April 21st, 2022 3-5PM ET
Friday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Scientific Consensus – A Manufactured Construct In a recent interview, famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson was challenged on his scientific views about COVID-19 and he said “I’m only interested in consensus” – words that would have Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei rolling in their graves. The appeal to “scientific consensus” is fraught with problems, just like “The science is settled” and “Trust the science” and other authoritarian tropes that have dominated the pandemic. A widely accepted theory, such as the theory of evolution, depends on a consensus being reached among the scientific community, but it must be achieved without censorship or reprisal. As Aaron Kheriaty, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, recently said: Science is an ongoing search for truth & such truth has little to do with consensus. Every major scientific advance involves challenges to a consensus. Those who defend scientific consensus rather than specific experimental findings are not defending science but partisanship. Consensus by Censorship It’s not difficult to reach a scientific consensus when you squelch dissenting voices. The origin of COVID is a classic example. Twenty-seven scientists published a letter in the Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories” that suggested the virus did not have a natural origin. Dissenting views were censored on social media and labelled “misinformation.” It’s only now that the US Department of Energy and the FBI say the virus was likely the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, that it’s possible to have these discussions openly.
Department of Homeland Security’s COVID censorship problem In 2002, Congress established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to the 9/11 attacks to centralize and consolidate homeland security efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. In the 20 years since its creation, DHS has departed from its original mission and used its expansive authorities and funding to impede on the rights of American citizens. This is not just my opinion. In November 2022, the ACLU concluded, “[t]wenty years later, it’s past time to seriously reconsider DHS. Its abusive practices aren’t just antithetical to our values — they are a waste of taxpayers’ dollars and a distraction from serious problems facing people in our country.” What should terrify every American is that the full extent of DHS’s abuse of its power against its own citizens is still largely unknown. The public is only recently learning the degree to which the Department’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was employed to surveil and censor American citizens’ social media for what it concluded to be “misinformation” and “disinformation.” What was the result? Statements about COVID-19 that are now supported by evidence were flagged as disinformation. Statements including my own, that our government once labeled as “disinformation,” such as the efficacy of masks, naturally acquired immunity, and the origins of COVID-19, are now supported by evidence. In 2021, DHS even put out a video encouraging people “to report their own family members to Facebook for ‘disinformation’ if they challenge US government narratives on Covid-19.” In reality, the most significant source of disinformation during the pandemic, with the most influence and greatest impact on people’s lives, was the U.S. government.
FDA Withdraws EUA for Original COVID Vaccines, Recommends Boosters Instead in Hope of Increasing Uptake The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday ended the Emergency Use Authorization for the original, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines and instead authorized the bivalent vaccine, which previously was available only as a booster, for all doses of the COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 months and older. The agency also said that some people — those over age 65, some immunocompromised people and unvaccinated children — are now eligible to get another COVID-19 booster four months after their last bivalent shot. Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research said the change was part of an effort to simplify the vaccination process and “help encourage future vaccination.” The FDA implemented the change after the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in January voted unanimously to recommend replacing the original Pfizer and Moderna primary series mRNA COVID-19 vaccines with the bivalent boosters, despite concerns about insufficient clinical trial data to support safety and efficacy. The FDA authorized the original vaccines in December 2020, based on clinical trial data for efficacy against the original Wuhan virus strain, although the FDA withheld much of that data from the public.
Did CDC Director Intentionally Lie to Congress? Or Is She Just That Misinformed? This week, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky provided witness testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations responsible for overseeing the funding of various federal programs related to labor, health, education and other related agencies. But serious questions have been raised about the veracity of Walensky’s testimony. Congressman Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) asked Walensky if her March 2021 public statement on MSNBC, in which she unequivocally said that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus, they do not get sick” was accurate. “At the time it was [accurate],” Walensky replied confidently. She then proceeded to explain, “We’ve had an evolution of the science and an evolution of the virus” and that “all the data at the time suggested that vaccinated people, even if they got sick, could not transmit the virus.” However, there was no such evidence at the time and it prompted criticism from scientists who said there wasn’t enough data to claim that vaccinated people were completely protected or that they could not transmit the virus to others. One of those critics was Jay Bhattacharya, professor of health policy at Stanford University School of Medicine. “Back then, Walensky didn’t know if it was true. It was just an irresponsible use of a bully pulpit as a CDC director to say something that she did not know for certain to be true at the time,” said Bhattacharya.
