers noted that most included studies were observational, making it difficult to establish causation in every individual case, although the consistency of findings across different settings strengthened concerns about industry influence. In 2025, pharmaceutical and medical device companies reported approximately $2.6 billion in non-research payments to American physicians, including consulting fees, speaking arrangements, travel and meals. The investigation also references growing promotional activity surrounding GLP-1 weight-loss medications and earlier research linking pharmaceutical marketing to increased opioid prescribing. Researchers argue that industry-funded promotional information often emphasizes benefits while minimizing risks, potentially influencing treatment decisions in ways that do not serve patients’ best interests. They recommend stronger institutional conflict-of-interest policies, restrictions on gifts and payments, and greater independence from pharmaceutical promotion throughout medical education and clinical practice. The findings suggest that protecting prescribing decisions from commercial influence could improve treatment appropriateness and reduce unnecessary healthcare expenditures.

How a Flawed Covid Study Tried—and Failed—to Discredit the Amish Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson describes a multiyear effort to challenge a 2021 scientific study examining excess mortality among Amish and Mennonite communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that its methodology and presentation created misleading impressions about the consequences of rejecting public health restrictions. The study, titled Closed but Not Protected: Excess Deaths Among the Amish and Mennonites During the COVID-19 Pandemic, was published in the Journal of Religion and Health on June 11, 2021. Attkisson had previously reported on the Amish community in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where many residents did not follow mainstream recommendations involving masking, social distancing, testing or COVID-19 vaccination. She interpreted the community’s experience as evidence that avoiding those measures had not produced the severe outcomes predicted by some public health officials. After examining the published study, Attkisson identified three principal concerns. First, researchers combined Amish and Mennonite mortality data despite differences in religious practices and adherence to public health recommendations. Second, the analysis did not adequately represent Lancaster County, which contains one of the country’s largest Amish populations and was central to her original reporting. Third, she argued that the study’s framing suggested unusually severe mortality even though its original abstract stated that Amish and Mennonite excess death rates followed patterns similar to national trends. The researchers relied on obituary records published in The Budget, a newspaper serving Amish and Mennonite communities, covering the years 2015 through 2020. Attkisson questioned whether differences in obituary reporting between states could distort comparisons and whether the data supported conclusions about distinct religious populations. She sought additional information through correspondence with researchers, Freedom of Information Act requests to West Virginia University and the National Science Foundation, and communications with the journal’s publisher. According to the article, obtaining underlying records and explanations proved difficult, prompting broader criticism of transparency in publicly funded research. In August 2024, the publisher acknowledged that several elements of the study required clarification and issued corrections to the abstract, tables and figure descriptions. One significant revision changed language comparing excess death rates with national trends to language comparing the timing of mortality increases and declines with broader COVID-19 waves. The corrections also clarified the population represented in tables and identified the obituary data source. Attkisson maintains that these revisions did not adequately resolve the study’s underlying methodological limitations or its potentially misleading title. However, corrections to presentation and labeling do not independently establish that the original findings were fraudulent or that avoiding vaccination and other public health measures produced equivalent health outcomes. The article ultimately raises questions about the interpretation of observational mortality research, the challenges of studying culturally distinct populations and the importance of accessible underlying data for independent scientific scrutiny.

Medicare for All Would Bring Major Tax Hikes A commentary by Isabelle Marchese of Americans for Tax Reform argues that proposals to establish a national Medicare for All healthcare system would require substantial federal tax increases affecting middle-income households, employers, small businesses and high-income taxpayers. Published by RealClearHealth on October 14, 2026, the article examines the financial implications of replacing much of America’s private health insurance system with government-funded coverage, particularly as several Democratic candidates and organizations advocate expanded public healthcare programs ahead of the midterm elections. Marchese identifies candidates including Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Troy Jackson in Maine, Josh Turek in Iowa, Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, Sherrod Brown in Ohio and James Talarico in Texas as supporters of various government healthcare proposals. The commentary challenges claims that Medicare for All could be financed primarily through taxes on wealthy Americans, pointing to financing options previously outlined by Senator Bernie Sanders. These include a 4 percent income-based household payroll tax, with an exemption for the first $29,000 in household earnings, and a 7.5 percent employer payroll tax. The author estimates that these provisions could generate approximately $3.5 trillion and $3.9 trillion, respectively, over ten years. Additional proposals discussed include eliminating certain employer-sponsored health insurance tax advantages, restricting health savings accounts, increasing estate taxes, establishing a wealth tax on assets exceeding $21 million, taxing financial institutions and broadening self-employment taxation. Marchese cites an estimated $13.4 trillion in proposed tax increases over a decade and a White House Council of Economic Advisers projection placing the ten-year cost of Medicare for All at approximately $47.41 trillion. These figures reflect particular assumptions and financing proposals rather than a single enacted plan, and they do not account in the same way for the private insurance premiums, deductibles and other healthcare expenditures that could be reduced or eliminated under a single-payer system. The article also argues that government-funded healthcare could increase waiting times, reduce patient choice and limit medical innovation, referencing healthcare access statistics from Canada and the United Kingdom. It highlights Vermont’s abandoned single-payer initiative, which was discontinued in 2014 after officials concluded that the necessary tax increases would be financially and politically difficult to implement. Supporters of Medicare for All counter that universal coverage could simplify administration, reduce some insurance-related expenses and improve access for uninsured or underinsured patients, although the size of potential savings remains disputed. The commentary reflects the tax-focused perspective of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization that opposes tax increases as a matter of principle. The central policy question is how a national healthcare system would redistribute costs among taxes, employers, households and government budgets, and whether those changes would produce better overall affordability and access.

Hour 2

They Got the COVID Vaccine. When They Were Injured, Doctors, Military and Health Agencies Blew Them Off Several individuals who experienced serious physical and psychological health problems following COVID-19 vaccination say their suffering was compounded by physicians, military healthcare providers and federal health agencies that failed to adequately investigate their conditions or respond to their requests for assistance. In an October 14, 2026, investigation, Children’s Health Defense reporter Michael Nevradakis interviewed patients and family members who described debilitating symptoms, lost careers, strained relationships, depression and suicidal thoughts. British cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra reported developing severe depression within weeks of receiving Pfizer-BioNTech vaccinations in 2020 and 2021, requiring psychiatric treatment and psychotherapy. Brenda Van Ackeren described how her husband, Dan, developed severe pain, vomiting, neurological dysfunction and multiple diagnosed conditions after vaccination. She said physicians repeatedly dismissed his symptoms before he was diagnosed with multiple system atrophy, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, dysautonomia and other disorders. His deteriorating health left him largely bedridden, and he died by suicide in July 2026. Former surgical center administrator Angelia Desselle reported losing the use of her legs shortly after vaccination and subsequently receiving diagnoses including lupus, stiff person syndrome and dysautonomia. She described losing her employment, becoming dependent on family assistance and experiencing a suicidal crisis interrupted by her husband. Former Army information technology specialist Lori Green reported tinnitus, migraines, dizziness and autonomic nervous system problems following vaccination. She said military physicians failed to provide clear answers or accept responsibility for investigating her condition, contributing to profound emotional distress and concerns about her future. Former endurance athlete Michael Tokar described developing neurological symptoms and eventually receiving a multiple sclerosis diagnosis after Johnson & Johnson vaccination, while surgical technician Dedra Long reported seizures, memory impairment and significant psychological difficulties following Pfizer vaccination. Several interviewees said they submitted adverse-event reports through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-safe monitoring system or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System but received little meaningful follow-up. The article references a separate analysis identifying more than 300 V-safe reports involving severe psychiatric symptoms, including reported suicide attempts and deaths. Such surveillance reports identify suspected adverse events but cannot independently establish that vaccination caused the reported conditions, psychiatric disorders or deaths. The investigation also distinguishes between psychological symptoms that patients attribute directly to vaccination and emotional distress arising from chronic illness, disability and perceived medical dismissal. Psychotherapist Joseph Sansone argued that patients who believe their concerns have been disregarded may experience additional feelings of betrayal and isolation. Interviewees welcomed the National Institutes of Health’s recently announced vaccine injury research and treatment clinic but emphasized that meaningful improvements will require accessible clinical care, transparent investigations, reliable adverse-event follow-up and greater attention to the psychological consequences of prolonged illness. The central concern is whether existing healthcare and vaccine safety monitoring systems adequately support patients experiencing serious symptoms after vaccination, regardless of whether a causal connection can ultimately be established.

