July 12, 2023 3-5PM ET
Wednesday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
House Republicans want political payback for COVID vaccine mandates for troops, but the White House is refusing to back down The White House on Monday dug into its defense of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for American service members, signaling a fight with House Republicans that will loom large over funding for the Pentagon. In a lengthy statement, the White House said it would not back down from a series of penalties that service members incurred if they refused to get vaccinated. House Republicans have for months pressured the Pentagon to revisit the punishment defiant service members incurred, including those who were discharged as a result of their decision. Congress previously forced the Pentagon to rescind the COVID-19 vaccine mandate in January. At issue now is how and to what, if any, extent reinstatement or other assistance will be offered to troops who defied the requirement. Republicans have repeatedly pushed for the reinstatement of service members that were discharged as a result of defying the mandate. More than 8,000 active-duty service members were kicked out for refusing to get the vaccine. The disagreement also underlines that as the US moves past the pandemic, debates about the government response will continue on. As Military.com previously reported, vaccine-related amendments to the massive bill funding the US’ defense largely passed on party lines. Each year, Congress must pass a massive bill funding the Pentagon. Lawmakers often tack on funding restrictions or other requirements onto the bill.
Special Guest Josh Guetzkow
Josh Guetzkow is senior lecturer in sociology and criminology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He earned his MA and PhD in sociology at Princeton University and was a postdoctoral fellow in health policy at Harvard University. His research has focused on a range of topics related to criminal justice policy, politics, culture, inequality, and the sociology of knowledge. His research has been published in The American Sociological Review, Social Forces, The Journal of Quantitative Criminology, American Behavioral Scientist, Minerva, Law and Society Review, Politics and Society, Critical Public Health and Science, Technology and Human Values, among others. His research on COVID censorship was published in the social science journal, Minerva, and a recent paper on the loss of trust in public health was published in the MDPI journal, BioMed. He has extensively researched safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines in government databases and the Pfizer/BioNTech Comirnaty clinical trial data.
CDC Finally Released Its VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses for COVID Vaccines via FOIA Finally! Zachary Stieber at the Epoch Times managed to get the CDC to release the results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines, and they paint a very alarming picture (see his reporting and the data files here, or if that is behind a paywall then here). The analyses cover VAERS reports for mRNA COVID vaccines from the period from the vaccine rollout on December 14, 2020 through to the end of July, 2022. The CDC admitted to only having started its safety signal analysis on March 25, 2022 (coincidentally 3 days after a lawyer at Children’s Health Defense wrote to them reminding them about our FOIA request for it). [UPDATE: T Coddington left a link in comments to a website where he made the data in the Excel files more accessible.] Like me, you might be wondering why the CDC waited over 15 months before doing its first safety signal analysis of VAERS, despite having said in a document posted to its website that it would begin in early 2021—especially since VAERS is touted as our early warning vaccine safety system. You might also wonder how they could insist all the while that the COVID-19 vaccines are being subjected to the most rigorous safety monitoring the world has ever known. I’ll come back to that later. First I’m going to give a little background information on the analysis they did (which you can skip if you’re up to speed) and then describe what they found.
Comirnaty or Comirnaughty? Last week I was on the Rounding the Earth podcast along with my recent collaborator, Pierre, of OpenVAET to talk about “the nitty gritty details of Pfizer’s falsehoods.” We presented a summary of key findings from several months of digging into the Pfizer clinical trial data. Most but not all of those findings have been published in very detailed and thorough posts over at Pierre’s blog and should have been mailed out to my subscribers as well. The discussion began with a bit of background that my readers are probably familiar with: documents and data submitted to the FDA for the approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech clinical trials for their COVID-19 vaccine have been released via a court order as a result of a lawsuit brought by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, and more are continuing to be released every month. The site that houses the released data is here. A handy tool for searching those documents can be found here. We then discussed what I view as potentially our most important finding: there are 301 missing subject ID’s in the final Pfizer dataset. What does that mean? When potential subjects who had already been pre-screened over the phone showed up at one of the research sites, they would be assigned a subject ID number prior to a second round of in-person screening at the trial site. Subjects who failed the screening as well as those who were eventually randomized in treatment or placebo were assigned subject IDs by the software used to manage the trial. The system assigned subjects consecutively, starting at 1001 at each site: 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, etc. We found 301 places where the subject ID numbers were ‘missing.’ So you’d get a sequence like 1001, 1002, 1004, etc.
Question of The Day!
Hi Robert, I have a gym injury at the AC joint on my right shoulder. Initially I was diagnosed with “weightlifters” shoulder and had a cortisone injection to calm the inflammation. Well that wore off and the pain came back. That was last year. I should also say that I re-injured it last year as the cortisone wore off – I pushed it too hard at the gym again and so the pain got worse. So then in Feb of this year I had a second cortisone shot, and that now also wore off and the pain came back. Now they are saying I have arthritis in the AC joint and want me to talk to a shoulder specialist who is likely going to recommend surgery. My question for you is, what would you recommend in this situation? I have tried silica and ordered more, also I’ve been taking collagen powder and various other joint supplements and nothing really seems to be helping the pain. Would love your feedback.
