April 5th, 2021 3-5PM ET
Monday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Calgary church pastor’s video confronting police goes viral The pastor of a church in Calgary uploaded a video of his encounter with police and other officials from the city there to ensure that the church was following COVID-19 guidelines, and the interaction went viral. CTV News reported that Pastor Artur Pawlowski, the head of Calgary’s Street Church in Alberta, Canada, was holding a service on Saturday at the Fortress (Cave) of Adullam when the officers entered the building. Pawlowski, who filmed the encounter, addressed the officials in a stairwell outside the sanctuary. “Get out of this property immediately,” he says in the video. “I don’t want to hear anything … out immediately.” Most of the officials don’t engage Pawlowski, but an unidentified woman seems to try and explain their presence. Pawlowski was not having it. “Out!” he yelled. “Out of this property … immediately until you come back with a warrant.” The officials and officers slowly exit the building, and Pawlowski followed them. “Nazis are not welcome here,” he then says. “And don’t come out without a warrant.” The pastor also called them “Gestapo.” Pawlowski was praised by some social media users who have been critical of lockdowns and what they see as an affront on religious worship.
Disease Is the Newest Excuse for Segregation Walking through several airports to catch planes this week, I stepped on hundreds of stickers with the exhortation “Keep a Safe Distance. Stay 6 Feet Apart.” It’s just a silly sticker at this point, an embarrassing relic of the great 2020 disease panic during which our usual sensibility that people have inherent dignity and rights was displaced by the phobia that human beings are mere disease vectors and spreaders of killer germs. There was never any science behind it. “It’s almost like it was pulled out of thin air,” Linsey Marr of Virginia Tech told the New York Times (which miraculously printed the comment). By now, no one pays attention to these exhortations. It’s an impossible rule to follow. We are used to hearing and reading it and strangely overlook it as the latest goofy thing. The truth is more serious. The notion that separation is safer than integration is dangerous and contrary to the good life as we’ve come to understand it over half a millennium. Staying separate as a slogan has gradually mutated into a whole philosophy of life, one with a pernicious history and deeply troubling implications for social life. The idea that we can separate in order to stay clean has found its way into some of the more grim policies of our history, including eugenics, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and much more. The vaccine passport adds to the idea that we – the rich, the privileged, the medically certified as clean – can gather with each other, while excluding the unclean, the poor, the uncertified, the unvaccinated. If we do this, we can live better healthier lives. Keep people apart, they say, and the pathogens can’t get to us.
Special Guest – Paul Barattiero!
Questions of The Day!
I was just listening to your talk on the Brain Summit where you talked about infrared saunas.
You mentioned a few times about the brain not liking high temperatures, so using a sauna where your head sticks out is a good option.
I recently bought an infrared sauna for two to sit in. I built it in a beautiful, meditative lakeside location at my house, but of course our heads don’t stick out!
What temperature does the brain start to dislike? Maybe using it at a lower temperature would still be beneficial but better for the brain? I now use it at about 135 degrees.
The manufacturer advertises it as a “low EMF” infrared. How do you know what is low and what is not?
How can silver differentiate between “good” microbes and “bad” microbes?
Love your show. THANK YOU!
Big Effort Aims to Elect Candidates With Science Backgrounds An advocacy group plans to spend millions next year to elect more doctors, scientists and other professionals to office, arguing the pandemic and Donald Trump’s handling of it have powerfully underscored a need to bring people with scientific backgrounds into policymaking. 314 Action, a nonprofit organization with offices in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., says it is aiming to spend $50 million in next year’s congressional races, much of it targeted at helping Democrats pick up competitive U.S. Senate seats in North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The group formed months before Trump’s presidency, but its mission took on new urgency as he pulled out of the Paris climate agreement, spread false claims about wind energy and even talked of injecting disinfectant to fight COVID-19. With the coronavirus pandemic at the front of Americans’ minds, 314 Action sees an opportunity to bring more attention to environmental and medical issues that it feels could be better addressed by policymakers who understand both politics and the science at play. Trump “took what felt like a war on science and turned it into a straight-out war on facts,” said Shaughnessy Naughton, 314 Action’s founder and president. “I think that did motivate a lot of scientists to realize these problems were not going to fix themselves and they needed to step up and get involved.”
