Kyle Kingsbury Podcast - #444 The Legal Warrior Against Unsafe Vaccines w/ Aaron Siri

Episode Date: February 9, 2026

In this podcast, Kyle welcomes Aaron Siri, a prominent legal advocate known for his work with the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and Del Bigtree’s Highwire, who has been influential in uncovering pharmaceutical industry practices. The conversation revolves around Siri’s new book, 'Vaccines. Amen,' which critiques the almost religious zeal with which vaccines are regarded and delves into various controversial aspects of vaccine safety and policy. Siri discusses the deficiencies in safety testing of vaccines, such as the Hepatitis B vaccine trials involving infants, and highlights how the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act shifted the responsibility of vaccine safety from manufacturers to the federal government, resulting in a lack of accountability. The conversation also explores the history and efficacy of the Measles vaccine, potential long-term health impacts of vaccines, and the broader implications of governmental and pharmaceutical industry practices. Kyle and Siri emphasize the importance of individual choice and informed consent in vaccination decisions, criticizing the lack of transparency and the ethical implications of government-mandated vaccines. The discussion concludes with reflections on the future of vaccine policy and the importance of maintaining personal freedoms and rights. Aaron Siri is the managing partner of Siri and Glimstad, where he focuses on civil rights, informed consent, class actions, and complex civil litigation. His work includes challenging medical mandates, defending parental rights, representing whistleblowers, and forcing government transparency, including litigation that compelled the FDA to release Pfizer COVID 19 records. Aaron previously practiced at Latham and Watkins and clerked for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel. He earned his law degree from UC Berkeley School of Law, where he served as Editor in Chief of the Berkeley Business Law Journal.   From Kyle: The Community is coming! Click here to learn more   Connect with Aaron here: Instagram Website Siri & Glimstad LLP   Our Sponsors: Let’s level up your nicotine routine with Lucy. Go to Lucy.co/KKP and use promo code (KKP) to get 20% off your first order. Lucy offers FREE SHIPPING and has a 30-day refund policy if you change your mind.   Connect with Kyle: I'm back on Instagram, come say hey @kylekingsbu Twitter: @kingsbu Our Farm Initiative: @gardenersofeden.earth Odysee: odysee.com/@KyleKingsburypod Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Kyle-Kingsbury Kyle's Website: www.kingsbu.com - Gardeners of Eden site If you enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe & leave a 5-star review with your thoughts!

Welcome to today's podcast. We have a bucket list guest today, Aaron Siri. Aaron Siri is a household name in many communities, but if you haven't heard of him, that's okay. He has been working diligently on behalf of ICANN, the informed consent action network, also known as Del Bigtree's High Wire, as far as the platform is concerned, but the behind-the-scenes stuff, the legal side of what Del Big Tree's been working on in the world, the legal side of what Bobby Kennedy has been doing in the world. And he has discovered an understanding. unbelievable amount of things that you would never think possible when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry. I would assume better. And trust me, I've been anti-vax for a while now, but Aaron has a new

book. It's called Vaccines Amen. And the premise of this is that, you know, vaccines are looked at almost religiously and not like any other product that's out there because they are a product. And he just dives so deeply, not only into the psychology behind vaccines and the psychology behind big pharma but also into so many other things i heard him on a podcast my buddy right and and he's like listen i don't need to speculate on and it doesn't help me as a lawyer to speculate on the nefariousness of certain things he goes let's just look at this and breaks down and he will on this podcast breaks down the exact safety precautions used for hepatitis b which is the first vaccine kids get they actually get it the day they're born they get it at six months and they

get at one year. So they have three in less than a year, but within 24 hours, you're going to get this shot unless you say no. What do the safety precautions look on that? How long did they test for? And this will fucking fry your mind. So listen to this podcast because that alone, if it's the one thing you're going to give the kids within 24 hours of birth, it better damn will be safe, right? Well, we'll find out here. Aaron Terry deep dives that. He unpacked so many others. And I think this is a podcast everyone needs to listen to even if it's uncomfortable. If you're feeling uncomfortable right now because of decisions you made or with your kids or whatever, that's fine. Don't put your head in the sand. Just listen to this podcast. If you feel drawn to it, get his book. It makes perfect sense.

And then there are many other books that I can turn you on to, but at least start here. So big ups, mad love for my dude Aaron Siri. I appreciate him. He flew in from Scottsdale, Arizona, mild stomping grounds. And I just have all the love and respect for the work that he's done in the world. He's doing great, great work. Share this with friends. And we'll see you. Without further ado, my brother, Aaron Siri. All right. We've had some good conversation here. Aaron Siri, I've been a fan for a while because of my proximity to Del Big Tree. Most people and Mickey Willis and others, but also Bobby Kennedy.

We had Bobby Kennedy, Aubrey Marcus and I, as well as Aaron Rogers, were huge supporters of Bobby. We actually had them here at our farm for a fundraiser back in the day, which was really cool when he was still running for president. I remember putting the real Anthony Fauci and Aubrey's hands being like, dude, you need to read this. This is important. And switching him on. That was before Bobby was even going to run for president. And long before that, like I said, Vax was such an important movie for my wife and I in 2018. A week ago, been a very surreal way of unfolding.

