January 27, 2023 3-5PM ET
Friday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
California judge issues preliminary injunction blocking COVID ‘misinformation’ law: reports A California judge issued a preliminary injunction against a state law that empowers the Medical Board of California to discipline physicians who support opinions about COVID-19 that are not in line with the “consensus,” according to reports. The law, known as Assembly Bill 2098, was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023. Under the law, the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California could discipline physicians who “disseminate” information about COVID that is not in line with the “contemporary scientific consensus.”But in November, a group of five California physicians filed a lawsuit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration, saying the law violates their First Amendment rights and constitutional right to due process. Aaron Kheriaty, MD, is listed as one of the physicians in the lawsuit, and on Wednesday he posted on Twitter that a judge granted their request for a preliminary injunction against AB 2098. The preliminary injunction temporarily halts the implementation of the law while the case is tried in court. “The ruling bodes well for our case,” Kheriaty tweeted. “It indicates that our arguments that this law is unconstitutional have strong pre-trial facial plausibility. Not to get ahead of ourselves, of course, or try to predict the final outcome of the case, but this is a very positive development.
Special Guest Jennifer Bridges RN
Jennifer Bridges RN Interview w/ Newsmax, Nurse Fired for Refusing Covid Injection at Houston Methodist Jennifer Bridges, RN was interviewed by Newsmax explaining she ”lost her job and livelihood” as a registered nurse after refusing to participate in the investigational drug trial and take the Covid injection when mandated by her employer, Houston Methodist in June 2021. Jennifer and the nurses fired with her from the Houston Methodist hospital system are literally the first professional nursing victims of the unconstitutional, illegal and immoral vaccine mandates sweeping the US and “despite being a ”hero” last year while working in the COVID unit of her hospital”, this fall she is a plaintiff in a Federal lawsuit against the hospital system, Bridges said Monday on ”The Chris Salcedo Show.” Jennifer shared they have filed a companion lawsuit in Texas state court to challenge the mandate and established a website and organization called the ”Guardians of Medical Choice” to publish factual information on the virus, the vaccines, raise funds to pay the legal fees challenging these mandates and monitor the progress of both the Federal and State lawsuits. Jennifer closes the interview stating, “When we get to the Supreme Court level, which I hope we get to, we can show all our information and our evidence, and they’re going to have to answer to that, and they’re going to have to stand by the Constitution, and then hopefully, we can hold them accountable and save everybody else in this country so they don’t have to lose their jobs as well.”
She’s Leading the Fight Against Mandatory Vaccines in Texas. She Also Happens to Be a Nurse In the darkest days of the pandemic, the staff at Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital devised a way to allow families to say goodbye to loved ones who were terminally ill with COVID-19. They moved patients to rooms where they’d be able to see and communicate with visitors through a window. To facilitate the goodbye, a nurse wearing an isolation gown, gloves, and both an N95 mask and a face shield, would hold a phone to the patient’s face while family members spoke to them for the last time. It was a grueling task. Not only did nurses risk infection and incur the psychological toll of witnessing family trauma, but underneath the PPE, it often got brutally hot and difficult to breathe. At the end of an hour-long meeting, nurses found themselves drenched in sweat and light-headed, their arms numb from holding up a phone or iPad for hours. Despite the difficult conditions, Jennifer Bridges, a 39-year-old former bartender and CrossFit fanatic, was the first nurse to volunteer for the program. “I didn’t even care if I passed out,” said Bridges, whom other nurses describe as “devoted” to patient care and “extremely hardworking.” “I was going to hold out until my body gave out.”
