Government and MediaHealth ConcernsQOTD from Listeners!Show NotesVaccines

Pharmacological hypocrisy, Booster resistance, Dr. Oz hit piece, IGF-1 question, AB 2098 signed into law Hour 2 ENCORE – Convenience Is An Opiate, Amy Lepore, How the Feds Have Nationalized Emergency Management, Severe common cold case and MORE!

October 3rd, 2022 3-5PM ET

Monday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:

The Hypocrisy of Modern Pharmacological Ethics One of the more shocking aspects to the war on effective covid treatments was the insolence of pharmacists and pharmacy boards to reject legally written prescriptions by properly credentialed doctors. To justify pharmacist’s radical usurpation to practice medicine from the actual medical practitioners, pharmacists claimed – comically – that medications such as Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin were “unsafe” for someone infected with covid. This despite the proven track record of both drugs seen from billions of doses over decades of use. This newfound ethos stands in stark contrast to the past decades of conventional pharmacist practice, where they freely filled prescriptions for opiates that are highly addictive and often cause severe addiction and sometimes lead to a life threatening overdose by the patient. There doesn’t seem to have ever been a publicly disseminated story about a pharmacist taking an ethical stand against filling an opioid prescription. Let’s be generous and give them the benefit of the doubt. There are plenty of reasonable bases by which this obvious departure from prior standard practice can be rationalized. It is hard for individuals to take a stand by themselves, which for Ivermectin & HCQ was not the case as practically every major medical body came out strongly opposed to its use to treat covid. Regardless of which specific drugs pharmacists regard with a wary eye, it must follow that if their conscience forecloses dispensing potentially toxic drugs, then they cannot under any circumstance fill concurrent prescriptions for multiple drugs that cannot be safely taken together. If rarely occurring speculative harms are a sufficient basis to usurp the judgement of a doctor and reject his prescription, then surely a demonstrated toxic cocktail is beyond the pale. Or so you’d think.

Two-thirds of U.S. adults do not plan on getting COVID boosters Around two-thirds of adults in the United States are not planning to get the updated COVID-19 booster shots soon, according to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), a health policy nonprofit organization. Only a third of adults polled said they either already received the updated shots or plan to get the booster as soon as possible, the poll found. About 18% said they would wait and see whether they would get the new booster shot, while 10% said they would only get it if it was required. About 12% of adults surveyed said they would definitely not get the shot, while 27% said they were not eligible because they were not fully vaccinated. About 7.6 million people received the updated shots over the first four weeks the boosters have been available, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data released on Thursday. That represents about 3.5% of the 215.5 million people in the United States aged 12 or older who are eligible to receive the shots because they have completed their primary vaccination series. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration authorized reformulated versions of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna Inc. vaccines that aim to protect against the omicron subvariants. The reformulated shots target both the original strain of the coronavirus and the omicron BA.4/BA.5 subvariants that many are catching. The latest KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor survey found that awareness of the updated boosters was relatively modest, with about half of adults saying they’ve heard “a lot” (17%) or “some” (33%) about the new shots.

As TV doctor, Mehmet Oz provided platform for questionable products and views “Does it really work? Is it safe? Is it a miracle? Or is it hype?” he asked in a 2011 episode of “The Dr. Oz Show” before introducing his audience to “human chorionic gonadotropin,” or HCG, and to a weight loss doctor who promoted it. In fact, there was little uncertain about the HCG Diet. Numerous studies conducted years before Oz’s show had shown that the fertility drug does not cause weight loss, redistribute fat or suppress hunger. Ten months later, the Food and Drug Administration warned seven companies marketing HCG products they were violating the law by making such claims, and the agency issued additional warnings to consumers in subsequent years. Nevertheless, Oz revisited the topic in 2012, providing a platform for the same weight loss doctor, who claimed that HCG worked. Now as a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, a key battleground in the fight for control of the upper chamber of Congress, Oz, a cardiothoracic surgeon, is putting his medical background and his popular TV show at the center of his campaign pitch. At a recent town hall in a Philadelphia suburb, he said his approach to medicine and politics is similar: “If you teach people on television or whatever forum you use, they actually begin to use the information and they begin to change what they do in their lives. I want to do the same thing as your senator. Empower you.”

Question of The Day!

Hi Guys,
I spoke with the people from IGF1-I told them I am 73 years young-working 40 hrs. a week-playing a competitive sport 4hrs a week-5′ 10″ tall 165 lbs.-They suggested one of the formulars-however it was the most expensive because it has the greatest amount of the product. If I purchase the least expensive formular-I am aware that it contain a smaller amount of the product-I am helping with the grandchildren consequently money can be a factor-are there any benefits to taking the lesser amount-or giving my situation-GO ALL IN OR NOTHING AT ALL.

Gov. Newsom Signs Bill to Censor CA Doctors Accused of ‘Spreading COVID Misinformation’ California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2098 by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), which will punish physicians and surgeons for “unprofessional conduct” for advocating for the potential benefits of early treatment with off-label drugs, or those who dare to ask questions about COVID vaccine safety. Assembly Bill 2098 puts unconstitutional restrictions on free speech by medical professionals. Under AB 2098, doctors will be subject to disciplinary actions by the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California if they do not adhere to the “approved COVID treatment consensus.” Who approves the “consensus,” Dr. Peter Mazolewski said last week to the Globe. The medical board? Public health officials? Neither all of the members of the Medical Board nor all of California’s public health officials are licensed medical doctors. In his signing statement, Gov. Newsom said, “To be clear, this bill does not apply to any speech outside of discussions related to Covid-19 treatment within a direct physician patient relationship,” as if it’s constitutional to limit the censorship of doctors to one medical issue. Imagine if doctors were censored over various cancer treatments or heart ailments. The Governor of the State of California is telling the state’s licensed physicians that when they are treating a Covid patient, they must remain in the lane of the consensus of the CDC or CDPH treatment protocols.