Tell Congress: Put Public Health First — Fund Wireless Radiation Research Now Children’s Health Defense is calling on Congress to provide additional federal funding for research into the potential health effects of wireless radiation and to place greater responsibility for evaluating those effects with federal public health agencies rather than telecommunications regulators. Published September 29, 2026, the advocacy alert follows the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ announcement of a review examining potential health effects associated with radiofrequency radiation, gaps in existing scientific research and opportunities for better coordination among federal agencies. Radiofrequency radiation is a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy used by cellular phones, Wi-Fi networks, wireless communication systems and other electronic technologies. Unlike ionizing radiation, it does not carry sufficient energy to directly ionize atoms, although questions remain about whether particular exposure conditions could produce biological effects beyond established heating mechanisms. Children’s Health Defense argues that the HHS review presents an opportunity to strengthen scientific oversight but maintains that the department needs sufficient financial resources and institutional authority to conduct meaningful investigations. The organization identifies two principal requests for lawmakers: authorize or appropriate funding for HHS to conduct or commission studies addressing unresolved scientific questions, and ensure that HHS and its health agencies take the lead in evaluating potential human health consequences of wireless radiation. The alert distinguishes the responsibilities of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates telecommunications and wireless technologies, from those of HHS, which possesses medical, epidemiological and public health expertise. Children’s Health Defense maintains that decisions about health risks should be informed primarily by agencies equipped to evaluate biological and clinical evidence. The appeal forms part of a broader advocacy effort that includes public participation in federal reviews of wireless radiation safety. Although some laboratory and animal studies have raised questions about possible biological effects, the extent to which everyday wireless exposures contribute to specific human diseases remains scientifically debated. The alert does not present new experimental findings, identify a specific congressional funding amount or establish that wireless technology causes particular illnesses. Instead, it encourages constituents to contact their representatives and senators to support additional research and clearer federal oversight. Its central argument is that uncertainty about potential health effects warrants further independent investigation and that public health agencies should have a leading role in interpreting the evidence used to inform national wireless radiation policy.

Tell HHS that wireless radiation causes harm. Speak up before 10/21. Children’s Health Defense is encouraging individuals, families, healthcare professionals, researchers and advocacy organizations to submit public comments to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concerning the potential health and environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies. The campaign follows an HHS request for information that opened September 21, 2026, and remains available for public submissions through October 21, 2026. The department is seeking perspectives on electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation and wireless exposure, including possible adverse health effects, scientific uncertainties and areas requiring further investigation. Children’s Health Defense argues that questions involving wireless radiation have historically been addressed primarily by the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates telecommunications infrastructure and radio spectrum, rather than federal agencies specializing in medicine, biology, epidemiology and public health. The organization views the HHS inquiry as an opportunity to expand federal health agency involvement in evaluating these exposures. Its campaign specifically encourages people concerned about cellular towers near schools, playgrounds and residential neighborhoods to describe their experiences and explain why they believe additional federal investigation is necessary. Individuals who attribute symptoms or other health problems to wireless exposure are invited to document the suspected source, duration of exposure, symptoms experienced, when those symptoms began, whether reducing exposure appeared to improve their condition and how the experience affected their daily lives. The organization also welcomes comments from people who have not personally experienced suspected health effects but support additional research or wish to express concerns about exposure levels and potentially vulnerable populations. Children’s Health Defense provides suggested comment language emphasizing independent scientific evaluation, consideration of patient experiences, identification of research gaps and particular attention to children. Participants are instructed to submit personalized comments through the federal Regulations.gov website, identify themselves as individuals, provide their names and complete the required verification process. Longer submissions exceeding 5,000 characters may be uploaded as supporting documents. The campaign is an advocacy effort rather than a scientific study, and personal reports of symptoms following wireless exposure do not independently establish causation. Radiofrequency radiation is non-ionizing, and the health implications of exposure depend on factors including frequency, intensity and duration. While established exposure limits address recognized effects such as tissue heating, researchers continue to investigate questions about other possible biological effects. The initiative seeks to bring public experiences and scientific concerns into the federal review process before the October 21 deadline, with the broader objective of influencing future research priorities and public health oversight of wireless technologies.

Special Guest: Stephanie Locricchio

Stephanie Locricchio is the Senior Advocacy Manager at Children’s Health Defense, where she empowers families to use their voices, hold powerful industries accountable, and make informed decisions about their children’s health. A fierce defender of parental rights, she works to ensure that parents and grandparents remain at the center of all choices affecting their families.

As the Founder of the Wellness Warriors Revolution, Stephanie brings her background as a certified health coach and yoga instructor into her advocacy work. She blends this dynamic, inspiring energy with a deep commitment to mindfulness, self-care, and cultivating healthy habits that strengthen and support the entire family. Through her leadership, she equips communities with the confidence, clarity, and tools to protect their health, their rights, and their future.

Welcome back to another “Homeopathic Hits” episode on The Robert Scott Bell Show!

Today’s Homeopathic Hit is Ornithogalum umbellatum, commonly known as Star of Bethlehem.

Boericke emphasizes severe gastric distress focused around the pylorus, painful contraction, duodenal distention, offensive gas, retching, loss of appetite, and exhaustion. His historical account also mentions chronic gastric and abdominal indurations.

Download the  Information Sheet

Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!

The post Jonathan Emord, Military Vax Mandate Legality, Pharma Payments Influence, Amish COVID Study Failure, Medicare Tax Hikes, Vaccine Injuries Ignored, Stephanie Locricchio, Health Freedom, Ornithogalum Umbellatum and MORE! appeared first on The Robert Scott Bell Show.

The post Opuntia Ficus appeared first on The Robert Scott Bell Show.

Wednesday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:

Hour 1

COVID Vaccines Triggered Psychiatric Disorders, Including Suicides Thousands of individuals reported psychiatric symptoms, worsening mental health conditions, and suicidal thoughts following COVID-19 vaccination, according to an analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-safe reporting system. Children’s Health Defense examined records released through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Informed Consent Action Network, encompassing more than 7.5 million responses from nearly 3.5 million participants. Researchers identified at least 300 reports referencing suicide, including two reported deaths and at least three attempted suicides. Separately, vaccine injury advocacy organization React19 identified 344 participants expressing suicidal statements or death wishes and 8,193 appeals for assistance submitted by 1,468 individuals. Reports described severe depression, anxiety, insomnia, mania, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and psychiatric hospitalizations, including cases involving individuals with no previous history of mental illness. Others described worsening preexisting psychiatric conditions or emotional distress associated with persistent physical symptoms following vaccination. Psychotherapist Joseph Sansone suggested that chronic pain, disability, and feelings of abandonment could contribute to psychological suffering among individuals reporting vaccine injuries. The article also references a 2022 review of psychiatric case reports, a South Korean population study identifying associations with several mental health diagnoses, and additional research documenting sleep disturbances and anxiety following vaccination. Naomi Wolf raised questions about possible neurological and reproductive effects of vaccine ingredients, calling for additional investigation. The National Institutes of Health recently established a clinic dedicated to studying and treating reported vaccine injuries. Although these accounts identify serious concerns warranting investigation, spontaneous reports and observational associations do not independently establish that vaccination caused the psychiatric conditions or suicides. The findings highlight questions about adverse-event surveillance, follow-up care, and the need for rigorous investigation of reported psychological symptoms.