Study: Milder Autism Outpacing ‘Profound’ Diagnoses As autism diagnoses become increasingly common, health officials have wondered how many U.S. kids have relatively mild symptoms and how many have more serious symptoms, such as very low IQ and inability to speak. A first-of-its-kind study released Wednesday shows the rate of such “profound” autism is rising, though far slower than milder autism cases. “It’s very important to know how many people have profound autism so that we can properly prepare for their needs,” including more health and education services, said Alison Singer, executive director of the advocacy and research group Autism Science Foundation. Singer — the mother of a 25-year-old woman with profound autism — was a co-author of the paper, which was published by the journal Public Health Reports. Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention led the research. Though autism has been diagnosed for at least 80 years, the new study is the first to put a number on the share of U.S. children who have the most severe version of it. It comes less than two years after an international commission of autism experts established a definition of profound autism: children with an IQ of 50 or less, and/or kids who can’t communicate through speaking. Under that definition, about a quarter of U.S. children identified as having autism by age 8 fall into the profound category, the new study found. It means more than 110,000 elementary school-age children in the U.S. have profound autism.
People lost faith in childhood vaccines during COVID pandemic, UNICEF says People all over the world lost confidence in the importance of routine childhood vaccines against killer diseases like measles and polio during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report from UNICEF. In 52 of the 55 countries surveyed, the public perception of vaccines for children declined between 2019 and 2021, the UN agency said. The data was a “worrying warning signal” of rising vaccine hesitancy amid misinformation, dwindling trust in governments and political polarisation, UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, said. “We cannot allow confidence in routine immunizations to become another victim of the pandemic,” Catherine Russell, UNICEF executive director, said in a statement. “Otherwise, the next wave of deaths could be of more children with measles, diphtheria or other preventable diseases.” The change in perception was particularly worrying, the agency said, as it comes after the largest sustained backslide in childhood immunization in a generation during COVID disruptions. In total, 67 million children missed out on one or more potentially lifesaving vaccines during the pandemic, and efforts to catch up have so far stalled despite increasing outbreaks. The picture on vaccine confidence varied globally, according to the UNICEF report, its flagship annual State of the World’s Children. In countries including Papua New Guinea and South Korea, agreement with the statement “vaccines are important for children” declined by 44%, and by more than a third in Ghana, Senegal and Japan. In the United States, it declined by 13.6 percentage points. In India, China and Mexico, confidence remained broadly the same or increased, the report added. The report stressed that vaccine confidence can easily shift and the results may not indicate a long-term trend. Despite the fall in confidence, more than 80% of respondents in almost half of the countries surveyed still said childhood vaccines were important.
Special Guests Danielle Pistilli, Alicia Johnson and Dr. York Hsaing
What’s wrong with Bill 36? Why 10,000 people signed a petition opposing B.C.’s New Healthcare Act B.C.’s Legislative Assembly just saw one of its largest petitions in history on Wednesday afternoon. Nearly 11,000 British Columbians signed the petition which seeks for the provincial government to reconsider the Health Professions and Occupations Act (HPOA), called Bill 36. Independent MLA for Nechako-Lakes John Rustad, brought the petition forward, and stated he “was proud to present a petition signed by 10,845 British Columbians opposed to Bill 36, such massive changes to how healthcare is governed in BC should not have excluded the professional practitioners.” The draconian Bill became legislation last November and is quickly gaining backlash as more healthcare professionals begin to grasp just how drastically the Bill will change how healthcare is regulated. Dr. York Hsiang, a vascular surgeon and a spokesperson for the Canadian Society for Science and Ethics in Medicine (CSSEM) told Rebel News that “At the heart of the matter is that instead of providing individual patient care going above and beyond prime things that are outside of a guideline, the government instead is going to introduce politics into medicine and tell doctors exactly how they’re going to practice.” The CSSEM is also spearheading a judicial review of the provinces lingering vaccine mandates which still prevent thousands of healthcare workers from caring for British Columbians despite the provinces critically short staffed healthcare system.
Question of The Day!
With the advent of spring, all of the beautiful flowers, bushes, and trees expel their pollen into the air. Although I have never been tested for allergies, I may have one. When June approaches, my throat reacts to something in the air. It gets very itchy. It has been this way for decades. So from June to November, I take Claritin daily. I believe I may have been one of the clinical trials testing Claritin, because back in the day I obtained it with a prescription; and it was not on the shelves for general public consumption without a prescription. For the past two years, however, occasionally my itchy throat would get so bad, that my pharmacist told me I could take liquid children’s Benedryl eventhough I have Claritin in my body. I am hopeful that you can suggest something that I could do for my itchy throat without my taking these pharmaceutically-engineered chemicals to relieve the itchiness. Can you please help me? Thanks in advance.