The CCDH thinks there are only 12 people that are spreading information about vaccines. We need to remind them they are wrong. There are MILLIONS more than 12, and we are unafraid to continue to share our truths and our stories about vaccines.To participate in the #morethan12 campaign, post a picture of your face or family making the < (greater than) symbol and use the caption below or create your own along with the hashtags #morethan12 and #truthweek—–MORE THAN 12. Last week, the CCDH named some of our most dedicated thought leaders as the “Disinformation Dozen”. They stated that 65% of all vaccine information comes from 12 people in an effort to “counter hate.” Are they really countering hate? Because it seems like they’re just trying to hide the TRUTH. I’m here to remind them that they are very wrong. There are many, many More Than 12 Truth-Tellers, and I am proud to be one of them. If they are going to try to silence the truth about vaccines, they’re going to have to have to try to silence more than 12 of us.
I stand for truth.
I stand for informed consent.
I stand for health choice.
I stand beside the #disinformationdozen.
Join us this week truthweek.org
No, We Don’t Need To Talk About The AstraZeneca Vaccine A story in The Atlantic caught my eye this week, by Hilda Bastian, an excellent science writer who is also a scientist and a former editor for NIH’s PubMed Health. Everything she wrote in the article was accurate–but it also illustrated, in several ways, how not to communicate about vaccines. The biggest problem with writing about vaccines is, in a phrase, the anti-vax movement. Anti-vaxxers don’t care about facts, or about science. They have already decided that all vaccines are bad, and they simply want to spread fear. As evidence of this, long before a Covid-19 vaccine even existed, some anti-vaxxers were declaring that they would never trust it. (I won’t provide links because that just gives them valuable web traffic.) I’ll illustrate what The Atlantic story does wrong, but first let me re-emphasize something that I wrote about just a couple of weeks ago: the AstraZeneca vaccine is remarkably safe, and there is no evidence that it increases the risk of blood clots. The temporary halt by some European countries in using that vaccine has played right into anti-vaxxers’ hands. Bastian’s article takes issue with this. First, she acknowledges that many experts have explained that the number of blood clots “was lower than what you’d normally see among unvaccinated people,” suggesting that there’s no actual risk. So far, so good. But then she writes that “regulators must address the possibility (still unproved) that perhaps one in every 1 million vaccinated people could have a potentially fatal drug reaction.” This is just what not to write if you’re trying to communicate to the public about vaccines. Anti-vaxxers love to make claims about rare, unproven side effects, and then demand that scientists and governments must prove them wrong before anyone can trust the vaccines.
Questions of The Day!
I want to thank you for attempting to answer my question on your April 1st broadcast. I also watched that entire show and I was somewhat astounded to hear Super Don at the 1:39 point in the show seeming to equate a hypothetical “Maple Tree Day” in Canada with Good Friday. I always thought that it was universally understood that Good Friday was the day Jesus Christ was crucified and that Easter Sunday was the day that he arose from the dead as the potential savior for all mankind. You might want to seek some additional input on this question from Ty and Charlene.
Hey Rsb and Super D I wish everyone a good Easter weekend, Hope you all had fun. Robert you told me to let you know what conclusion I’ve come to after I tried the GTF Chromium, well I made it through no problem yippee. Now I’m successfully taking Mega food Magnesium and Innate GTF Chromium with much happiness and healthy ness. I do have some questions though, here I go, so are you able to take Chromium with Advil or white willow without any problems? Will taking Chromium make you lose weight? How much should I take throughout the day for a smidge of glucose problems could I get away with 2 a day or do I need 3, if I only take 2 if I mix it with lycopodium in a day, could this save me from taking 3?
Thank you, keep rocking the censorship world around maybe you’ll keep growing because of those Dunderheads.
How your doctor describes your medical condition can encourage you to say ‘yes’ to surgery when there are other options There are many factors that influence whether you choose to have surgery for a health condition. But one you might not have considered is the very name your doctor uses to describe your condition can make you more or less likely to go under the knife, according to a growing body of research. This is concerning because there are often less invasive options than surgery that are equally effective and safer. What’s in a name? Let’s take shoulder pain as an example. Three of us (Joshua, Mary and Giovanni) published new research last week finding health professionals‘ use of certain medical terms might be encouraging patients to say yes to unnecessary shoulder surgery. Our world-first trial involved 1,308 people from five countries, some with and without shoulder pain, who were randomly allocated to read one of six hypothetical scenarios. The only difference between the scenarios was the medical term used by the health professional to describe the person’s shoulder pain. In our study, we used the most common type of shoulder pain where people feel pain at the front of one of their shoulders which is made worse by lifting the arm and lying on it.