June 5, 2019 3-5PM ET
Wednesday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
DR. KENNETH STOLLER FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY’S SUBPOENA FOR HIS PATIENTS’ MEDICAL RECORDS AND GENETICINFORMATION Today, Dr. Kenneth Stoller has filed a lawsuit to stop the San Francisco City Attorney’s attempt to obtain the medical records and genetic information of his vaccine exemption patients. The basis of the City Attorney’s subpoena, which was served and widely reported in the media on May 8th, is a purported public nuisance investigation about Dr. Stoller’s practice of writing medical exemptions for children who do not meet the strict CDC (Centers for Disease Control) vaccine contraindications. Here is the gogetfunding page to support this lawsuit. https://gogetfunding.com/legal-defense-fund-stoller/ We believe that there is no real investigation. Rather, the City Attorney’s press conference announcing the subpoena was intended to create public support for SB 276, which would remove medical vaccine exemption decision making from physicians and place it in the hands of state or local public health officials. Under this bill, an important medical decision will be made by state or local government employees who have never met or spoken to the patient or family.
Question of The Day!
Hello Dr. Bell and almost a doc Super Don,
First. Given what is being done to our children from shots, poison foods, bad air, ect- IS IT TIME TO TELL WOMEN TO STOP HAVING BABIES?
Second. Do you recommend Colloidal minerals or ionic minerals?
Study: Cholesterol in eggs tied to cardiac disease, death The risk of heart disease and death increases with the number of eggs an individual consumes, according to a UMass Lowell nutrition expert who has studied the issue. Research that tracked the diets, health and lifestyle habits of nearly 30,000 adults across the country for as long as 31 years has found that cholesterol in eggs, when consumed in large quantities, is associated with ill health effects, according to Katherine Tucker, a biomedical and nutritional sciences professor in UMass Lowell’s Zuckerberg College of Health Sciences, who co-authored the analysis. The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study results come as egg consumption in the country continues to rise. In 2017, people ate an average of 279 eggs per year, compared with 254 eggs in 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Current U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans do not offer advice on the number of eggs individuals should eat each day. The guidelines, which are updated every five years, do not include this because nutrition experts had begun to believe saturated fats were the driving factor behind high cholesterol levels, rather than eggs, according to Tucker. However, prior to 2015, the guidelines did recommend individuals consume no more than 300 milligrams of cholesterol a day, she said.
Red and white meats are equally bad for cholesterol Contrary to popular belief, consuming red meat and white meat such as poultry, have equal effects on blood cholesterol levels, according to a study published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The study, led by scientists at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute (CHORI)—the research arm of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland—surprised the researchers with the discovery that consuming high levels of red meat or white poultry resulted in higher blood cholesterol levels than consuming a comparable amount of plant proteins. Moreover, this effect was observed whether or not the diet contained high levels of saturated fat, which increased blood cholesterol to the same extent with all three protein sources. “When we planned this study, we expected red meat to have a more adverse effect on blood cholesterol levels than white meat, but we were surprised that this was not the case—their effects on cholesterol are identical when saturated fat levels are equivalent,” said the study senior author Ronald Krauss, M.D., senior scientist and director of Atherosclerosis Research at CHORI.
Comment of The Day!
Hi Robert and Super Don – I really love and appreciate you guys for what you do so boldly. The monologue on Tuesday was excellent – you are so correct to speak out against the government getting involved in our children’s care. I have a 39-year old severely disabled son (due to vaccine injury when he was a baby and throughout his life because I didn’t know the dangers). In 2017 the government forced him to take Seroquel against our wishes by civilly committing him through the county court system. Due to multiples of pharmaceuticals for seizures throughout his years, he experienced violent episodes at his group home and ended up in a horrible hospital system. The hospital and the courts accused me of practicing medicine without a license because I was legally giving my son medical cannabis and trying to reduce medications. I could write a book on what we have been through. And the struggle continues.
My point is that even though you may be the legal guardian of a disabled child, this evil government can still force you to participate in the evil pharmaceutical system. We had an attorney, but she could not fight this for us.
It took us a year to wean him off the Seroquel (the court forced us to consult with a psychiatrist who I fought with all the way).
I hurt for parents who are walking this road.
