Jonathan Emord joins Robert Scott Bell to discuss a pharmaceutical company that's defending its health claims

(NaturalNews) Jonathan Emord joins RSB to discuss how a large pharmaceutical company is attempting to defend itself over health claims of its product -- by using a defense that countless supplement companies have unfairly lost with! (Originally aired on October 12, 2014, on The Robert Scott Bell Show)

Don LaFontaine: In a world where freedom is threatened, where individual rights are eroding, one man stands poised to counteract the rise of tyranny by rekindling the Sacred Fire of Liberty. That man is Jonathan Emord.

The Robert Scott Bell Show: Liberty was the patriotic purpose of our written Constitution.
Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.
Give me liberty, or give me death!

Don LaFontaine: Ladies and gentlemen, here he is, the FDA Dragon Slayer, Jonathan Emord.

Robert Scott Bell: All right, the bureaucratic oligarchy is running for the hills. Jonathan Emord is here on The Robert Scott Bell Show. Jonathan, my friend.

Jonathan Emord: Robert, I, every time I hear that introduction I look behind my shoulder, I'm trying to find the person they're talking about there, Robert.

Robert Scott Bell: It's you, baby. Oh, my god, Jonathan.

Super Don: It's you.

Robert Scott Bell: I just, on the show notes today, I published a picture of when I arrived at the Sacred Fire of Liberty, and we were surrounded by the patriots wearing the outfits that were in existence back then, and it lights that fire in my belly, when I see it and remember everything that we got to do together at that event. It was as extraordinary as you had said it would be.

Jonathan Emord: Well, I'm glad you liked it, Robert. You know, those costumes were something else. We had them made by the same organization that made them historically accurate for the movie, The Patriot, so, those were authentic costumes, to be sure, and I think everybody realized, "Wow, these are incredible." But how about the, Brand Niemann, playing the drum? There were a lot of things there, the music -- people are still talking about that, Robert. That was truly an incredible thing, and it was because so many talented people, including you, were willing to come out there and get together. It was a truly extraordinary moment. I won't forget it.

Robert Scott Bell: Yeah, I want to remind everybody, we have linked to many YouTubes, there were many people that were gushing with gratitude for you, Jonathan, and rightfully so, and the things you've done, as well, they were award recipients. So much of the talent that you brought together there, you could see it even if you weren't able to attend; I encourage you to do so, and we've got that linked up. Also, Jonathan, we have today, at the bottom of the hour, we're going to be joined by your friend Cheryl Chumley from Washington Times.

Jonathan Emord: Yes, Cheryl is incredible. She's written, well, her own background, she's an award-winning investigative journalist, and is a continuous news writer for The Washington Times, here in Washington, D.C., and she's always muckraking in the sense that she's exposing all of this corruption that goes largely unaddressed by the major media. It's phenomenal, and a real eye-opening look into just how abusive government, the Federal government and the state and local governments, have become since 9/11, using it as sort of an opportunistic justification, terrorism, to start really doing things that are far in excess of what should be allowed by a police state -- by a republic in the form of a police state. And that's the name of her book, Police State USA, which is a great read, and it's available from Amazon.

Robert Scott Bell: We have it linked up, too. Yeah, we have it linked up in the show notes as well. And, I fear that this Ebola scare is going to be utilized to, let's say, incorporate more of that police state under the guise of, "Well, now it's not a Middle Eastern terrorist, but it's a biological or immunological terrorist, and it's not Republican or Democrat, so everybody should give up their rights for this." And I've disputed a lot of the claims about this ailment based on what the CDC has claimed: The issue of PCR, which we may get into. But Jonathan, the first thing I wanted to talk to you about today was about Bayer. I mean, we're talking Big Pharma, Bayer, who has come out with one of their subsidiaries, a probiotic, and they're making claims based on science, that they evidently invested, peer-reviewed literature, and they're now having to take on the FTC as well as, I believe, the FDA, over issues of statements about it, backed by science. So, I find it ironic that Big Pharma is in the same boat, maybe, as the supplement manufacturers, here.