Psoriasis Is a Message, Not an Incurable Condition Psoriasis may reflect underlying disturbances involving intestinal health, immune regulation, metabolism, environmental exposures, and chronic inflammation rather than being exclusively a lifelong skin condition requiring symptom suppression. Sayer Ji examines 665 research abstracts indexed by GreenMedInfo, identifying dietary triggers, intestinal permeability, altered gut microbiota, excess body weight, smoking, alcohol consumption, medications, and psychological stress as potential contributors to psoriasis development or worsening symptoms. Particular attention is given to wheat proteins and gluten sensitivity, with research indicating that selected psoriasis patients who test positive for antigliadin antibodies may experience improvements after eliminating gluten. A randomized clinical trial involving 90 adults found that 66.7% receiving probiotics alongside conventional treatment achieved a 75% reduction in psoriasis severity, compared with 41.9% receiving placebo. Weight management also receives substantial attention, with clinical studies showing that dietary changes and exercise can improve symptoms among overweight patients. Ji highlights ultraviolet B exposure, vitamin D, curcumin, indigo naturalis, aloe vera, omega-3 fatty acids, and mindfulness practices as additional approaches supported by varying levels of evidence. One trial involving 42 patients with treatment-resistant psoriasis found that topical indigo naturalis produced substantial improvement in treated lesions. The article acknowledges that conventional biologic medications can provide significant relief, particularly in severe cases, while questioning whether controlling inflammatory pathways adequately addresses individual triggers. Some natural interventions have encouraging human clinical data, whereas others remain supported primarily by laboratory research or small studies. The central argument favors identifying modifiable contributors, improving metabolic and intestinal health, and combining individualized lifestyle interventions with appropriate medical care rather than assuming psoriasis symptoms are entirely beyond improvement.

BREAKING: 153 Nations Adopt UN Pandemic Declaration to Push FAST-TRACKED Vaccines Within 100 Days and Crack Down on “Vaccine Hesitancy” The United Nations General Assembly adopted a new pandemic preparedness declaration on October 12, 2026, with 153 countries voting in favor, three opposing, and two abstaining, according to epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher. The United States, Israel, and Argentina voted against the nine-page document, which outlines international priorities for preventing, detecting, and responding to future infectious disease emergencies. A central provision promotes expanding access to vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostic technologies within the first 100 days of a pandemic threat, an approach intended to accelerate emergency medical responses. Paragraph 57 calls for addressing vaccine hesitancy and health-related misinformation and disinformation, raising concerns among critics about how governments might distinguish deliberate falsehoods from legitimate scientific disagreement. The declaration also supports coordinated government and societal responses, expanded disease surveillance, stronger laboratory networks, digital health infrastructure, and international sharing of pathogen materials and genetic sequences. Financial provisions identify an estimated $15 billion annual preparedness funding gap and encourage additional international investment, public-private partnerships, and support for the World Health Organization. Hulscher argues that these initiatives could create conditions for renewed censorship, restrictions on medical autonomy, and policies resembling controversial COVID-19 emergency measures. He particularly questions whether accelerated vaccine development would allow adequate consideration of safety and long-term consequences. Importantly, the declaration is nonbinding and does not itself establish compulsory vaccination, authorize censorship, impose lockdowns, or grant additional enforcement authority to the WHO. Its significance lies in establishing international policy objectives that participating governments may subsequently pursue through domestic legislation, institutional agreements, and public health programs, renewing debate over emergency preparedness, informed consent, privacy, and scientific freedom.

Americans trust science more than peers around the world, survey shows Americans express substantially greater confidence in science than the global average, despite pronounced divisions involving religion, education, geography, and vaccination attitudes, according to findings from the Wellcome Global Monitor. The survey, conducted through the Gallup World Poll across approximately 140 countries and involving more than 140,000 adults, found that 52% of Americans reported having considerable trust in science, compared with 26% worldwide. Additionally, 45% of Americans said they would immediately accept a vaccine recommended by a healthcare professional, compared with 28% of Germans. Between 2018 and 2025, the proportion of Americans believing science benefits most people increased from 48% to 57%, while the corresponding global figure declined from 42% to 37%. However, these favorable national averages conceal substantial domestic differences. Among Americans with four-year college degrees, 71% believed science benefits society, compared with 47% of those without degrees. The gap between religious and nonreligious Americans reached 24 percentage points, substantially exceeding the five-point average across other high-income countries. Urban and rural Americans were separated by 19 percentage points, compared with only three points internationally. Researchers found that growing polarization largely reflected increasing enthusiasm among highly educated and secular Americans rather than widespread declining confidence among traditionally skeptical populations. The survey also revealed that only 40% of Americans expressed considerable confidence in hospitals and healthcare clinics. Experts interviewed by STAT emphasized that confidence in scientific institutions depends partly on personal experiences, access to healthcare, and effective communication. Rather than demanding unquestioning acceptance, researchers and public health professionals were encouraged to engage respectfully with skepticism, explain practical benefits, and address the concerns of communities that feel excluded from scientific progress.

Welcome back to another “Homeopathic Hits” episode on The Robert Scott Bell Show!

Today’s Homeopathic Hit is Opuntia ficus, commonly known as Prickly Pear.

Boericke highlights this remedy for diarrhoea with nausea, a sick feeling in the lower third of the abdomen, and a sensation as if the bowels had settled down into the lower abdomen.

Download the  Information Sheet

Hour 2

FDA may allow some toxic chemicals to be added to food without safety review. Experts are alarmed The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is proposing to expand an existing regulatory exemption that could allow certain chemical substances to be added directly to food without undergoing the agency’s standard premarket safety review, prompting concerns among toxicologists and public health advocates about potential risks to consumers. According to an October 10, 2026, investigation by The Guardian, the proposed change would broaden the FDA’s Threshold of Regulation (TOR) exemption, which currently applies primarily to substances used in food-contact materials, including packaging and processing equipment. Under the existing framework, qualifying substances may receive an exemption when their estimated dietary concentration falls below 0.5 parts per billion and they are not considered carcinogenic. The proposed expansion would extend this approach to chemicals intentionally incorporated into food as flavorings, preservatives, emulsifiers, stabilizers, enzymes, processing aids and other ingredients commonly used in industrial food manufacturing. Critics argue that the 0.5-parts-per-billion threshold does not adequately account for chemicals capable of disrupting hormones, affecting neurological development or interfering with reproductive health at extremely low concentrations. They also question whether the regulatory approach sufficiently considers cumulative exposure to multiple chemicals through food, drinking water and other environmental sources. The investigation highlights perchlorate, a chemical associated with rocket fuel and certain industrial processes, as an example of the potential weaknesses in the existing exemption system. Perchlorate can interfere with thyroid hormone production, which is particularly important for fetal and childhood brain development. Previous regulatory decisions permitted certain uses of perchlorate in food packaging, and subsequent research identified concerns about its presence in foods, including children’s cereals. Environmental health advocates argue that expanding the exemption could increase the number of substances entering the food supply without comprehensive toxicological evaluation or meaningful public disclosure. The proposal also creates a policy contradiction for Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA leadership, who have publicly emphasized improving food safety and closing the separate Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) loophole, which allows manufacturers to determine that certain ingredients are safe without obtaining advance FDA approval. Critics contend that narrowing one regulatory pathway while expanding another could undermine the administration’s stated food safety objectives. The food industry could benefit from reduced regulatory costs and faster ingredient approvals, while consumers might have limited ability to identify exempted substances because ingredient labeling and public disclosure requirements do not necessarily reveal the underlying regulatory review process. Importantly, the proposal has not been finalized, and eligibility for an exemption does not by itself establish that every qualifying substance is harmful. The central concern is whether a regulatory system relying heavily on low estimated exposure levels and cancer-based screening can adequately protect consumers from other forms of toxicity, particularly during pregnancy and childhood.