Harvard Study: Supplements For Energy, Weight Loss, Muscle-Building Carry Risk For Youth A Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study found hundreds of cases of children and young adults seriously harmed by supplements that promise to help with energy, weight loss or building muscle. The study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, looked at reports to the Food and Drug Administration from January 2004 to April 2015. It concluded that compared to vitamins, those supplements carried nearly triple the risk of “severe medical events” in young people. “By ‘severe medical events,’ I mean emergency room visits, hospitalization, life-threatening events such as convulsion and loss of consciousness, disability and even death,” lead researcher Flora Or said. Or said the 977 cases of adverse events the study found — including 40% considered severe — are probably just the tip of the iceberg because most problems with supplements are not reported. And the likely causes are either contaminants in the supplements or overdoses.
Hour 2 – Outside The Box With Ty Bollinger!
It’s time to go Outside The Box again with Ty Bollinger! What will we be talking about today?
Amazon Prime Video is full of dodgy documentaries pushing dangerous cancer ‘cures’ The homepage of Amazon’s Prime Video is full of glossy Amazon originals and big-budget films designed to tempt people into subscribing to the firm’s video streaming platform. But peek below the surface of Prime Video and you’ll find a deep well of pseudoscientific documentaries pushing potentially harmful cancer ‘cures’, suggesting that fluoride in water causes neurological diseases and arguing that gene-edited crops are harmful to human health. At its best, Prime Video’s disturbing underbelly is stuffed with conspiracy theory-laden content, but at its worst the platform’s recommendation algorithms push viewers towards dangerous medical misinformation masquerading as fact. Other films available through Prime Video suggest that diseases like cancer and diabetes can be “reversed” by eating plants, or that cancer can be cured using unproven treatments.
FDA Approves New Cancer Drugs Despite Bad Science Over the last 5 years, the FDA has approved nearly 150 new anticancer drugs. And although this may seem like good news, cancer patients may want to hold their applause. As it turns out, a significant portion of these approvals – nearly 1 in 5 – were based on clinical trials that don’t prove the effectiveness of the drugs. A study published last month in JAMA Oncology evaluated 143 cancer drugs approved by the FDA between 2013 and 2018. Analysts found that 17% used “suboptimal control arms” and show no benefit over standard therapies. In other words, many anticancer drugs approved by the FDA haven’t shown any real benefit to patients. To better understand the implications of the new analysis, it’s important that we first understand the process for drug approval. Most drugs seeking FDA approval undergo something called randomized clinical trials to prove their efficacy. This means that participants are separated randomly into different groups to compare the effects of different drugs.
Is Corporate Bribery Determining Your Cancer Treatment? Do incentives from Big Pharma influence the way doctors treat cancer patients? A study published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology says YES. The first study to evaluate reimbursement policies and clinical care in oncology, the review found that oncologists often change their treatment recommendations and prescriptions based on incentives from the pharmaceutical industry. What’s worse, the companies that manufacture cancer drugs saw greater profitability where incentives were greater. And while not all doctors are corrupted by financial incentives, a comprehensive review of 18 studies found that the majority of cancer doctors are – whether they realize it or not. We already know that doctors actually profit from chemotherapy, but it turns out that the influence of corporate bribery is far more extensive. The most obvious problem with the results of the study is the impact it has on care. A cancer diagnosis can be a frightening time in our lives, and we often turn to specialized doctors for help. What we don’t expect is that those doctors will make decisions about our care based on how much money they can make instead of what treatment is best for you.
Would you eat genetically modified food if you understood the science behind it? Jonathon McPhetres, a newly minted Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Rochester, admits he’s “personally amazed” what we can do with genes, specifically genetically modified food—such as saving papayas from extinction. “We can makes crops better, more resilient, and more profitable and easier for farmers to grow, so that we can provide more crops around the world,” he says. Yet the practice of altering foods genetically, through the introduction of a gene from a different organism, has courted controversy right from the get-go. While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered safe by an overwhelming majority of scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association, only about one third of consumers share that view. One reason for the divide is that critics of genetically modified food have been vocal, often decrying it as “unnatural” or “Frankenfood”—in stark contrast to a 2016 review of published research that found no convincing evidence for negative health or environmental effects of GM foods.