We had Andy Wakefield sitting right here in the same room that you're sitting in now. And so many things have transpired since my son was born in 2015 and actually started diving into this. I had known enough to take a look. I had heard enough of the whispers, enough of the complaints. I had been around enough autistic kids that I could see. see it increasing, you know, in my periphery. And especially in younger generations, as the things changed, I'm 43 years old. So I was still in that 10 vaccinations from 0 to 18 group instead of 72. And you'll know the numbers better than me if I'm wrong on any of that. But I saw those

changes. And I could see those things and I was really curious. And we got into Susan Humphrey's work, dissolving illusions, continued to poke around and decided like instead of just spacing things out, we're not going to vaccinate at all. Vex comes out. when my son's three and we were just blown away thank god we didn't vaccinate and uh have been following i can with del big tree and of course your work with him have been following bobby kennedy and children's health defense ever since and uh you've got a brand new book vaccines amen where you really deep dive you know what's important now so i'm super grateful that you're sitting here and uh i just love to before we dive into this big topic that i'm sure you're you're podcasting with everybody about

tell me what made you tick what got you on this path what made you say i want to be in in law and then brought you towards, you know, this can of worms that the industry of vaccine seems to be. Oh, what do I, why did I want to be in law? Well, my, my dad was like, you're going to go to law school my whole life, right? So, you know, when you're a kid, what do you know? I ended up going to law school. But I loved it.

I love what I do. And in terms of vaccines, I will tell you the very first thing I ever learned about vaccines. I was at the time working out of firm. called Latham Wackin's one of the biggest law firms in the country doing bet the company litigation multi-billion dollar disputes and somebody sent me a packet of information about vaccines had a lot of medical information I didn't know anything about that part of it I didn't know anything about immunology or vaccinology or infectious diseases but in that packet was information about the 1986 Act the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 1986 and I remember reading that going back almost

almost 18 years now and thinking, what? The product that they tell you is completely safe is the only product in the country. It's literally the only product in America where you cannot sue the manufacturer, the pharma company that makes it to say, had you made this safer, my kid wouldn't have died. My kid would have been seriously injured. And I remember look at that and going, it can't be because of all the issues I was going to ever litigate, that's the one. They're going to have immunity.

And, you know, when you look at how corporations operate, you have a retirement account, potentially, right? Or, and other people do. They have 401k. What do you want the companies in your portfolio to do? You want them to increase in value. How do they do that? They make money.

Investors want them to make more money. Their boards want them to make more money. You go into a boardroom and they go, let's just do what's moral and ethical, but not what's going to make us money. That board's not lasting very long. Okay. They're gone. The CEO, the CF.

everybody along the chain. And normally that is, that's good in terms of safety of a product because if they lose money when the product's not safe, that aligns with that economic interest. So companies naturally, right, because of economic self-interest, will make safer products before they put them out afterwards. But they broke that with vaccines in this law. And when I saw that law, I mean, that just popped out of me immediately. I was thinking, wow, I can't believe that.

So that started the genesis, I could say. Explain what that is for people, because a lot of people nowadays, if you're, you know, I'm 43, I've got a lot of friends that are in their late 40s, some guys that are younger, were in large part unaffected. I say that with air quotes, right, because we're all affected by it, whether we understand that or not. But it wasn't something that just as it happened, it was like, here's front page news that everyone should know about, right?

It just kind of happened. and you know for people who have been injured you go you go back you know that date you know 86 and you know that that that changed everything it changed you know the the rate at which things started being just here's another mandatory one here's another one we can slip into the schedule we're going to talk hep B we're going to talk a lot of these things here but i just prior to that you know if you only had and i always get this question like but you're vaccinated right why wouldn't you didn't you didn't vaccinate your kids but you're vaccinated oh yeah you know right there's that there's always that excuse so i'm just curious is

like the importance of that date and what it meant, break that down. Sure. So I'll start with two data points, then I'll explain the law at issue. A child following the CDC schedule in 1986, okay, would have gotten three injections by their first birthday. Three. A child following the CDC schedule today will get 25 injections, including in utero, by their first birthday.

If they also get COVID vaccine, it's 29. because they give the mother one when the baby's in the womb, and they give a three-dose series of COVID vaccine to a baby. That's what the Pfizer protocol calls for, believe it or not. It's incredible. So we've gone from three to 25 or 29 if you count COVID. That is a massive difference in terms of the number of vaccines. Data point number two.

In the early 1980s, the data reflect that under 10% of kids had a chronic health issue. America. Today, the data reflects it's over 40%, some statistics show over 50, and it's often multiple chronic health issues. And many of them are more severe than the ones that exist in the early 1980s. And when you look at those chronic health issues, what are they? They are almost all health issues that have an etiology in some form of immune system dysregulation. Asthma. Just something like asthma. What is that? That's your immune system not working properly. a topic issues. Even things like ADHD, most people don't associate with the immune system is when you

look at the underlying markers in a kid with ADHD, they have some dysregulation in their immune system that has been associated with ADHD. So when you look across that whole spectrum, now, to be sure, vaccines are not the only environmental insult that can harm people. You have forever chemicals. You have all kinds of, we litigate fluoride at my firm, we litigate forever chemicals, We litigate all kinds of stuff. People are finally talking about the fucking sprays in the atmosphere.