Convenience Is An Opiate Opiate: (noun) a drug that acts to block pain, induce sedation or sleep, and produce calmness or euphoria. Opiates are associated with physiological tolerance, physical and psychological dependence, and addiction upon repeated or prolonged use. I remember the days of not being able to meet up with someone because of miscommunication about where and when to meet. Once you were out of the house, you really had no way of contacting each other, sometimes leading to missed events and frustrations. The convenience of the smart phone is almost too much to resist. Almost everyone carries one. The world is more interconnected than it’s ever been. You can make calls, search the Web, take pictures, play games, watch movies, send information, email, get directions, and make purchases all through that little device that fits in your pocket. I really have no idea what “the Cloud” is, but all my pictures are stored there. Have you noticed ads pop up for items you’ve searched, or sometimes even just because you talked about something within the vicinity of a device? Google keeps track of where you drive and the buildings you enter, if your location is switched on. At some point we need to ask if the increasing convenience of technology is worth the loss of privacy and freedom. Actually, that point arrived a long time ago, but a lot of people seem to be ignoring it. Right now we think we have control over which apps we upload and whether or not we want to participate in the digital world. In discussing this issue with an engineer friend, he commented on how current technologies could easily be turned to surveillance and control tools; the structure is already largely in place.

Special Guest Amy Lepore

Amy is a small business owner and the Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Delaware. She holds a Ph.D. in Public Policy from the University of Delaware. Over the last decade she has authored multiple book chapters and articles about federal involvement in local emergency management and edited one volume, the Future of Disaster Management in the US.

How the Feds Have Nationalized Emergency Management Direct funding for personnel, and equipment, along with money to address minor inconveniences like snow removal has ingratiated FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security with local public safety personnel and local elected officials. For decades, the federal government has nurtured an unhealthy relationship with local emergency management agencies.  In return, local governments happily offer their time toiling away at grant paperwork, eagerly adopting federal programs and helping pass-through funds for the occasional condom and tattoo spree. The results of this relationship are mostly bureaucratic and innocuous.  However, in light of the increasingly authoritarian efforts connected to crises (think COVID, gun violence as a “public health” issue, and disinformation) it is important to discuss the potential downsides of heaping federal funds upon local crisis decision-makers. The federal government has authored a system of emergency management that turns grassroots preparedness and local authority on its ear.  Federal intervention at the local level now spans all hazards, from flooding, to the war on terror, and most recently, COVID. As many are now aware, permitting the federal government to devise and implement emergency response strategies is expensive, ineffective, and dangerous.  It has the effect of bolstering and growing federal influence on decisions that should be made in homes or local communities. Delaware is a leading example of this phenomenon, with homeland security and emergency management agencies being supported with more than $100 million in federal grants just as they take on a critical role in the fight to disarm Delawareans.  Is it any wonder state agencies are leaping at the chance to enforce anti-gun laws? What could be wrong with a little DHS or CDC money trickling into local governments? The answer is straightforward.

Severe common cold cases increasing among young children may be pegged to COVID-19 lockdowns As children have headed back to school over these last few weeks, doctors have noticed an increase in severe cases of the common cold among some children from two of the most common viruses known to cause the upper respiratory infection: rhinoviruses and enteroviruses. That’s according to a recent report out of Chicago — though the situation isn’t limited to that area.  These viruses typically only cause mild upper respiratory symptoms in healthy adults. However, “we’ve seen a larger number of young children and infants with respiratory illnesses than we usually [see] in the summer — and more children with severe illness require hospital and ICU admissions,” Dr. Czer Anthoney Lim, director of pediatric emergency medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in New York City, told Fox News Digital.  “What’s been interesting is that we have had kind of a potpourri of viruses,” Dr. Natalie Lambajian-Drummond of Yorkville, Ill., recently told CBS Chicago, adding that she even had to admit a child via ambulance. While it’s possible to get a cold any time of the year, most colds occur during the winter and spring, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Many respiratory viruses can cause the common cold, but rhinoviruses are the most common, the CDC said. Although there are many types of enteroviruses, most only cause mild illness, according to Cedars-Sinai’s website.

Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!

You can help get the Robert Scott Bell Show carried on your local talk stations! Just call the station and request they carry the show. Ask them to contact GCN by calling 877-996-4327 ext. 123 and asking for “John” who manages the affiliate broadcast relationships. John can get any local AM or FM radio station connected with the global feed so that they can carry the show.

What would you like to hear from The Robert Scott Bell Show in 2020? Call us at 1-866-939-BELL (2355) and let your voice be heard!

Need it faster? Want to know as soon as content is added? Want the daily show notes? Click here to subscribe to The Robert Scott Bell Show content feed! 

Listen live here 3PM-5PM EST: Talk Stream Live

Previous episodes of the Robert Scott Bell Show: SoundCloud or Natural News Archive for the older shows.

Learn the best ways to keep your family fed when the trucks have stopped, the stores shut down, and no food is available. Go to