The Downsides of Financial Incentives to Diagnose COVID What likely began as a good-faith effort by Congress to comfort grieving families has turned into a runaway train of data obfuscation. When Congress passed the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act in December 2020, it authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to reimburse up to $2 billion in funeral expenses for deaths related to COVID-19 incurred through December 31, 2020. Then, in March 2021, Congress extended this financial incentive, allowing FEMA to pull from $50 billion in general disaster relief funding through September 30, 2025, as part of the American Rescue Plan Act. So long as there is a National Emergency, families are empowered to seek financial reimbursement for the loss of their loved ones where COVID is present. This well-intended gesture has created a strong incentive to conflate dying from COVID-19 with passing incidentally while infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Undeniably, COVID is a deadly disease that has taken the lives of countless friends and relatives. But there is good news to start 2023. Deaths attributed to COVID after the Omicron variant fully displaced the more dangerous Delta variant decreased 76 percent from April through November 2022, the most recent full month for which data are available, compared with the same months in 2021. Americans have strong protection against severe COVID disease thanks to immune responses from prior infections and the COVID vaccine. Treatment options for high-risk patients are also widely available. The risk from infection is nowhere near what it was in March 2020.
Question of The Day!
Hi RSB thanks for the recommendation to use Arnica Montana for my bruised and painful knee after my unexpected run-in with a cement floor earlier this week. I was finally able to go out and buy some today and I’m not sure how much to take. The label says:
“3 pellets. Let pellets dissolve under the tongue 3 times a day, or as directed by a healthcare practitioner .”
Does this mean 3 pellets 3 times a day? The wording is a bit weird so I’m hoping you can help clarify.
Also, it lists Lactose as one of the non-medicinal ingredients. I’m wondering if this would be a concern for someone with dairy allergies such as my daughter. I looked at a few different homeopathic remedies while at the store and they all had lactose listed in the ingredients. Would homeopathic remedies be safe for her?
Thanks, love and appreciate all that you do!
FDA Announces It Will Not Issue Rules To Allow CBD As Dietary Supplements Or Food Items, Punting To Congress For Regulations The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that it will not be creating rules to allow the marketing of CBD as dietary supplements or food items, leaving the massive industry without regulations despite repeated calls for administrative action from lawmakers, advocates and stakeholders. Following a “careful review” of the non-intoxicating cannabinoid, FDA said it reached the conclusion that the existing regulatory pathways that are in place for other dietary supplements and food additives will not work for CBD. Instead, the agency said that wants to “work with Congress on a new way forward.” In the meantime, FDA is also denying three citizen petitions that had requested rulemaking for the marketing of CBD. The announcement comes days after the agency released finalized guidance that focuses on developing cannabis-based drugs and outlined the process and unique considerations for scientists when it comes to hemp and marijuana. FDA isn’t saying that CBD shouldn’t be regulated; rather, it said that certain safety concerns and data gaps make it an administrative impossibility under the current standards.
Wyoming Senate Passes Bill to Expand Food Freedom, Undermine the Federal Regulatory Scheme On Wednesday, the Wyoming Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that would further increase food freedom in the state and potentially alleviate some of the recent price inflation on eggs and dairy. Sen. Tim Salazar (R) and a coalition of 10 fellow Republicans introduced Senate Bill 102 (SF102) on Jan. 12. The legislation would expand the Wyoming Food Freedom Act to allow a “designated agent” to “facilitate sales transactions” in the marketing, transport, storage, or delivery of food and beverage products. Under the current law, producers can only sell directly to consumers. The proposed law would also add eggs and dairy products to the foods that can be sold at farmer’s markets, farms, ranches, producer’s homes or offices, and the retail location of the third-party sellers. The Senate passed SF102 by a 30-1 vote. Expanding the market for eggs and dairy could provide some relief for Wyoming residents struggling to deal with price inflation. The price of both eggs and milk has increased precipitously over the last year. Opening up the market to more producers and sellers could help the people of Wyoming to get some relief from the money-printing frenzy of recent years. Wyoming was the first state to enact a comprehensive Food Freedom Act back in 2015. The law allows the sale of many foods and food products direct from the producer to the consumer without adhering to onerous state regulatory and licensing requirements. The expansive law even allows poultry farmers with fewer than 1,000 birds to sell chicken and turkey, along with products made from their birds outside of the regulatory system. It also authorizes the sale of raw milk, rabbit meat and most farm-raised fish.