Jonathan Emord: Well, it makes you wonder. Bayer took the extraordinary step of bridging that gap, and they did so, obviously, for economic reasons, to expand their market share and to establish themselves as well-positioned in the advent of government regulation that would knock out large segments of the supplement community, and they would step in. Most of the pharmaceutical companies are eyeing that market, but most of them wanted to market synthetic substances that would be patented as drugs that would be substitutes for supplements that were providing relief that was supposed to be limited to therapeutic, FDA-approved substances.
So, when Bayer bridged this gap in a major way, and introduced its own dietary supplement line, it became a real potential target for those who want drug companies to remain in a drug company mode, don't want them to start swimming in the supplement waters. And, so, it gets hit by the FTC, and this is a really precedent-setting case in the wrong way, because it's an expansion -- it's along the lines of this administration with the FTC -- it's an expansion of regulatory power into areas that really are of no consequence to anyone. There's substantial scientific evidence to support these claims, and, in addition, they were very conservative claims, but the FTC is stepping in to slap Bayer, and to basically inhibit their ability to proceed in this market.

Robert Scott Bell: Jonathan, doesn't this indicate that, like the supplement manufacturers have been saying for years, that if, let's say we had the money, as a supplement company of some kind, to invest tens, if not fifty, hundreds of millions into scientifically validating the ability of a supplement to do something beyond a miniscule structure/function statement, that it doesn't matter, they are still going to rule against your freedom of speech in this regard? Doesn't this, interestingly enough, reveal that what we have been saying for years is actually the case?

Jonathan Emord: Well, in government, the decisions of who to prosecute, and what the agenda will be for differentiating between those that you will prosecute and those that you won't, who are engaged in advertising, labeling or manufacture, or distribution -- those are political determinations. As a consequence, the prejudices of the particular party, and the person in power -- FDA being a dictatorship, FTC being a commission-based thing but largely influenced by the administration's desires on how to regulate the market -- it becomes a political game. So, for example, even within a market, they'll go after select parties, of course, not all who do the same advertising.

And you ask yourself, "Well, isn't that selective prosecution?" Of course, it is, but the courts don't recognize it as actionable because they require such a high standard to prove the prejudice, but yes, it is selective by its very nature. You've got political people who are saying, "Okay, of these parties that we could go after, let's go after this one." And when they go after that party, the sad reality is that they have these regimes in place, like at the FDA, where it's an absolute prior restraint on the right to communicate a nutrient-disease association. And at the FTC, where anything, virtually, can be deemed to be deceptive advertising, because they can always question whether there are implied claims -- you don't even make the claim -- they can say, "Well, we think that these claims are implied, and we're going to have you, unless you can prove that at the time you put the advertisement out there you had proof to a near certain degree to support the claims that we say are implied, you are guilty of deceptive advertising." They don't have to prove that anyone was actually deceived. Like at the FDA, they don't have to prove that anyone was actually harmed by a supplement. You can prove that the supplement helps people, it doesn't matter, all they have to do is say, "Okay, you drew an association between your nutrient and a disease."

Robert Scott Bell: Right. Yeah. And at that point they will fine you first, ask questions later, and good luck trying to defend yourself when you're tied up and your money is not accessible.

Jonathan Emord: What this really means, Robert, is that, because anyone who is targeted can be prosecuted, in other words, virtually anyone can either be deemed to be engaged in deceptive advertising or making unapproved claims, expressed or implied, and, as a result, once the political determination has been made about who to go after, it's essentially a foregone conclusion that they're guilty. And you don't have the right to a jury trial, that the founding fathers wanted, and put in the Constitution as your essential right when confronted by the government, and you don't have a co-location of power, where the regulator is both the prosecutor and the judge. You've got the commission, in each case the FDA commissioner, the FTC commission, being the one that says, "Go after Mr. X," and they issue the orders to go after them. And then, when action is taken, they're the ones who judge the determination of whether or not you're guilty of the violation. And they're the ones that brought the charges, so of course you're guilty. So, there's no justice in that. There's no independent third-party review until after they have determined you to be guilty. And that's an outrage.