Special Guest: Shannon Kroner

Dr. Shannon Kroner has a passion for writing children’s books that emphasize truth and freedom. She has a doctorate in clinical psychology, a master’s in special education, and a bachelor’s in English literature. Dr. Kroner has dedicated much of her career to assisting children with disabilities in a therapeutic capacity. She has also taught high school biology and college humanities courses. As a committed homeschool mom, the executive director of FOR-US, and the author of the award-winning, bestselling children’s book, I’m Unvaccinated and That’s OK!, Dr. Kroner continues to inspire and educate people of all ages.

Diet soda drinkers lost just as much weight as water drinkers, study finds Adults who consumed artificially sweetened soft drinks lost approximately the same amount of weight as those who drank water during a two-year randomized clinical trial conducted by researchers at the University of Liverpool in England. The study, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, followed 493 adults with overweight or obesity to determine whether beverages containing nonnutritive sweeteners interfere with weight loss or long-term weight maintenance. Participants were randomly assigned to consume either water or commercially available diet beverages containing sweeteners such as aspartame, acesulfame potassium and sucralose. Both groups participated in a structured weight-management program that included dietary counseling and behavioral support during the first year, followed by an optional second year without coaching. Among the 220 participants who completed the full two-year study, those assigned to diet beverages lost an average of approximately 10.6 pounds, compared with 8.2 pounds among water drinkers. The difference was not statistically significant, indicating that researchers could not reliably conclude that either beverage produced greater weight loss. Both groups experienced reductions in waist circumference, improvements in body composition and lower overall sugar consumption. Researchers also examined appetite, blood glucose, cholesterol and blood pressure, finding no major clinically meaningful differences between the groups. Professor Joanne Harrold, who led the investigation, said the findings challenge concerns that artificial sweeteners necessarily increase appetite or undermine weight-management efforts. However, the study has important limitations. Fewer than half of the original participants completed the entire two-year period, and the results reflect adults participating in a structured weight-loss program rather than the general population. The research was funded by the American Beverage Association, although investigators stated that the sponsor did not control the research or analysis. The findings also do not establish that artificially sweetened beverages are equivalent to water in every aspect of health. The trial primarily evaluated weight management and selected metabolic measurements, not long-term outcomes such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, neurological health or the effects of lifelong artificial sweetener consumption. Previous observational research has raised concerns about associations between artificial sweeteners and certain health conditions, but those studies cannot necessarily establish causation because people already experiencing weight or metabolic problems may be more likely to choose diet drinks. The World Health Organization has advised against relying on non-sugar sweeteners for long-term weight control, making the randomized findings relevant to an ongoing scientific debate. The study suggests that replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with diet alternatives may be compatible with successful weight management, while leaving broader questions about artificial sweetener safety and long-term health effects unresolved.

Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!

The post COVID Jab Psychiatric Risks, Psoriasis Is A Message, UN Pandemic Declaration, Science Trust In America, Opuntia Ficus, FDA Toxic Chemical Approval, Dr. Shannon Kroner, Making America Healthy Again, Diet Soda Weight Loss and MORE! appeared first on The Robert Scott Bell Show.

The post Operculina Turpethum appeared first on The Robert Scott Bell Show.

Tuesday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:

Hour 1

The COVID Reckoning That Never Came Financial analyst and Phinance Technologies co-founder Edward Dowd argues that significant questions surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine safety surveillance, government transparency and institutional accountability remain unresolved despite new congressional investigations and the release of previously classified information. In his July 10, 2026, commentary, Dowd criticizes both established news organizations and the Trump administration for what he considers an inadequate response to revelations presented by Senator Ron Johnson and former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. He highlights an April 2026 Senate report titled Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals, which he says documented deficiencies in the Food and Drug Administration’s monitoring of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. Dowd alleges that federal officials failed to employ available analytical tools capable of identifying potential safety signals involving cardiac deaths, strokes, pulmonary complications and Bell’s palsy because they feared undermining public confidence in vaccination. He also references a subsequent congressional hearing examining possible associations between mRNA vaccination and cancer, interpreting the proceedings as evidence that important scientific questions have received insufficient investigation. These allegations require distinction between identifying a potential safety signal and establishing that vaccination caused a particular medical condition. Dowd further cites intelligence documents released by Gabbard concerning research funding, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and disputes over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. He interprets these materials as evidence of institutional efforts to suppress alternative explanations for the pandemic’s origins, although the article does not independently establish all of its allegations about coordinated misconduct. Comparing the COVID-19 vaccination campaign with the 1976 swine flu vaccination program, Dowd points to approximately 39,000 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System following COVID-19 vaccination. VAERS reports are not verified vaccine-caused deaths, and the reported total cannot be interpreted as a confirmed mortality count. Dowd also describes his work through Phinance Technologies’ Humanity Projects, which examined excess mortality, disability trends, workplace absences and possible economic consequences of the pandemic response. He maintains that these analyses support concerns he began raising in 2022 and 2023, although his interpretation of the data is disputed and does not by itself demonstrate vaccine causation. Beyond specific scientific and regulatory questions, the commentary focuses on the lasting erosion of public trust. Dowd argues that mandates, censorship allegations, inconsistent public messaging and the treatment of people reporting vaccine injuries fundamentally changed how many Americans view government agencies, medical institutions and the news media. He expresses particular disappointment that officials who previously promised investigations have not pursued the level of accountability he believes is warranted. His central contention is that unresolved questions and perceived institutional silence have created a lasting crisis of confidence that cannot be repaired without greater transparency, independent examination of evidence and meaningful accountability.