You don't have to be a psycho with a tinfoil hat to get people to acknowledge that that's happening. Well, we could talk a little about that too. In fact, we have two attorneys at our firm that actually most of what they do, it relates to geoengineering. Actually, we do tons of geoengineering work. Phenomenal. Almost all of it supported by ICANN, actually. That's a whole other topic. But going back to the childhood schedule, so we do know that we've got, and obviously obesity is a problem too, and that can cause other issues.

But we do know that the chronic health issues in children have exploded. They're mostly related to some form of immune system dysregulation. So the place you think you'd start is the very product you give over and over and over to do what? to literally modify a child's immune system. They tell you vaccines are powerful medical products. They will change your immune system system system system system system from your toe to your earlobe, right? And so they've been looking, they spend billions of dollars

to figure out what's causing all these health issues and they can't figure it out. Maybe they're just looking in the wrong place. Maybe they should start with the series of studies that have been done that compare kids that have no vaccines to kids that have one or more. Now, some of them are smaller. the retrospective, they have some confounders, okay?

But they're consistent. They all show that vaccinated kids have multiple times the rate of all of these chronic health issues that have exploded. It doesn't mean an unvaccinated kid can't have a chronic health issue. They surely can't. But the data reflect, the available published studies reflect that it is the unvaccinated kids that are way healthier. And I'll add one last piece to this.

and hopefully I've answered your question of full. The National Child of the Vaccine Direct of 1986 came about at a time, as we just told, there's only three injections. There were only three routine vaccines. MMR, DTP and OPP. That's it. That's all there was. So you're right.

When you say, like, what do you mean you don't get vaccine? You got vaccinated. Yeah, you got vaccinated, but you got almost nothing comparatively. Okay. And why did this law come into place? Because these vaccines were causing so much harm. Every single company making them went out of business, start making them. There were six manufacturers for pertussive vaccine down to one, six approximately

for measles down to one, one for the polio vaccine down to, three for polio down to one. Now, industries face these crossroads all the time, right? You make a gar where the gas tank explodes, make a better car. That's happened in the past, right? Did they, do the government say, hey, you could just keep selling your car that explodes? No. What was the name of that car? I remember hearing about it? The Nova. Yes. The Nova. It's a famous example because, you know, the company did an internal calculation, and what they calculated was it would cost them less to pay for the few dozen people they killed every year than to replace all the gas tanks. That is what the internal data revealed in a lawsuit in discovery, okay? Something you can't do with vaccines, right? And so

your plane's falling at, the plane doors are falling off, make better bolts. Your home building materials are causing cancer. Get rid of those chemicals that are causing cancer. Pull the asbestos go through every product you encounter. You encounter tens of thousands of products that you go through your life. And every single one of them is safe because the company self-regulates. The market corrects industries all the time face. Let me ask you this. Did we stop using sheetrock and building materials because there was asbestos?

Oh, that's it. We can't build houses unless you give us some unity. We have to keep building with asbestos. No, we got rid of the asbestos, right? It's simple. industries face this crossroad all the time. But in this instance, unlike every other one that, every other one, Congress decided to do something totally different. Instead of making them make a better, safer product, right?

Come on, they got millions of kids that are going to give this to a year. They can't make money, right? Make a better safe product. They said, you know what? You could keep selling your products that injuring kill children. We're just going to make sure nobody can sue you. We're going to pass on the goal the National Child of Vaccine Indry Act of 1926. as we talked about.

And we're going to make it so nobody can ever sue you to claim that had you made this vaccine safer, their kid would have been dead or would have injured. And not only for those three products, this is what I call the original sin in my book, but for any other vaccine developed thereafter. So those 29 shots we just talked about, every one of those vaccines, except for one, was developed by a company knowing that they would not be liable for the injuries and deaths for the most part caused by that product, which also shows you

it also reflects why for example with drug products they do multi-year placebo control trials before they're licensed why because they want to know if it's going to cause harm because they don't want to lose money

that's what they're in the business to do but with vaccines they don't have that economic self-interest and that's why you get these ridiculous trials days or weeks of safety remodering after injection let's jump let's jump in that this is this is exciting to me. And I loved your podcast with Ryan Anderson. Shout out to my boy, Ryan Anderson. I'll link to

you guys' podcasts. You did, you know, Ryan hooked me up with you. So I'm super grateful. And I thought that was a great podcast. And I also loved, you know, how he like me wanted to go down the private hole of SV40 and, you know, Dr. Jack Cruz says X, Y, and Z. And what do you think of this? And you're like, look, I don't have to speculate. You know, like, I can just, first of all, you can't because the position you're in. But let's just look, let's just look and what we'll determine and if this is nefarious or not. So, you know, I want to dive into Hep B. I want to dive into the things that we know for sure, right?

Because I think that's super important to frame in comparison to how long they would take with any other product that doesn't have, you know, this type of carte blanche when it comes to safety. But first, let's frame this because why did you title it, Vaccines Amen? I think this is beautiful, this understanding because it's so freaking true how people look at vaccines as a thing. It's comical. So let's talk about the title of this and the reason people have is these feelings towards it. So I've been litigating route vaccines for over a decade at this point. My firm's got over 100 people and about 50 of them do vaccine-related work. So we do a lot

of vaccine-related work. We do policy work. We fight mandates to restore exemptions. We help, you know, folks were injured. We help folks who were fired. You name it. We do everything vaccine-related. I picked a non-controversial topic for my career. And I will tell you this, over the course of doing that work, and when I began, I didn't know anything about vaccines. Like I said, the first thing I ever learned was in 1986 Act. I didn't know what the clinical trials were. I didn't know what the post-licensure safety was, meaning I had to learn that along the way.