Robert Scott Bell: Well, if there was justice within the governmental setting, these people would be put on trial for blocking the knowledge that could save lives. Literally, there are people dying, in my opinion, that don't have access to this information. Case in point, a woman by the name of Brittany Maynard, and she's made national news by saying she's chosen to die. She's chosen to, basically, have some form of assisted suicide because she has a stage IV brain cancer diagnosis, and rather than lose her dignity, she set the date, she's going to die, basically, by her own hand, technically. And I am thinking that this woman probably never even heard of the fact that there are options for brain cancer in the natural world, much less Burzynski, and his work, but many other options that might have prevented her from going stage IV, or even out of stage IV, to reverse it.

Jonathan Emord: Well, even so, Robert, let's just assume, hypothetically, that it is indeed the case, regardless of what could have been done, that even if it could have been done, it wouldn't be helpful for her, and that she would be in this position. The notion, somehow, this girl has been led to believe that taking her own life is going to be less onerous and painful than dying from the disease. And, so, she's going to take some drug that is horrific, that is going to cut off respiration; she's going to suffocate or otherwise die a horrific death, from the drug, a painful death, or, if not painful, it's going to be long, drawn out. Look, when the government executes someone with a lethal injection, it is not a pretty picture; it is horrific. And, so, the point, here, is that palliative care, where, even if there's no hope, where you use something to alleviate pain, and she could be conscious for as long as possible around her relatives, and have that love there, and whatever spiritual adviser, or minister, she has something that can help her leave in a less traumatic way, I would certainly hope that she fully comprehends the significance of going out the way that, apparently, is planned, versus having the moments of your life to the fullest extent, enduring for the end, and relying on means that exist to alleviate pain as much as possible, rather than just kill yourself on a date that certain; I've heard she said she's going to go on November 1.

Robert Scott Bell: Well, and Jonathan, and including the use of a plant that God created that has been demonized by the Federal government, as well, for other economic considerations. We'll be back with Jonathan Emord, the Sacred Fire of Liberty, right here on The Robert Scott Bell Show.

Robert Scott Bell: Alright, as we do each week, here on The Robert Scott Bell Show, Jonathan Emord, the FDA Dragon Slayer, joins us for perspectives, and with perspectives that you'll hear nowhere else in broadcast media. We have him and his books linked up, his regular articles also, at News With Views, we are now also publishing at RobertScottBell.com; honored to have him, my friend, with us each and every week. We're going to see if we can even increase that -- we're working on it behind the scenes. Now, another story, before we bring Cheryl Chumley up from Washington Times at the bottom of the hour, Jonathan, there was a story last year, last couple of years we've been talking about this: Maryanne Godboldo, who barricaded herself in her home with her daughter because the state said that she needs to be drugged -- massively drugged -- and she said her daughter was getting worse, and she defended her home, and they went after her because of it.

Now, Michigan, evidently, is the only state with a pharmaceutical immunity law, and they're determined to prosecute this mother for refusing to drug her daughter. And, I don't know, I haven't looked into this so-called state immunity concept; we've covered it on the levels of the Federal government with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, where you can't sue the vaccine manufacturers directly. Do you know anything about this on a state level? Or what's happening, here?

Jonathan Emord: Yeah, there's an old concept called parens patriae, which is a concept that the government can substitute itself for a parent, and this notion, which has authoritarian roots as well as roots that exist in countries that have democracies, varies in its application. Of course, in an authoritarian state, the state, at any time, can presume to replace a parent because it simply opts to do so. Whether it is a dictatorship in China, where they're saying, "I want your first born, I don't want you to have children beyond your first," interfering with reproductive rights, whatever, they have no respect for the individual. Then, there is the secondary situation where you have a government that says, "okay, if we think, for whatever reason, what you are doing is not in the best interest of your child, then we will intervene and take them," and they have these amorphous concepts of what's in the best interest of the child. Then, there is the concept that was a part of our history, until recently, until the last 30, 40 years, which was that you start with a very strong presumption in favor of the parents' parental rights to determine the course of events in the case of the child, and only in an instance where there is a compelling interest to defend the child against infliction of harm, by the parent, would the state intervene and remove the child.