Dementia cases are set to double by 2050 — as doctor calls it an ‘accelerating epidemic crisis’ The number of people developing dementia worldwide each year is projected to more than double by 2050, according to an international study published in JAMA Neurology that highlights the growing burden of cognitive decline on aging populations and healthcare systems. Researchers from the University of New South Wales Sydney’s Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing analyzed data from 22 population-based studies covering 38,418 participants across 18 countries and territories. Their findings estimate that 11.4 million people developed dementia in 2023, with annual new cases projected to reach 24.7 million by 2050. The distinction between new cases and total cases is important: the study measured dementia incidence, meaning the number of people developing the condition annually, rather than prevalence, which counts everyone living with dementia at a particular time. Geriatrician Dr. Liron Sinvani, director of research and innovation at Northwell’s Institute for Healthy Aging, described the projected increase as an urgent global health challenge requiring action before healthcare systems become overwhelmed. Researchers identified substantial differences across demographic and economic groups. Women experienced approximately 10.6 new cases per 1,000 person-years compared with 8.6 among men, even after adjusting for age. People in low- and middle-income countries experienced approximately 13.6 cases per 1,000 person-years, compared with 8.3 in wealthier countries, representing a substantially higher incidence in regions that often have fewer diagnostic and treatment resources. The researchers did not determine precisely why these differences occur, although biological, educational, environmental and socioeconomic influences may contribute. Aging remains a major driver of the projected increase, with dementia affecting approximately one in nine people older than 65 and potentially approaching one in three among those older than 85. Lower educational attainment was also associated with greater dementia risk. Despite the concerning projections, experts emphasized that dementia is not necessarily an unavoidable consequence of aging. Evidence from some high-income countries suggests that age-specific dementia incidence has declined over time, potentially reflecting improvements in education, cardiovascular care and other preventive measures. Sinvani recommends addressing modifiable risk factors, including high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, smoking, physical inactivity, social isolation and air pollution. Researchers also emphasize earlier identification of cognitive impairment and stronger healthcare infrastructure, particularly in lower-income regions. The findings suggest that population aging will substantially increase the absolute number of new dementia diagnoses unless prevention, healthcare access and risk-factor management improve.

Should Pregnant Women Put Down The Phone? 20 Years Of Evidence Shows Mixed But Worrying Signals A systematic review examining two decades of research into mobile phone use during pregnancy found inconsistent evidence of potential effects on fetal development, pregnancy outcomes and newborn health, with some studies reporting concerning associations while larger investigations found little or no measurable risk. Researchers from Columbia University, Cornell University and Johns Hopkins University reviewed 20 studies published through February 2026, including 16 observational investigations and four small experimental studies. The review, published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, was led by Columbia epidemiologist Dr. Ka Kahe. Researchers initially identified hundreds of publications before selecting studies that directly measured maternal phone use and examined fetal or newborn outcomes. Study populations ranged from 40 participants to more than 100,000 births, with research conducted primarily in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Three studies associated higher phone use with shorter pregnancies or increased risk of premature birth, including an international analysis involving 55,507 mothers. However, three other investigations, including a Norwegian study covering 100,231 births, found no comparable relationship. Two Iranian studies reported associations between longer phone calls and miscarriage, while smaller experiments in Egypt and India observed temporary increases in fetal heart rate after brief mobile phone exposure. A Turkish experiment found no such effect. Other investigations identified possible associations with reduced birth weight, altered infant motor development, oxidative stress in umbilical cord blood and placental tissue, and congenital heart abnormalities. A Chinese study involving 2,339 women associated more than five hours of daily phone use around conception and early pregnancy with a higher occurrence of congenital heart disease, although similar associations were observed with other electronic devices. Larger studies generally did not reproduce many of these findings. The Norwegian cohort found no increased risk of birth defects, impaired fetal growth or low birth weight among mothers reporting moderate or heavy phone use. The researchers emphasized that the available evidence has substantial methodological weaknesses. Fifteen of the 16 observational studies were rated as having a serious risk of bias, while the remaining study was rated critical. Many relied on mothers recalling their phone habits months or years later, and few distinguished between voice calls, texting, internet browsing, physical inactivity or exposure from other electronic devices. The authors also noted that heavy phone use might reflect sedentary behavior rather than a direct effect of radiofrequency exposure. Because the studies varied considerably in design and measurement, their results could not be combined into a reliable overall estimate. The researchers concluded that existing evidence does not establish that mobile phones cause adverse pregnancy outcomes but supports further investigation. They suggested low-cost precautions, particularly for high-risk pregnancies, including using speakerphones or wired headsets, keeping phones away from the abdomen and enabling airplane mode when appropriate. The review underscores the need for larger, better-controlled studies using objective exposure measurements before definitive recommendations can be made.

Welcome back to another “Homeopathic Hits” episode on The Robert Scott Bell Show!

Today’s Homeopathic Hit is Operculina turpethum, also known as Nishope.

Boericke highlights this remedy in connection with plague, fevers, and diarrhoea, especially where there is delirium with restlessness, profuse watery stools, a sinking sensation, enlarged lymphatic glands, boils, and slowly suppurating abscesses.

Download the  Information Sheet

Hour 2

“Ask Your Doctor:” The Media’s Most Dangerous Tagline Drug policy researcher and author Alan Cassels argues that direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising in the United States has become a powerful influence on medical decision-making, encouraging patients to request expensive medications while potentially undermining the independence of physicians and the quality of healthcare. In his October 12, 2026, commentary for the Brownstone Institute, Cassels examines the familiar pharmaceutical advertising message encouraging consumers to ask their doctors about specific brand-name medications. He contends that these advertisements frequently rely on emotional imagery, exaggerated portrayals of medical conditions and optimistic treatment narratives while presenting potentially serious adverse effects in ways that receive less attention. The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries that broadly permit direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications, a distinction Cassels attributes to differing approaches to consumer protection and commercial speech. He cites a petition from the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen urging the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit such advertising because of concerns about misleading risk information, unnecessary prescribing, overdiagnosis, higher healthcare costs and interference with the physician-patient relationship. Cassels argues that advertising can transform medical consultations by encouraging patients to arrive with predetermined treatment preferences shaped by pharmaceutical marketing rather than individualized clinical evaluations. He also questions whether physicians can remain fully independent when drug manufacturers simultaneously market products directly to healthcare professionals through sponsored education, promotional visits and other financial incentives. He references a recent Cochrane review examining 93 studies across several countries that associated greater exposure to pharmaceutical marketing with poorer prescribing quality. Cassels further highlights the substantial advertising budgets devoted to medications such as Skyrizi, Tremfya and Rinvoq, reporting that each has received more than $350 million annually in television advertising expenditures. These drugs treat conditions including psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease, and Cassels argues that their marketing intensity reflects commercial incentives associated with patented medications rather than the prevalence of the conditions alone. As a case study, he examines Veozah, a nonhormonal medication for menopausal hot flashes manufactured by Astellas Pharma. The company promoted the medication during Super Bowl LVIII in February 2024, but the FDA subsequently issued a September 2024 safety warning concerning potentially serious liver injury and strengthened liver monitoring recommendations. Cassels presents this sequence as an example of how widespread promotional campaigns can precede the identification or communication of important safety concerns, although the timing does not establish that advertising caused patient harm. He also discusses Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s opposition to pharmaceutical advertising and acknowledges that a comprehensive ban could face constitutional challenges involving commercial speech protections. Cassels ultimately advocates separating prescription drug decisions from mass-market promotional campaigns, arguing that medications should be evaluated through independent clinical evidence, transparent risk-benefit discussions and individualized medical judgment rather than consumer advertising designed to increase sales.

Special Guests: Atiq Ahmad Bhatti and Naila Kafayit Cheema

Atiq Ahmad Bhatti RSHom, FBIH Atiq Ahmad Bhatti is a fourth-generation homeopath with 26 years of clinical experience and a family heritage in homeopathy dating back to the 1920s. Atiq combines extensive clinical practice with a passion for teaching, writing, and advancing homeopathic education. He is co-founder of Homeopathy in Practice, a lecturer at Southdowns School of Homeopathy, and co-host and producer of The Homeopathy Health Show on UK Health Radio, reaching an international audience through radio and podcast platforms.