And as I went along that journey, in particular for the policy work, which was a lot of it's supported by ICANN, right, the Informicent Action Network. One of the first things I did when we started representing that group was we wanted to see, well, what were the clinical trials allowed upon to license these products, right? Because they tell you these are the most thoroughly tested products. The most thoroughly tested. Like it's so much testing, basically you can't even quantify it. It's like mountains of testing, right?

And then beyond those mountains, more mountains, right? That's what they tell you. Irrefutable. Irrefutable. Like hundreds of kids, years of your, review, you know, against a placebo control group so you know a comparator. And what I found along that journey when we would FOIA the FDA, that's the Freedom of Information Act, which is the tool we citizens get to use to check up on those who we pay,

right? They work for us. They forget the government employees. It's the tool. So when we get those underlying documents, when I depose vaccinologists, including the world's leading vaccinologists when I sued federal health authorities, federal and state level health authorities. As I kept doing that, what I kept coming across was, here's what the primary source says. Okay? Here's what it shows. Here's what the actual clinical trial documents show. Here's what the study actually shows.

Here's what the data actually shows. And then there's what they tell you. And when I confront them with the actual evidence in a deposition or on the stand or in court, You'd expect an intellectual reaction, right? Because they're supposed to be science. But instead, what I would get is often emotional reactions. I would get the inability to accept literally the data right in front of them. And that's why I call it a religion.

Because the things that they say, the things that they continue to repeat are beliefs. They're not science. They're not data driven. They are beliefs. the only thing is that in a religion typically you know that it's a religion see when I'm like I believe this and I understand I'm taking leap of faith I don't know where everybody goes when they're die that's why I go to religion I believe in God I believe in things and I know I'm taking a leap of faith these folks this is a perverted religion because they think that they're

doing it scientifically based on data but they're not. It really is a belief. And hence I call it, vaccines amen, the religion of vaccines. And I go through the book and I go through each of the major

essentially claims that they make. And what I show is what they say versus what the data actually reveals. I love that. You use the term that people say, I believe in vaccines, right? Like you'd never say,

I believe in Toyota or I believe in Cili's postopedic, you know, mattresses. Wait, wait, oh my God, wait, this, you don't like this cherry. You don't believe in. chairs?

No, I, what, you don't believe in chairs? The science is out about this chair. Trust the science on this chair. It's such a, it's such a truism, right? Because no, people don't use the language of religion for other products. Nobody says, this chair is good or bad. You're pro or anti this chair. Anti-chair.

You're anti-chair. You're anti-chair. Well, I do want chairs that don't like fall over and hurt people, you know, oh, then you're anti-che. Nobody will say that. Nobody even thinks in those terms. But I've literally, you know, been in situations where I'm like, Well, here's a study that shows X issue with the vaccine, and the response is not, oh, let me look at that, or let me address that.

Let me scientifically consider it is, you don't believe in vaccines? Like, oh, my God. But you get that all the time, all the time. And it's really, you know, for the most part, it's pretty much, you know, it's one of the few products. And I say that I think part of the reason we've gotten to this place is, again, unlike other products, where the the market will self-correct for safety, where there can be pushback against the product. When there's an issue with the car, how do you know about it? Where do you read about it? Sometimes the car manufacturer sends you a letter that says we got a recall.

Right. Or you'll read about a class action lawsuit in the paper a lot of times. And what's going to drive that recall? They're worried about being sued. They're worried about liability. And so there'll be a news cycle about it. And nobody calls reporters or those or the lawyers who are trying to address that car safety issue, anti-car. Like, you're anti-car. No, the gas thing shouldn't explode. We shouldn't have kids who end up with transomylitis and are paralyzed from vaccines. Okay, that just shouldn't happen. Oh, well, you're anti-vaccine if you say that, even if represent these people. But the problem is for 40 years, because of this law, there aren't a lawsuit. There is no pushback. And there is no industry concerned about liability. There is no self-correction.

occurring. It is why with vaccines, and I get this from parents a lot, well, I don't have time. Well, I got to tell you, for most products, yeah, you don't need to do a deep dive because the market will self-correct. But with these products, unfortunately, you do. You do need to do because the market's not self-correcting and it won't self-correct until its laws repealed. Oh, man. It's a wild thing to kind of wrap your head around, especially considering the weight of it's ridiculous. And I love laughing about it. And it's also. so like carried it the same piece on the cross of people are dead. Kids are dead.

Mothers have been gaslit this entire time. You know what I'm saying? Like, oh, there's no way you know better than I do as your pediatrician that your son was speaking and doing all these things prior to this one day where he got a triple jab. And now all of a sudden he can't speak anymore and all these things have come on. There's no delayed autism. He was born with it, but it just showed up now. You know, like shit like that is, is mind blowing to me because it's,

It is, it has so much buy-in from people in a way where, you know, there's a religious buy-in, right? And they've carefully made it a way where you are for or against. They've polarized the entire subject instead of allowing this conversation to take place where there is the massive gray area of some people are getting hurt really bad. And some people aren't getting hurt really bad, but they're still being affected by it. Right? Like I would say a ton of the autoimmune issues, a lot of the gut issues are related. related to these things, these adjuvants and things that maybe don't even need to be in there in the first place.