Lancet Study on Covid Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine – Study is Removed Within 24 Hours A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the study was removed within 24 hours. The paper, a pre-print that was awaiting peer-review, is written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company and was published online on Wednesday on the pre-print site of the prestigious medical journal. However, less than 24 hours later, the study was removed and a note appeared stating: “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” While the study had not undergone any part of the peer-review process, the note implies it fell foul of “screening criteria”. The original study abstract can be found in the Internet Archive. It reads (with my emphasis added): Background: The rapid development and widespread deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, combined with a high number of adverse event reports, have led to concerns over possible mechanisms of injury including systemic lipid nanoparticle (LNP) and mRNA distribution, spike protein-associated tissue damage, thrombogenicity, immune system dysfunction and carcinogenicity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis.
Special Guest Jeremy Andrew
Born from the spirit of entrepreneurship, The Phoinix Law Firm, PLLC (“Phoinix Law”) was founded by Jeremy Andrew in 2016 after years with other firms, as general counsel, and doing work exclusively for private clients. Although The Phoinix Law Firm is a Boise, Idaho-area based law firm it serves clients throughout Idaho and has a nationwide reach, with clients from coast-to-coast.
The firm primarily handles estate planning, second amendment gun law, business law, tax controversy law, and probate & estate administration. Jeremy is a speaker and educator on many of these topics, and loves expanding his knowledge to include others as well.
He has taught thousands of business owners how to properly structure and operate their businesses. He currently hosts a variety of seminars, teaches the legal portion of the Idaho enhanced concealed carry weapons permit course for multiple companies, and assists clients on a range of topics from business formation to asset protection. His comprehensive knowledge in business stems from his many years of experience managing and owning his own business and counseling multiple businesses on entity structures to best protect their assets while implementing effective tax strategies.
A love of the United States Constitution and, in particular, the Second Amendment, has lead The Phoinix Law’s founder to become deeply passionate about gun law as well. His goal is to educate all gun owners of the importance of how to protect themselves and their loved ones from accidental felonies and government overreach, and he reaches as many as he can through teaching the legal portion of the Idaho Enhanced Concealed Weapons Permit class as well as educational seminars and The Phoinix Flare (the firm’s monthly newsletter). This is also why he is so adamant that anyone who owns a firearm should have a gun trust, even when others make claims that they are not necessary for an ordinary gun owner.
Mr. Andrew counsels a range of clients from individuals with their estate planning to businesses and each businesses particular succession planning. He is also heavily experienced in firearms related legal needs, and he assists clients with restoring their rights from felonies or misdemeanors that exclude them from legally possessing firearms. When counseling individual clients, he assists with estate planning at all levels and in any income bracket. Likewise, when he is counseling businesses, he advises on best legal structure, and always talks the hard talk about how to handle decisions affected by divorce, death, whether to pass the business on to the next generation, and what that looks like. He then assists in setting everything in motion from the beginning, to make all such decisions more seamless when the time comes. As part of his business practice, he also assists clients with private funding through exceptions in the securities laws. Mr. Andrew has broad experience in business of all sizes: from small ma and pa startups to multibillion dollar international corporations. His experience in the estate planning realm is equally broad. Whether it’s planning for the single college student, to extremely wealthy multi-generational families. His breadth of experience and knowledge are second to none, and he treats each client as if it were his only client, assuring them that they are in good hands.
More states legalize sales of unpasteurized milk, despite public health warnings Babe the goat is trendier than she looks. Babe lives a quiet life on a hillside farm in southern Iowa, where she grazes on grass with a small herd of fellow goats. Her owner, Stacy Wistock, milks her twice a day. Wistock takes precautions to keep the milk clean, but she rarely pasteurizes it. Until recently, she gave it away to family and friends. Now, she’ll make a little money off it. Iowa legislators decided this spring to join dozens of other states in allowing small producers to sell unpasteurized milk from cows, goats, and sheep. Public health authorities and major dairy industry groups oppose the practice, saying such milk can be tainted with dangerous bacteria, including E. coli, salmonella, and listeria. But in state after state, those warnings have been overwhelmed by testimonials from fans of “raw milk,” who contend pasteurized milk is more difficult to digest because the process alters enzymes and kills helpful bacteria. Federal experts say there is no proof that pasteurization makes milk less healthful. People on all sides of the issue say the rising interest in raw milk is fueled partly by distrust of public health authorities, which grew during the COVID-19 pandemic. Wistock is unsure about some of the health claims made by ardent raw milk fans. But she sees the issue as a matter of freedom. “I don’t like restrictive laws about what foods you can and can’t sell to your neighbors,” she said. Iowa’s new law, which took effect July 1, allows only direct sales from small producers to consumers. The law is stricter than those in several other states, which allow raw milk sales in stores.