Naila Cheema, RSHom, PGHom (Adv.) Naila Cheema is a homeopath, nutritionist, and advanced Biochemic Tissue Salts Practitioner with a deep commitment to holistic health and homeopathic education. As co-founder of Homeopathy in Practice, she plays an integral role in developing educational programmes, specialist masterclasses, and professional learning opportunities for homeopaths. She is also co-host and producer of The Homeopathy Health Show on UK Health Radio, bringing together leading practitioners and educators from around the world to explore homeopathy, health, and contemporary approaches to clinical practice.

Diet soda drinkers lost just as much weight as water drinkers, study finds Adults who consumed artificially sweetened soft drinks lost approximately the same amount of weight as those who drank water during a two-year randomized clinical trial conducted by researchers at the University of Liverpool in England. The study, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, followed 493 adults with overweight or obesity to determine whether beverages containing nonnutritive sweeteners interfere with weight loss or long-term weight maintenance. Participants were randomly assigned to consume either water or commercially available diet beverages containing sweeteners such as aspartame, acesulfame potassium and sucralose. Both groups participated in a structured weight-management program that included dietary counseling and behavioral support during the first year, followed by an optional second year without coaching. Among the 220 participants who completed the full two-year study, those assigned to diet beverages lost an average of approximately 10.6 pounds, compared with 8.2 pounds among water drinkers. The difference was not statistically significant, indicating that researchers could not reliably conclude that either beverage produced greater weight loss. Both groups experienced reductions in waist circumference, improvements in body composition and lower overall sugar consumption. Researchers also examined appetite, blood glucose, cholesterol and blood pressure, finding no major clinically meaningful differences between the groups. Professor Joanne Harrold, who led the investigation, said the findings challenge concerns that artificial sweeteners necessarily increase appetite or undermine weight-management efforts. However, the study has important limitations. Fewer than half of the original participants completed the entire two-year period, and the results reflect adults participating in a structured weight-loss program rather than the general population. The research was funded by the American Beverage Association, although investigators stated that the sponsor did not control the research or analysis. The findings also do not establish that artificially sweetened beverages are equivalent to water in every aspect of health. The trial primarily evaluated weight management and selected metabolic measurements, not long-term outcomes such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, neurological health or the effects of lifelong artificial sweetener consumption. Previous observational research has raised concerns about associations between artificial sweeteners and certain health conditions, but those studies cannot necessarily establish causation because people already experiencing weight or metabolic problems may be more likely to choose diet drinks. The World Health Organization has advised against relying on non-sugar sweeteners for long-term weight control, making the randomized findings relevant to an ongoing scientific debate. The study suggests that replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with diet alternatives may be compatible with successful weight management, while leaving broader questions about artificial sweetener safety and long-term health effects unresolved.

Questions of The Day!

Hi Robert and Super Don
On a recent show you mentioned the three minerals that should be taken to help strengthen bones and avoid osteoporosis.   They were magnesium, silica and boron.   Do you recommend taking these through supplements or with homeopathic remedies?
Thank you,
Beth

Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!

The post Missing COVID Reckoning, Dementia Epidemic Warning, Pregnancy Cellphone Exposure, Operculina Turpethum, “Ask Your Doctor”, Atiq Bhatti, Naila Cheema, Homeopathy, Integrative Healing, Diet Soda vs Water and MORE! appeared first on The Robert Scott Bell Show.

The post Oniscus Asellus appeared first on The Robert Scott Bell Show.

Monday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:

Hour 1

Florida Parents, Doctors Clash Over Plan to Drop 4 Vaccine Mandates for Schoolchildren Florida health officials held a contentious three-hour public hearing on October 8, 2026, in Lake Mary to consider eliminating four childhood vaccination requirements for attendance at public and private schools and daycare facilities. The proposed Florida Department of Health rule change would remove mandatory vaccination against hepatitis B, chickenpox (varicella), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and pneumococcal disease, allowing parents to decide whether their children receive those vaccines without affecting school eligibility. Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo emphasized that the proposal centers on parental rights and informed consent rather than determining the scientific effectiveness or safety of individual vaccines. Ladapo argued that parents should retain ultimate authority over medical decisions involving their children and subsequently called for fewer mandates and greater public engagement in healthcare decisions. The hearing featured sharply contrasting testimony from parents, physicians and public health professionals. Susan Sweden described what she believes was a serious adverse reaction experienced by her newborn son following hepatitis B vaccination, stating that he repeatedly stopped breathing during his first 24 hours and that the incident was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Such reports document suspected reactions but do not independently establish causation. Another mother, Allison Uker, praised Ladapo for prioritizing informed consent and recognizing families reporting vaccine injuries. Conversely, pediatric infectious disease specialist Dr. Brandon Chatani, vice president of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, warned that declining vaccination rates could increase disease transmission and disproportionately endanger children with cancer, compromised immune systems or other medical conditions that limit their ability to receive vaccines. The proposed administrative change would align the health department’s regulations with existing Florida statutes, which specifically require immunization against polio, diphtheria, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus and pertussis. Those seven statutory requirements would remain in effect, along with existing medical and religious exemptions. The hearing followed a broader September 2025 announcement by Ladapo and Governor Ron DeSantis seeking to eliminate all school vaccine mandates, although lawmakers did not introduce legislation accomplishing that objective during the 2026 legislative sessions. Alexandra Hill, a mother of five and volunteer with Children’s Health Defense’s Florida chapter, expressed hope that the state would eventually eliminate the remaining requirements, citing experiences involving suspected vaccine injuries within her family. The department clarified that removing a mandate would not prevent families from voluntarily obtaining the affected vaccines. The October hearing was only one stage of the administrative rulemaking process, and no final adoption date had been announced. The dispute highlights competing concerns over parental medical autonomy, protection of medically vulnerable children and the government’s authority to establish vaccination conditions for school attendance.

Special Guest James Roguski

James Roguski is a researcher, author, natural health proponent and an activist who believes that the old systems are rightfully crumbling, so we must build their replacements quickly. James uncovered documents regarding proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and was instrumental in raising awareness about them which resulted in the amendments being rejected. James is now doing everything possible to expose the WHO’s hidden agenda behind their proposed “pandemic treaty” as well as the WHO’s ongoing attempts to amend the International Health Regulations.

Defend Your Right To Natural Sunshine James Roguski is calling for federal legislation that would prohibit solar radiation modification (SRM), a form of geoengineering intended to alter the amount of solar energy reaching or leaving Earth to influence global temperatures and climate conditions. Roguski argues that deliberately blocking or reflecting sunlight could produce serious environmental, agricultural, ecological, and public-health consequences and that Americans should have a fundamental right to receive natural sunlight without intentional atmospheric interference. He points to existing federal regulations, particularly 15 CFR § 908.3, which require reporting certain weather-modification activities involving the release of gases, dust, liquids, or aerosols into the atmosphere, but do not themselves establish a comprehensive prohibition on solar radiation modification. To address what he considers a dangerous regulatory gap, Roguski has drafted the Solar Radiation Modification Prohibition and Atmospheric Transparency Act of 2027, which he hopes Congress will introduce during its 2027-2028 session. The proposed legislation would criminalize SRM deployment and prohibit activities intended to facilitate it, including operational research, planning, financing, procurement, and material support. It would apply to private companies, federal agencies, government contractors, military operations, intelligence programs, and certain activities conducted outside U.S. territory. The proposal also establishes a National Atmospheric Integrity Monitoring Network to detect potential atmospheric interventions, requires greater disclosure of historical government weather-modification records, creates an independent records review board, and provides legal protections and financial incentives for whistleblowers. Additional provisions would allow civil lawsuits, criminal prosecution, financial penalties, and government enforcement actions, while protecting scientific research focused on atmospheric monitoring and risk assessment rather than operational deployment. The legislation also calls for international agreements restricting SRM and includes provisions for emergency intervention against potentially dangerous activities. Roguski emphasizes that this is proposed legislation, not an existing federal ban, and urges supporters to review the draft, raise public awareness, contact elected representatives, and help secure congressional sponsorship. His central argument is that the potential consequences of deliberately altering Earth’s exposure to sunlight are sufficiently serious to justify preventive legislation before large-scale deployment becomes possible.