But taking all that into consideration, it's like, we're just talking autism or we're just talking one of these, you know, big ticket items. There's so much more to the conversation that also it takes people like you and Dell and others to really deep dive into to say, hey, there are correlations here. Andy Wakefield, a GI doctor was looking at gut issues when he found out MMR was potentially causing these problems. it's wild to think how wrapped around the web. I really don't think it's nefarious in the sense of depopulation. Perhaps that MRNA and tech and stuff like that coming. Maybe that's a little bit more about that. But just the money alone, like the greed of which,

oh shit, we can push this out and not get in trouble for it. Let's do that. It has led to this spike. It's led to a gold rush from pharmaceutical companies to jump in and say, well, we know, we can't figure out where this should go. Let's put it in the childhood vaccine schedule. Let's see if we can cram it in there because then we're guaranteed to get people buying it. And we'll make it a part of the thing.

And it's just, it's wild to kind of look at that entire thing and say that it's, it is crazy to me to think that you're crazy for ever wanting to take a look at that and say, well, there's actually a mountain evidence that we should be looking at this stuff and people really have a hard time doing that. All right, guys, quick break to tell you about my brand new community that is launching this year, the kingdom within. This has been many years in the making. I've had a lot of iterations of the things that I've learned about

and wanted to teach through serving fit for service for six or seven years, coaching one-on-one clients. Literally thousands of people that have come through my coaching and been shaped by me and who have shaped me. So what is it about? It's about the body. the body is a doorway. It opens up all systems. The body is the temple. It's about the mind as a system. How do we categorically learn how to use the mind so it can sit in the passenger seat,

not in the driver's seat? And then how do we connect to ourselves, right? How do we connect to each other? How do we connect to our parents? How do we connect to nature? How do we connect to God in a safe way? All of these things are critically important, but it starts with the body and then we lead in with the mind and then we dive into connection. And the community is a field. It is a content. actively that supports this. Everybody who joins this community is going to be thinking along the same lines. You will come there for your own reasons, but everybody is coming with a willingness to grow and a willingness to learn.

And with that, you have a container that leads for potential transformation. At the very least, the knowledge is going to be palpable. And so I'll be teaching once a month on their webinars on some of the most important, potent things that I think working from body to mind to connection and beyond. And of course, every other two weeks, there will be a Q&A that will go, which will just answer each and every one of your questions. A huge resource list of every book that I've ever read, the why behind it and where I think you should start, because a lot of times people get overwhelmed. You come to one of my classes. You get recommended two different books on sleep, two different books on health, whatever the thing is, where do you start?

Well, that's an important piece that only you can answer, but I can help you with that. and through a little Q&A and active back and forth, you will have all the help necessary to launch yourself into the best direction you've ever been from a health standpoint, from a mental standpoint, and from a life standpoint, because life is about connection. It's about relationship and how I relate to myself

as well as others. It's the name of the game. All right, please join us at the kingdom within. I look forward to seeing you guys. You want to learn more. We'll link to it at the top page of the show notes, and now back to the podcast. I have no issue saying the things about vaccines

that are good. For example, measles vaccine can prevent transmission of measles. Say easy. But they refuse to look at the data or accept, even when it's in their face, even when the parent is saying, this vaccine did X my child, they just refused to look at it.

Instead, they do the opposite. They treat that parent in the worst possible way possible. Think about it like this. What group of people can you talk about the way that you hear folks in the media and the medical community talk about people that don't vaccinate. I want you to picture any racial group, any ethnic group, any religious group.

And imagine I just said this about them. You ready? But don't picture on vaccinate people. Picture like a minority. Throw them out of school. Kick them out of their jobs. They're selfish. They're bad.

Don't even treat them when they come to the hospital. They should be shunned from. society. Can you imagine saying that about any other group? We hope, yeah, we hope this Christmas you all get sick. You have what's coming. Can you imagine? Can you imagine that for any other group?

No, that's not a, and that just shows the place from which they approach these products. And that is, by the way, a big part of wrote the book is if you read the book, I'm not trying to make somebody anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine or think they're going to. good or bad, I just want people to think about them again like a product, because that's what they are. They're products, but that's not the way people think about them. Because if people thought about them like a product, you can have a conversation. Oh, you're taking a statin? Let me show you some studies on statins. Oh, let's have a discussion about the statin. It's just a statin. You're like, okay, it's a drug. You talk about it like it's a product. But people don't do that with vaccines.

They just get angry. And you know why they often get angry? Because it's a belief. Because when you believe something, and you think that it's based on a knowledge base? And I challenge you, what can you draw from? Can you draw from your intellect? Even pediatricians. You think pediatricians know about vaccines? They don't know anything about vaccines. I've never deposed a pediatrician that knows virtually anything about a vaccine. Okay. So when you challenge them, they think they know. They can't draw from here. They can't draw from their intellect. They draw from their emotions. That's why they get angry. That's why they get upset. That's why they engage in. ad hominem. That's why they'll often dehumanize you and they engage in that name call.