Now, this idea of imminent and an irreversible, or life-threatening, condition, has been watered down so extensively, now, that you have circumstances where a choice among treatments, where you have doctors that are on one side, and doctors on the other side, and they're each indicating an interest, or a separate diagnosis of a disease, invariably leads to child welfare, child family services coming in, being called in, and to the extent that one party or another has greater connections with the government, or greater preference, favoritism with the local government's Child Protective Services. They end up being able to have the child removed from the custody of their parents even in the presence of a disputed diagnosis, or a disputed recommendation of treatment.

And I've had this, I've had many instances where people have come to me and asked me to represent them in these circumstances, and I'll just give you one example -- I can give you many, but I'll give you one quickly. And that was this girl in California who had osteosarcoma, cancer of the kneecap, and she had a single mother, parent, and that single mother was directed by a public hospital to the University of California at Los Angeles, I think, or Berkley, I can't remember, and the head of oncology there. And that person did an examination and said, "Okay, you're going to have to amputate the girl's leg, above the knee, in order to ensure that there's no metastasis." And she thought, "This is outrageous, I want a second opinion," and the woman said, "There's no time for that," the one, the oncologist who recommended this, and then contacted child welfare services. And they came in, and they said, "You'll either go forward with the surgery in the next 72 hours or we're going to take away the custody of the child," and then they immediately filed to take custody of the child.

To make a long story short, we went through all these herculean efforts, and finally, in a seesaw sort of way, finally convinced the judge to allow a medical team, that we had put together, of surgical oncologists, to open the wound, go get in there, look at the cancer, see if it actually was localized, and if it was, just remove the kneecap rather than amputate, and give him live information, while he's sitting on the bench, from the operating room. And then, lo and behold, it was localized. They removed the kneecap and they put in a prosthetic kneecap. But you see, if she didn't have this extraordinary resort to us, and to these medical...

Robert Scott Bell: Right, right, we wouldn't find it. We're up against a break. Jonathan Emord is with us, and we're going to be joined by Washington Times' Cheryl Chumley after the break.

Announcer: Taking on bureaucrats and corporations that would stand in the way of health freedom, here's Robert.

Robert Scott Bell: Yeah, and who helps me to do that job better than anybody I know? It's Jonathan Emord, with us for the Sacred Fire of Liberty each week, here. And Jonathan, we're going to be introducing your friend, and our friend, Cheryl Chumley, in just a moment, from Washington Times. But on the Ebola front, we've got to tackle this. I cover it from all angles, even questioning the validity of certain diagnoses, but let's just make these assumptions: That it is a real issue, and the government says that it's a real issue. The question is: Why wouldn't they shut down, for instance, air travel from those hot zones to protect us from potential transmission? Would we argue that, well, they're not doing it because they don't think it's really bad? Or they do, and they want it to spread? Or are they just plain incompetent? Where would we start with this?

Jonathan Emord: Well, I'm going to start with incompetence, because I really do think that's the root of it. I think it is a case where, once again, President Obama is asleep at the switch, and that the information came in, but he just simply ignored its relative significance. For over three months now, we have had information coming in about the potential for this epidemic type of problem in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, and then, within the last 30 to 60 days, it's blown up, and it's become very clear that there's an immediate and present danger of infection transmitted across borders from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, to Europe and to the United States. But the administration has done nothing of any serious consequence to limit transportation of people out of that country. People who dwell there are emigrating to the United States, and are emigrating to parts of Europe, largely without restriction. There should have been a quarantine of those countries in light of the epidemic.

And furthermore, the CDC, the head of the CDC, has downplayed the significance of transmission. He said it's safe to have these people, that air travel is not jeopardized in any way, but the fact of the matter is, as Dr. Simone explains, it is the case that Ebola is transmissible in an aerosol way. Within three feet of a person who has the disease, if they sneeze, if they cough, if they even talk to another person, particulate matter of water droplets coming out of their body, towards you, landing on the mucosa on your eyes, in your nose, on your tongue, can transmit this disease. And the incubation period is such that you can go for 2 days to 21 days without being overtly symptomatic as having a hemorrhagic fever, which is the ultimate proof of the existence of this disease, is the outward manifestation of bleeding from every orifice, and bruising. So, we're in trouble, because people could be having this condition coming across the southern border, coming across from Canada, coming in from Europe, coming in directly from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. We should be requiring that every person who would come to the United States from one of these countries have definitive testing, first, to establish that they're free of these diseases, and we're not doing it.