MAHA Action Backs ‘Produce is Medicine’ Bill, Introduced in the House and Senate Bipartisan legislation introduced in both chambers of Congress seeks to establish a federal healthcare pilot program that uses fresh produce, nutrition counseling and lifestyle changes to help prevent and manage chronic disease. The Accountable Produce is Medicine Act of 2026, H.R. 8355, was introduced in April by Representatives Lloyd Smucker, a Pennsylvania Republican, and Sharice Davids, a Kansas Democrat. Companion legislation, S. 5267, was introduced in August by Senators Jim Banks of Indiana and Alex Padilla of California. The legislation has received support from MAHA Action, which identifies the proposal as a priority within the Make America Healthy Again movement. Rather than creating a nationwide food assistance entitlement, the bill would establish a five-year testing model administered through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which evaluates approaches intended to improve patient outcomes and reduce Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. The Department of Health and Human Services would select at least five participating programs serving eligible patients with chronic illnesses or people living in medically underserved communities. Participants would receive personalized health risk assessments, preventive care plans, nutrition counseling, telehealth education, remote monitoring and access to nutrient-dense foods without deductibles or copayments. The legislation emphasizes fresh, frozen and minimally processed fruits and vegetables, with preferences for produce grown within 250 miles of participating programs or produced through regenerative agricultural practices. The proposal would also establish a federal definition of regenerative agriculture emphasizing soil health, water management and natural resource conservation. Participating healthcare organizations would monitor patients’ medical outcomes, allowing researchers to evaluate whether dietary interventions improve chronic disease management and reduce healthcare spending. MAHA Action argues that the legislation could expand patient choice by incorporating nutrition-based care into conventional treatment systems rather than relying exclusively on pharmaceutical interventions. The article cites the Accountable Food is Medicine Alliance, which maintains that food-based healthcare programs may improve blood glucose control, blood pressure, weight management and food security while reducing avoidable hospital visits. Penn State Health community health director Amber Coleman expressed support for clinically integrated nutrition programs, while food activist Vani Hari described personal improvements after changing her diet. The legislation has also attracted support from Texas Health Resources, the Sunflower Foundation and the National Center for Clinical and Community Impact. Both bills remain in the early legislative process, and the article acknowledges that passage during 2026 is unlikely. Their broader significance lies in proposing a measurable framework for evaluating whether access to healthier foods can become a routine component of publicly funded chronic disease care.

Teens Who Walk More Have Fewer Mental Health Problems, Study Finds Adolescents who walk more each day tend to experience fewer mental health problems one year later, according to a large observational study published in JAMA Network Open that also identified differences in brain structure associated with higher physical activity levels. Researchers led by Divyangana Rakesh of King’s College London analyzed data from 5,515 adolescents participating in the National Institutes of Health-supported Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. Participants, averaging just under 12 years old, wore Fitbit activity trackers for three weeks to objectively measure their daily steps. The group averaged approximately 9,595 steps per day, although individual activity levels varied considerably. Researchers subsequently examined mental health symptoms, academic performance and magnetic resonance imaging measurements of brain structure approximately one year later. Adolescents were divided into five activity categories, ranging from fewer than 5,000 daily steps to at least 12,000. Higher step counts were consistently associated with fewer self-reported emotional, attention and behavioral difficulties, with participants taking at least 12,000 steps showing lower symptom scores than those walking between 5,000 and 9,999 steps. Notably, the association followed a relatively steady pattern, without evidence that mental health benefits leveled off at higher step counts within the range studied. Brain imaging revealed that more active adolescents had greater cortical thickness in two regions: the paracentral area, which contributes to movement and bodily sensation, and the rostral anterior cingulate, which is involved in processing conflicting information and regulating responses. Statistical analysis suggested that differences in the paracentral region partially accounted for the association between walking and later mental health symptoms. Researchers did not find comparable relationships involving the volume of deeper brain structures, including the hippocampus. Academic performance showed a different pattern, with no consistent association between daily steps and school grades, apart from a modest difference in one activity category. Investigators adjusted their analyses for household income, parental education, neighborhood disadvantage, access to green space, body mass index and earlier mental health symptoms to reduce the influence of potential confounding factors. However, the study cannot establish that walking directly caused improvements in mental health or changes in brain structure. Adolescents experiencing fewer psychological difficulties may be more inclined to remain phyically active, and other unmeasured influences could contribute to the findings. Additional limitations include reliance on self-reported mental health and academic outcomes, the inability of step counts to capture all forms of exercise and the relatively advantaged characteristics of the study sample. The findings nevertheless suggest that everyday physical activity, including walking to school, participating in recreational activities and spending time moving outdoors, may be a practical component of efforts to support adolescent emotional well-being.

Hour 2

New York Is Fining Amish Schools Over Vaccines, So the Amish Are Asking the Supreme Court for Help Three privately operated Amish schools in New York are seeking intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court after the state imposed $118,000 in fines for allowing unvaccinated children to attend classes, creating a constitutional dispute over religious freedom and mandatory childhood vaccination. The conflict originated in 2019, when New York eliminated religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements following a major measles outbreak concentrated in Orthodox Jewish communities. Previously, families could obtain exemptions based on sincerely held religious beliefs or qualifying medical conditions. The new law preserved medical exemptions while removing religious accommodations, affecting Amish communities whose religious and cultural practices often include reluctance toward certain medical interventions. In 2022, state authorities fined three rural Amish schoolhouses that were privately funded, operated independently and attended exclusively by Amish children. The families subsequently filed Miller v. McDonald, arguing that eliminating religious exemptions while retaining medical exemptions violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. A federal district court rejected their arguments in 2024, finding the vaccination requirements facially neutral and generally applicable, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in 2025. The Supreme Court subsequently directed the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, a 2025 decision protecting certain parental religious objections to public school instruction. Attorneys representing the Amish also invoked Wisconsin v. Yoder, the landmark 1972 ruling that protected Amish parents from compulsory high school attendance requirements. However, the Second Circuit again rejected the challenge in June 2026, distinguishing vaccination requirements from laws governing educational content or religious expression. The Amish have returned to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to review the constitutional question. First Liberty Institute attorney Hiram Sasser argues that the state’s policy imposes disproportionate burdens on religious communities. Penn State Amish health researcher Cory Anderson suggests that cooperative public health outreach may be more effective than enforcement penalties, citing a 2014 Ohio measles outbreak in which Amish communities participated in vaccination and isolation efforts. Supporters of New York’s requirements emphasize preventing outbreaks and protecting children who cannot safely receive vaccines. The case raises a broader legal question about whether generally applicable public health requirements must accommodate religious objections when certain medical exemptions remain available. As of the article’s publication, the Supreme Court had not agreed to hear the appeal, and the state’s vaccination requirements remained in effect.