Or tell Danny Jones he's got to get, he's their last visit at our office and kicking you out. And kicking you out because they can't, you know, they can't persuade you in the merits. And I'll give you my definition of a vaccine because I think it dovetails of what you just said. For me, a vaccine means the following. It's not whether it prevents transmission or doesn't. Most vaccines don't prevent transmission. MRNA vaccine doesn't prevent transmission. Protasus doesn't affect infection. The current polio vaccine for lots of 25 years. doesn't the old one did, the current one doesn't. Most vaccine are ninja cockle.

Most of them do not prevent transmission. So that can't be the definition, right? Can't be the technology. MRNA technology is totally different than Hep B, which is recombinant DNA technology, which is different than attenuated vaccines, which is different than toxin. So you can't use that parameter. They're all very different technological. I know they talk about MRNA vaccine very different.

It is different. But so is recombinant DNA vaccines. The Hepi ones are very different. different than others. So that can't be the base. So what is the difference? I'll tell you the difference in my view. It's one thing only.

There's only one thing that differentiates that aligns all vaccines together. To me, a vaccine is a product that causes so much harm that it needed federal government immunity to save and protect the company from lawsuits and to have to pay out for those injuries.

That's really the only commonality. That's it. It's that protection under the 1986 Act. To me, that is really often the only, the most common theme, the most common attribute to vaccinate what a vaccine is. That's a beautiful definition. And they have changed that definition multiple times, you know, on the CDC's website with, with understanding what these do and don't do, even in recent. So I think that's, that is, they're not using my definition. They're not using your definition. No, that's for certain. We talked, you know, Susan Humphreys,

dissolving illusions was really a big catalyst for us, which is more of a historical reference point. And I think it's an important reference point. When Annie Wakefield was here last week, he was talking about the fact that, like, measles was in large part eradicated, you know, before this measles vaccine comes on board and how that really is the thing. Like it had become something that was not fatal in most circumstances. And, you know, in large part wasn't really happening a large scale anymore. And then we have the introduction of this vaccine. And, you know, what's great about Susan Humphrey's book is that there's photographs of old newspapers.

What we'll say, here's where polio's at. The vaccine comes along and like, hey, watch now. 20, 30 years from now, pharmaceutical companies are going to act like they eradicated this, right? Which is part and parcel of the story we hear from doctors, from the general population. You know, what happens if you guys, you know, you and your son don't take this vaccine and all of a sudden there's going to be a giant measles outbreak. and you know, Chelsea Clinton mentioned Andy Wakefield when there was a measles outbreak, a small one in Missouri or whatever the hell it was.

You know, but that consistently seems to be a part of the story that's also absolutely fake and unfounded. So, you know, I want to dive into these vaccines because you do break them down properly and also from the scientific standpoint. I'd love where you and Ryan went on Hepbee. I think it's super important because, you know, that's one for me right away. Like I didn't want to, when we had our son in a hospital. we home birth, our daughter.

And we were at Stanford Children's Hospital. Our doctor was really cool. He was like, you know, he was like, oh, you know, a lot of people are waiting, that kind of thing. We just said we're waiting. We're in a space. We don't want to do anything over here. We want to wait until these older kind of thing. Didn't really think he needed anything right now kind of deal.

And he was cool with that. The nurses had a big problem with it. And so, you know, it's the middle of the night. They're coming in every 45 minutes. The lights go on. They're looking at something. and he's asleep on my chest, my wife's asleep, and I just see him drawing up needles.

And I'm like, hey, what are we doing? Like, oh, you know, it's time for this, this and this. And I was like, no, no, we're not doing it. And we printed it and laminated it and had it right behind me. I go, here, doctor should have let you know, we're not doing anything right now. And, you know, it was like they were shocked. Like, oh, oh, like they didn't know what to do. They just stood there with the syringe in their hand.

Like, uh, but it's okay. You know, no, no, no, we're not doing that. We're not doing vitamin K. We're not doing that. And even, you know, to that, I think another great one is the nursing traditions book of child and baby care. Dr. Thomas Cowan and Sally Fallon from the West Ender Price Foundation. Brilliant. You know, talking about like vitamin K first started to be introduced because of circumcisions.

And the reason Jews would wait eight days to the bris is because they'd get enough vitamin K through the milk organically that they could stop bleeding when they had, you know, the foreskin sniff. Right? we're not sniffing anything on my son and yet they give this to boys and girls just the same right and it's like well I brought my own organic vitamin K and like well we can't we get you know they got really mad they're like we can't sign off on that and I was like you did think the synthetic version is going to be better than the organic that I can just put under his tongue you know and they were pissed and it was like this is this is insane to me you know I clearly am going to give him the nutrient you think he needs which he doesn't because he's going to get it in the milk and we're not cutting anything on his

body. But the HEPB piece is such a fascinating one. Deep dive HFB, the point of that vaccine, and why the hell is it given the kids so early in life considering what it's supposed to work on? So the very first HEPB vaccine was in 1981, and it was actually made human blood from chronic hep B carriers. So those who are at the highest risk, right? They would take their blood. They would take out the surface antigen and they would make this vaccine. It was only intended for, you know, folks at high risk, but most folks just didn't want it, you know, because of its origin. 1986, and it was never licensed for children, for routine use in children. 1986 comes around and they come out with the first recombinant DNA vaccine, the first Hepi

vaccine ever that used recombin DNA technology. And it was also the very first one ever that was licensed for routine use in children. Okay. So there had never been one license before. That vaccine was licensed in a clinical trial that had 147 kids, five days of safety monitoring after injection,

and no control group. Okay, so. I just want to rewind that just for a second here. How long should it, how long would somebody on like, let's take Viox. Do you remember Vioxx, right?