Missouri Freedom to Farm Act Takes on both State and Federal Regulations on Farming and Ranching A bill introduced in the Missouri Senate would ban state cooperation with the enforcement of federal regulations that interfere with farming and ranching in the state. Sen. Jill Carter (R) introduced Senate Bill 84 (SB84) on Jan. 4. Titled the Freedom to Farm Act, the legislation would limit government regulation of farming and ranching in Missouri. The bill includes provisions addressing federal regulations. “The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices for sale or personal consumption shall be guaranteed free from government intervention and such practices occurring within this state shall not be infringed upon by the federal government under the regulation of interstate commerce.” SB84 goes on to prohibit state and local government agencies from enforcing any provision of law, order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measures that restrict farming or ranching practices. Any state or local agency could be held civilly liable in state court for violating this provision. In practice, the proposed law would create a process for farmers and ranchers in Missouri to challenge the enforcement of federal regulations on farming. Any farmer or rancher who believed a state or local agency helped enforce a federal rule or regulation that infringed on their right to farm could sue that state agency in state court. If the court finds in their favor, it would effectively ban any future state or local enforcement of that particular federal regulation. At the least, the passage of SB84 would create a chilling effect on state and local cooperation with the enforcement of federal regulations on farming and ranching. In the best-case scenario, it would stop cooperation with the enforcement of some specific federal regulations.
Texas Bill Would Prohibit State Enforcement of Some Federal Rule and Regulations During a “Public Health Emergency” A bill prefiled in the Texas Senate would prohibit state enforcement of certain federal rules and regulations promulgated under a public health emergency. Implementation of this proposed law would set the stage to nullify such federal rules and regulations in practice and effect. Sen. Bob Hall (R) filed Senate Bill 307 (SB307) on Dec. 19. The proposed law would prohibit any state agency, political subdivision, law enforcement officer, or other person employed by the state from enforcing or providing assistance to a federal agency in enforcing a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation that is enacted or issued in response to a federally declared public health emergency if it does not exist under state law. Any political subdivision that knowingly violated the law would be subject to losing state funding. Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states. This legislation could effectively end the enforcement of many federal rules and regulations promulgated under a public health emergency. Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce. The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
California Bill Would Legalize Some Naturally Occurring Psychedelic Drugs Despite Federal Prohibition A bill filed in the California Senate would legalize the possession of several psychedelic drugs including “magic mushrooms.” Passage would set the foundation for the people to nullify the federal prohibition on the same. Sen. Scott Weiner (D) filed Senate Bill 58 (SB58) for the 2023 legislative session. The legislation would legalize the “possession, preparation, obtaining, transfer, as specified, or transportation” of prescribed amounts of natural psychedelic compounds including psilocybin, psilocyn, DMT, ibogaine and mescaline for personal or facilitated use.” The bill would also repeal the state law banning “any spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other material which contain psilocybin or psilocyn.” SB58 is a revised version of a bill that passed the California Senate in 2022 but was derailed in the House by intense law enforcement lobbying. Last year’s legislation included some synthetic psychedelics including LSD and MDMA. These were not included in SB58. Werner told Marijuana Moment the legalization of psychedelics “is not controversial among regular people.” “People understand that psychedelics are not causing problems—and they are, in fact, helping people and so it’s time to stop criminalizing them.” Efforts to legalize psychedelics in California follow a successful ballot measure that decriminalized a number of drugs, including heroin and cocaine in Oregon. In 2022, Colorado voters passed a ballot measure decriminalizing several naturally occurring psychedelic substances. At least 14 cities including Detriot Michigan have decriminalized “magic mushrooms.” Psilocybin is a hallucinogenic compound found in certain mushrooms. A number of studies have shown psilocybin to be effective in the treatment of depression, PTSD, chronic pain and addiction. For instance, a Johns Hopkins study found that “psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer.” Psychedelic decriminalization and legalization efforts at the state and local levels are moving forward despite the federal government’s prohibition of psilocybin and other psychedelic substances.