Nutritionally similar meals might not affect your body the same way Two meals containing nearly identical calories, carbohydrates, protein, fat, fiber and other measured nutritional characteristics can produce substantially different metabolic responses depending on their degree of processing, according to a randomized controlled crossover study published in Nature Metabolism. Researchers investigated whether ultra-processed foods affect insulin release, energy expenditure, fuel utilization and brain activity differently from minimally processed alternatives, even when conventional nutritional measurements are closely matched. The study recruited 57 healthy adults, with 32 completing both metabolic testing sessions and 52 included in brain-imaging analyses. Participants had an average age of 26 years and a mean body mass index of 22.8. During metabolic testing, volunteers consumed approximately 300-calorie ultra-processed and non-ultra-processed meals on separate days, following an overnight fast. The meals were matched for calories, macronutrients, glycemic index, energy density, available carbohydrates, fiber, sodium, water and other nutritional characteristics. Researchers monitored blood glucose, insulin concentrations, energy expenditure and carbohydrate and fat oxidation for three hours after eating. Although overall glucose exposure was similar, the non-ultra-processed meal produced a faster initial glucose rise, while glucose remained elevated somewhat longer after the ultra-processed meal. More significantly, the ultra-processed meal triggered substantially greater insulin release at several measurement points between 40 and 120 minutes. It also produced greater overall post-meal energy expenditure and a weaker shift toward carbohydrate oxidation, with relatively greater reliance on fat as fuel. Separate functional MRI testing examined participants’ brain responses to images of 14 ultra-processed and 14 non-ultra-processed foods. Differences in carbohydrate metabolism were associated with activity in brain regions involved in reward processing, learning and sensory evaluation, including the caudate and ventral striatum. However, participants did not demonstrate a significant overall difference in willingness to pay for the two food categories. Researchers suggested that industrial processing may alter food structure, nutrient availability and gut-brain signaling in ways that conventional nutrition labels do not capture. Important limitations include the small sample, short observation period and differences in ingredients and additives between the meals. The investigation did not establish that processing alone caused the observed effects or that these immediate metabolic changes lead to obesity, insulin resistance or chronic disease. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that evaluating food solely by calorie counts and macronutrient composition may overlook biologically meaningful differences in how the body responds to meals.

Vegetables are now half as nutritious than 60 years ago. Experts have worked out why Research highlighted by The Independent suggests that some commonly consumed fruits, vegetables and grains contain substantially lower concentrations of important minerals than comparable crops produced during the 1960s, raising concerns about the relationship between modern agricultural practices, soil quality and human nutrition. The report, developed by researchers at Deep Science Ventures, identifies declines ranging from approximately 20 to 50 percent in selected nutrients found in foods including wheat, apples, carrots and peas. The researchers attribute these changes to a combination of declining soil quality and decades of agricultural breeding that prioritized higher yields over nutrient density. Although modern farming has dramatically increased food production, the report argues that greater agricultural output does not necessarily translate into equivalent improvements in nutritional value. Global cereal yields per hectare have reportedly increased by approximately 215 percent since the 1960s, contributing to reductions in undernutrition, yet more than two billion people worldwide continue to experience at least one micronutrient deficiency. Researchers found that fewer than one-third of bread-wheat varieties introduced since the 1960s meet recommended zinc targets. They also suggest that declining selenium concentrations in wheat could make it more difficult for consumers to obtain adequate amounts of this mineral from ordinary diets. Selenium supports immune function and other physiological processes, while zinc contributes to immune regulation, skin health and tissue repair. Iron deficiencies can contribute to fatigue and impaired concentration, and inadequate potassium intake is associated with cardiovascular risks. The report identifies a potential additional concern involving the growing use of GLP-1 weight-loss medications, which reduce appetite and overall food consumption. Researchers estimate that the combination of declining dietary nutrient density and reduced food intake could place approximately five million working-age adults in the United Kingdom below recommended intake levels for certain essential vitamins and minerals. Deep Science Ventures researcher Will Summers argues that agricultural policy has historically measured food security primarily through calories and crop yields while giving insufficient attention to the nutritional content of harvested foods. Proposed responses include improving soil health, developing crop varieties with greater mineral concentrations and creating market incentives for nutrient-dense agricultural production. The report’s findings concern particular nutrients and crop comparisons rather than establishing that every vegetable has lost half its nutritional value. Nevertheless, the research raises important questions about whether agricultural success should be measured not only by production volume and affordability but also by the nutritional quality of the food supply.

ADHD Medications Show No Evidence of Long-Term Academic Gains in Patients on Margin of Treatment A Norwegian population-based study published in The British Journal of Psychiatry found no statistically significant evidence that medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder improves long-term academic performance among children and adolescents whose likelihood of receiving treatment depends partly on differences in prescribing practices. Researchers analyzed national registry records involving 6,255 children aged five to 15 who were diagnosed with ADHD between 2009 and 2011. The investigation examined medication prescriptions accumulated between diagnosis and completion of mandatory schooling in tenth grade, comparing treatment exposure with final grades in nine school subjects, overall grade point average and the likelihood of receiving no academic assessment. Conventional observational analysis initially suggested a small positive association between medication use and grade point average, with an estimated difference of 0.05 points. However, the researchers recognized that ordinary comparisons between medicated and unmedicated children can be distorted by factors such as family circumstances, symptom severity, educational support and differences in access to healthcare. To address these concerns, they employed an instrumental variable approach that exploited naturally occurring geographic differences in clinicians’ prescribing preferences. This method was designed to estimate treatment effects among patients considered to be on the margin of medication use, meaning children whose treatment decisions might change depending on the prescribing tendencies of their healthcare providers. Under this analysis, medication showed no statistically significant causal effect on overall grade point average, individual subject grades or the likelihood of receiving no assessment. The findings challenge the assumption that improvements in attention and classroom behavior necessarily translate into measurable long-term academic gains. However, the results do not establish that ADHD medications are ineffective for managing core symptoms or that they provide no benefit to individual patients. The analysis specifically addresses academic outcomes among marginal-treatment patients and cannot automatically be generalized to children with more severe symptoms or different treatment needs. The researchers also acknowledge statistical uncertainty and the limitations inherent in estimating causal effects from observational records rather than randomized treatment assignment. The findings are consistent with earlier Norwegian research suggesting that long-term academic benefits from ADHD medication may be small or clinically limited. The investigators recommend that clinicians and families distinguish between short-term symptom management and expectations of sustained academic improvement when considering treatment options. The broader implication is that medication decisions should be guided by individualized assessments of symptoms, functioning, potential adverse effects and patient priorities rather than an assumption that pharmacological treatment will necessarily improve grades or educational attainment.

Welcome back to another “Homeopathic Hits” episode on The Robert Scott Bell Show!

Today’s Homeopathic Hit is Oniscus asellus, commonly known as Wood-louse or Millepedes.

Boericke highlights this remedy for its distinct diuretic properties, its use in dropsical states, and asthmatic conditions associated with bronchial catarrh.

The picture also includes urinary burning, bladder and rectal tenesmus, severe colic, vomiting, and head pains with arterial pulsation.

Download the  Information Sheet

Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!

The post Florida School Vaccine Fight, James Roguski, Defend Your Right To Natural Sunshine, Produce Is Medicine, Teen Walking Mental Health, New York Attacking Amish, All Meals Aren’t Equal, Vegetables Losing Nutrition, ADHD Drug Failure, Oniscus Asellus and MORE! appeared first on The Robert Scott Bell Show.