Caused heart failure. What is a safety protocol look like on a typical product that a pharmaceutical company comes out with? On a typical drug, you will often find multi-year placebo control trials. So in my attempt to not cherry pick examples in my book, what I did is I found an article from Money Inc in 2019 that listed it had the four most profitable drugs by Pfizer. It's actually the first article I found that had a list of drugs like that. So I listed them and I went and I looked up how long.

Each of them had a multi-year placebo-controlled trial before it was licensed. Every single one of them. So that gives you a comparison point. Multi-year placebo. And of course it makes sense. And those are for adults, especially for a baby. You will not know what neurological, immunological, developmental issues that baby's going to have if you don't track it for a few years.

How are you going to know? How do you know the kids got most of these issues? One, they can't talk. They can't explain the issues. They have a disautonomia of. some kind, right? How are they going to explain that to you? They can't tell you, hey, I'm feeling dizzy. I'm feeling like my autonomic systems is out of whack, which when you give some vaccines to teenagers, they'll tell you that, right? They can't tell you I'm having some, all right. So five days is

just, it's, you know, it's absurd. And it's, or to not use an adjective like that, it is patently insufficient to affirm that that product was safe. But yet that's what it was. was, that's what the trial was that was relied upon to license that. And then there's only one other hepatitis B vaccine to this day, licensed in 89, Ender XB, that had four days of safety monitoring after injection in the clinical trial relato upon the license. So no control group again. And by the way, even if they did have a placebo control, which they didn't, they didn't

review safety long enough. And even, by the way, if they had a placebo control and they reviewed safety long enough, they were both underpower, they didn't have enough kids. So the trials are ridiculous. Fast forward to 1991. When those two products came out, they were only trying to target high-risk groups, which means promiscuous sex, like sex workers and intravenous drug users. That's what they were trying to target.

And they would give it to those who's babies born to happy positive mothers. Those are the three groups. The problem was, other than the mothers born to heavy positive, babies born to heavy positive mothers, they couldn't get the junkies and the sex workers to take it. And so when you read the CDC, the ASIP, the advisory committee on an amnization practice, that's the CDC vaccine committee, their report from 1991 of why they've made it universal, a primary reason they gave was, well, we can't get the others to get it. So maybe we'll just give it universally.

And that is one piece of the puzzle. I think another component is that there's about 3.8 million babies born every year. And if you can get a recommendation to give it to 3.8 million, that's 3.8 million doses you get to sell, not once, but three times because it would be given a birth, one month, and six months, that's good money. pharmacy you know for the four main pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines which is merks synofi gsk and fyser their portfolio vaccines from 1980s was their percentage of their revenue was tiny compared to today and that's because um you know imagine i came to you and i said hey i got a business idea you're like what is it you ready you ready you want a business idea okay we're going to sell this product we inject into people you know like what does it do you

Like, does some stuff. Well, does it hurt people? Don't worry about it. Don't worry. They can't sue us. They're like, okay. But who the hell is we want to take it? Don't worry.

They're going to mandate it. Really? The government's going to mandate it? Okay. What if people don't want to take it? Like, what if they're like, get upset about it? Don't worry. The government's going to spend billions a year promoting it.

Okay, what if they still don't want to pay for it? Don't worry. The government and the Vaccines for Children's Program is going to pay for almost every single dose if they can't pay for it, which actually pays for a half-child of vaccines in America. So the government was going to promote, let me get this straight. Government's going to promote it.

The government is going to acquire, it's going to give you a guaranteed market. It's going to give you immunity for liability, and they're going to pay you for it. Who wouldn't go into this business? Who wouldn't go into this business? So, you know, from that perspective, obviously getting a universal recommendation for hepatitis B vaccine,

it's a very good business and no doubt very much drove what they, the CDC Asit Committee did. And I go through in my book, some of the members who sat on that committee during that time period, and they had incredible conflicts with pharmaceutical companies, not as much today, actually. But back then, oh, man, I mean, it's still bad, but it was incredibly bad back then. The very same folks who were conducting clinical trials, who were working, being paid by those same pharma companies, were sitting on the CDC committee that was.

was, you know, that committee which voted to add them to the schedule. You can't think of a more nefarious conflict. Yeah. I mean, to me, it thinks, I picture like pro wrestling. You know, like you're a kid. You're watching pro wrestling. You're like, oh, I hate that guy, you know, and then it dawns on you. Like, oh, shit.

All right, it's fake. Well, I mean, it's not fake. They're getting hurt and they're really hitting each other in some circumstances. And these guys can really get, you know, put their bodies in the line. But they predetermined the matches. But, oh, wait, the guys that hate each other actually don't. they're like hanging out afterwards having beers like they really don't hate each other they're really just old pals

the whole thing was an act it's wild I would love to at least see an act by the way first of all I would love to see an act like I'd love to see the FDA and the CDC pretend to actually act like regulators they don't even pretend

when you go to the FDA website do you see there are these warning letters that go out all the time about drug products you ever seen one about vaccines when you go to the FDA website, what is a regulator supposed to do? They're supposed to give the company a hard time.