Robert Scott Bell: No, and this is the question about the police state scenarios. Could this be, also, in some ways, the response by the Obama Administration? Will it be an overreach in a different direction? Joining us now from The Washington Times, she also writes articles for News With Views, Cheryl Chumley is with us. And there's a quote here from Time magazine, Cheryl: "Closing borders between countries is not only impracticable, but also counterproductive." That's Time magazine. What do you say?

Cheryl Chumley: Well, I don't know who -- what country -- it would be counterproductive for, if America were to shut its borders. It certainly wouldn't be counterproductive for us; it would only be beneficial to us. But I think this is a sign of Obama's basic politics, where he doesn't think that America is any better than any other nation, or deserves any different treatment than any other nation. So, he comes out, and he declares Ebola a national security issue, sends U.S. troops to West Africa, and wants a billion dollars in taxpayer aid to go fight it, but for America, he doesn't even want to put in common sense provisions, like monitoring at the borders or requiring passengers who are flying in from these known Ebola nations to undergo testing or stay out of the country. So, it seems to me that closing the borders and preventing people from flying in from these nations would help America -- commonsense provisions -- and you have to wonder why Obama isn't taking those steps.

Robert Scott Bell: Well, Jonathan says, to some degree, incompetence. But if we're relying upon even the CDC, part of the bureaucratic medical oligarchy, to direct us, they have been, in many cases, complete failures in addressing real cause of disease. If you want to go in and help a nation, and you're free to do that without using U.S. taxpayer money, wouldn't it be wiser to bring in sanitation, cleaner water, hygiene, nutrition, things that would actually prevent disease, versus going in and putting our own military men and women at risk, and you're not even shutting down the routes of transmission?

Cheryl Chumley: And I guess I would point out, also, that, is that what our military is supposed to be doing? Constitutionally speaking, our militaries are a fighting and defensive force; it's not to fight diseases in nations other than our own.

Robert Scott Bell: Well, that's a very good point. Where in the constitution does it say, "Send our military out?" I'm sure George Washington, if they had asked him, "Should we send our troops, at the time, to Africa, because there's a dangerous outbreak, to protect the people there?" he would have looked at you, "What country, what planet are you from?" Jonathan, what do you think?

Jonathan Emord: It's ridiculous to send three to four thousand American troops over there to build medical facilities. You're just putting people in harm's way. You're putting them in a position where you're just saying, "Okay, of three to four thousand people, how many of them will contract Ebola while they're over there?" That's ridiculous. If you want to help them build hospitals, give them the resources to build hospitals. If you want them to improve their sanitation systems, and think that that's a good way to combat this disease, then help finance the construction of facilities to do that. You don't have to have them built by Americans that live there, that have to interact with the population and may end up contracting the very disease that you're trying to prevent the spread of; that's insane.

This is not a disease that allows the luxury of a treatment to be successful. In 70 to 80 percent of the cases, the people will die from this disease. So, you're taking our precious blood, that is there to defend this country, and you're putting them in a position where they can't fight, with a weapon, a microscopic organism. The only thing that they can do is do what the people there can do, which is be a construction force. Well, that's ridiculous, to put American soldiers over there for that purpose. Go hire a construction crew over there. And why do you want to have Americans who are going over there, then, come back, three to four thousand of them, coming back into this country after having been exposed to an environment where they may contract this condition? Do you really want to do that? Is it worth the risk of doing that to do what they could do themselves, which is construct a hospital? They might need our resources, but they don't need our men.

Robert Scott Bell: Well, and Jonathan, this is why I say, not only incompetence, but there is an agenda, and some have argued that a medical police state is a desirous state to promote certain pharmaceutical agendas. For instance, we've seen the toying with the mandatory vaccinations, without exception, without exemption, under emergency, under the rule of necessity, where there is no longer any law; there are no constitutional limitations on government. There have been things bandied about within the Obama Administration that that might be a direction, here.

Jonathan Emord: Well, I'm being generous by saying that I think it's incompetence, of course. I have no reason to believe that there is a direct ulterior motive by those who are in power. But there may be, and maybe Cheryl can give us some education about this from what she knows. Cheryl, what do you think?

Cheryl Chumley: Well, I guess I would say that with Ebola, it's rather a moot point, because unlike foreign policy, where Obama is definitely incompetent, he does have some ability to change tactics and right some of the foreign policy wrongs he's made. But when you have Ebola coming in this nation, once it's here, it's going to be very difficult to track. So, whether it's a purposeful intent by some evil forces at play, or it's just simply more Obama and White House incompetence, in the end it really isn't going to matter once that disease is in America. If it starts spreading, people should be worried about that. And I don't know that we should be trusting our CDC, and our Federal government to tell us the actual statistics about Ebola, or whether these are actually cases, or not, of Ebola; that's something that we need to concern ourselves with, too, is the government telling us the truth.

Robert Scott Bell: Well, as well...

Jonathan Emord: You know, Robert, I can't, I'm sorry to interrupt.

Robert Scott Bell: Go ahead, go ahead Jonathan.

Jonathan Emord: What I can say to you, Robert, is that I do know there are some scientists in CDC and FDA who are looking at this in an opportunistic way, and are thinking of this crisis being one that will justify implementation of a national mandatory vaccination program, where they would compel every American to be vaccinated for Ebola on the notion that this is an epidemic. So, from their vantage point, and there are some who are really, I would have to say, rabid, in their push for mandatory vaccination, with no exclusion, in all of the states. And those people are looking at this opportunistically, and saying, "Hey, look, if it does hit our shores, if there is an outbreak in some region of the United States, that will be the justification for a national implementation, from the executive, through HHS, a declaration that this is a state of emergency," and to deny people habeas corpus rights, and say, "You're going to be arrested and forcibly vaccinated because there's this risk."

Robert Scott Bell: I'm greatly concerned about this risk.

Jonathan Emord: I don't think it's farfetched at all to discuss this; I think it is appropriate because there are people in CDC, and at FDA, who believe that national vaccination on far lesser bases is justifiable, and want to see, if this happens here, if there is an Ebola outbreak, that this type of system is implemented by the executive branch. And, believe me; they have got to have those scenarios worked out in the administrative agencies. They have got an emergency plan to cause mandatory vaccination, whether it's predicated on terrorism, or whether it's predicated on an outbreak like, say, an Ebola outbreak, here in the United States.

Robert Scott Bell: Well, and we've seen the violation of the sanctity of the family, or the parents, to say no to medical intrusion into their family's belief systems as well. And the fact that we know, medically and homeopathically, and holistically, that there are other ways to address disease, there isn't only one way. And the vaccine-industrial complex, injecting toxic poisons against your will, is not an American ideal; dare I say it. Cheryl Chumley is with us, we've got another segment, from The Washington Times, she is; Jonathan Emord, the FDA Dragon Slayer, Sacred Fire of Liberty each and every week here on The Robert Scott Bell Show. All the links are posted at RobertScottBell.com. Say thanks to those who make this message of health, freedom and healing liberty possible six days a week. Back after this.

There are many more discussions of this level with Jonathan Emord, the FDA Dragon Slayer, each week we are joined for the Sacred Fire of Liberty. And his friend, now mine as well, Cheryl Chumley from Washington Times, so grateful, Cheryl, that you could be with us here, as well, today.

Cheryl Chumley: Thanks Robert, great to be here.

Robert Scott Bell: And the discussion is that we take all of these things into consideration, and we are able to bring them out, in a way, and I'm very pleased with where this has gone today. And Jonathan, of course, you are as serious as anybody when it comes to the defense of liberty, what you do in there, in the courts -- I've told you off the air and on the air, I'm just amazed by your ability to move through that muck and come out unscathed the way you are.

Jonathan Emord: Well, it's interesting, Robert. This whole thing, we were talking during the break about the politics of this, and how there are people within CDC who depend upon crises like this. This is, perhaps, the worst, in the sense that you've got a condition that we don't have any hope of restricting once there's an outbreak scenario, and across the country, that would be the end of life as we know it, as far as day to day existence is concerned. We'd really have to have quarantines all over the place. So, it is a potential crisis, but the point is they politicize this to their own advantage. They look at this as an opportunity for career advancement, for getting themselves a national reputation and for using it to feather their own bureaucratic nests so they become King of the Hill within the CDC, or within the nation, as the go-to person for answers. And that's a tragedy that happens all the time. CDC doesn't exist unless there is a health crisis. If we went a good long while without a health crisis, then the budget for CDC goes down. Conversely, if there is a health crisis like this, that's the time when those within that agency are going to capitalize on the notion that, "we're indispensible, you've got to have us, or else you're not going to be able to deal with this crisis." And then they get more money, and they get more power, and they get more people employed under them. So, there's a real politic aspect of this that is very unfortunate in the sense that there are people who will capitalize and exaggerate the significance of aspects of this in order to feather their own nests.

Robert Scott Bell: Right. Cheryl, you're the author of Police State USA: How Orwell's Nightmare is Becoming Our Reality. I see this, let's say, medical play, on police state issues as one of the most powerful ways, because a virus is not a Democrat or a Republican, so it can sort of garner support from everybody through fear. And, as you've said, rightly so, we should be suspicious of motives, agendas, those in government, and I appreciate your radar is on, in this regard, and I think this is something I expect you're going to be digging into even deeper.

Cheryl Chumley: I think you're right. Listening during the break to you guys discussing what goes on inside at the CDC regarding vaccinations and so forth, it reminded me of what goes on with the EPA and climate change. It sounds like the medical field is about as politicized as the environmental field, and that's something that a lot of Americans, I don't think, are attuned to. And there's just one other issue, if you get past the politics of what's going on right now with Ebola; the real, the security threat facing America, or one of the major ones, of course, is radical Islamism. And you have to wonder, if terrorists are willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in the name of the Allah, and kill innocent people in the process, what would prevent them from purposely catching this disease and crossing our porous borders to kill innocent Americans; to me, that's even a greater threat, going into this issue, as what the CDC is doing or saying for and against it, and what Obama's doing to respond to it.

Robert Scott Bell: So, it's a variation of a suicide bomber concept, except, although there's nothing strapped to your body, it's all within it. That's an interesting and intriguing concern, and it is something, if you're willing to die for a cause, why not infect yourself? Again, it's horrific to consider, but there, again, lies the reason why we do what we do to bring the power to heal back to the people. We've also got to reconnect that the protection and prevention, it is not going to be coming from incompetence within government, and we have got to take control and charge of it on a state level and on a local level as well, because we've seen what the Feds have done here.

Cheryl Chumley: Exactly. I agree with you completely on that.

Jonathan Emord: So true.

Robert Scott Bell: Alright, Jonathan, final words. We've got a little bit of time before we're done; it goes so fast when we're together.

Jonathan Emord: Well, the answer to this one is simple, and we're late in the game because Obama's been asleep at the switch. We have to quarantine Sierra Leone, Guinea and...

Robert Scott Bell: Liberia.

Jonathan Emord: Liberia, yes, thank you, and we have to do it immediately, and we have to make sure that no one coming out of those countries comes into this country unless they have been tested, and established not to have the Ebola virus, otherwise we're just sitting ducks.

Robert Scott Bell: Yeah. Common sense, here, on The Robert Scott Bell Show with Jonathan Emord. Thank you, Cheryl Chumley of Washington Times, for joining us for the first time, and I look forward to many more.

Cheryl Chumley: Hey, thanks a lot, Robert.

Robert Scott Bell: All right. Thanks, Super Don, as well. Remember, on this show, and it's true on all of life, remember it: The power to heal is yours. Thank you, Jonathan.

Jonathan Emord: Thank you, Robert.

Listen to the entire interview at Radio.NaturalNews.com.