Go to the FDA website today. It promotes vaccines. How in the world is a regulator promoting the product that's supposed to be regulating? They don't act like regulators. Go to the CDC website. Now they're really doing post-licensure safety properly? Of course not. They don't even pretend to be fighting.

I don't see it. I mean, the closest thing you have to actually trying to get to like really looking at these products and it's, you know, and it's still pretty light is the most recent ACE appearing in this committee that Bobby, you know, put, you know, and secretary have put together where you have really differing voices. But the media has gone wild because they only want to hear the voices that align with pharmaceutical company interests. So I would love to see it. I would love to see that cage match. Tell me, tell me about this, that's something I had heard Dell talk about a while back, that was really cool.

I don't know if he was telling me in person or, I think it wasn't one of Bobby's events. He was telling me how you had used the FOIA to get the meeting minutes. Because when the 1986 Act went through, they were supposed to meet every two years to go over vaccine, safety, and efficacy. Yeah, yeah. Right? So explain this story for people because, again, I don't think many people know it.

I didn't know it at the time. And I was just like, you can't make this shit up. Like, you really can't. I'd love for you to drop this on the podcast. Yeah, I can't make up almost all this stuff. I mean, I'll add that, for example, what I just said about the hepatitis B vaccine, like if you asked me to come up with the most nefarious, insane thing, I would never dream to tell you, yeah, they license it on five days of safety.

My app to jail with 147 kids and no control. I wouldn't believe it, by the way. I wouldn't believe it if you told me that. I'd be like, no way. I want to see it. And in that example, for example, it's in the package's insured. federal regulations require the company to summarize it in the package insert. It's approved by the FDA.

So it's right there. It says that. I still didn't believe it. So we used FOIA to the FDA to get the underlying clinical trial reports. And there it was. It still says that. And then we found the published study by Merck. It shows the same thing.

And I even happened at the time I didn't know it. But when I deposed Dr. Stanley Plach and the world's leading vaccinologist, I asked him about that trial. I didn't know when I asked him about it. because I only got the documents in the day later. He was the principal investigator for that trial to license that happy vaccine for children.

And when I sat in that deposition, I looked across and I said, Dr. Plotkin, how long was safety monitored in that trial? He was like, he didn't even really remember. I had to show him the doctor.

He was like, oh, five days. Meaning safety is such an afterthought. This is my view of it. Such an afterthought. Even the guy, even the scientists, the principal investigation, of the trial, can't even remember how long state through his view.

Because they don't take it seriously now to actually answer your question. Because I'm about to say something else that's incredible. And everything that I say, I also repeat in my book, it's also on ICANN's website, or you go to the FDA website and look at the five days, right? So, in 1986, when Congress eliminated the liability for these companies, at least they recognized that they created a vacuum with regards to safety. because they eliminated that self-interest we just talked about. You have countries, for example, that, like, you know, the old Soviet Union where there was no free market, okay?

Incredible government regulations. Were product safe? No, because government doesn't make product safe. You think the products are safe in America because of the government? It's laughable. Go to any country where there's incredible regulation and very free, at very little free market, you don't find safer products. Because government, you know, I don't know what they're doing with all their money, but let's just put that. suicide. So Congress at least recognizes, oops, we're going to eliminate the way products

can be made safer. And so what they did is they enacted something called a mandate for safer child of vaccines. It's a little section of law. And they transferred all the responsibilities to make vaccines safer from the companies to the federal government. They transferred it to HHS. HHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, is the federal department in which all our federal health agencies are located. CDC, NIH, FDA, go down the list. So when I say HHS, I mean it's the whole kit and cabood. It's all our federal health agencies, all right?

So Congress in this one section of law said, all right, we know you guys are going to care about safety anymore because we just made it so you're not going to be. So instead we're going to make HHS responsible for safety. All right, guys, quick break to. tell you about lucy.co. Lucy offers 100% pure nicotine as always tobacco-free. Lucy breakers are nicotine pouches with an extra surprise. Each pouch holds a capsule that can be broken up to release extra flavor and hydration. Set yourself up with a subscription and have Lucy delivered straight to your

door. My favorite Lucy product is the bangers is what I like to call them, but the mint pouches. Throw that in. I like the 12 mig, but I started with four migs and worked my way up. Don't be a campus hero and bought off more than you can chew. It feels like you've been on the merry-go-round too long, if you know what I'm saying. So just work your way up slowly over time. Nicotine is fantastic. It switches the brain on like very few things, very few other things can. And I absolutely love it.

Lucy is the only lasting pouch that gives you long-lasting flavor whenever you need it. Get 20% off your first order when you buy online with code KKP. And if you don't want to wait, just head to lucy.com slash stores to find Lucy near you and grab it today. And here comes the fine print. Lucy products are only for adults of legal age, and every order is age verified. Warning, this product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.

It's addictive because it's awesome. It is fantastic. You will love it, I promise. Lucy.com. KKP at checkout. In a section of law that has three little parts, part one says, and you can read the list, goes on forever. HHS is responsible to now make vaccine safer, and every person.

possible way in how they're trialed and how they're licensed in post-marketing and how they're surveilled in hotlots you go down the list everything possible stuff the company normally would have been responsible for that's section one section two of this law created a committee called the task force on safe for child of vaccines that was comprised of the head of the NIH CDC and FDA that was supposed to make recommendations to the secretary of hHS currently robert of Kennedy Jr. on how to make vaccine safer, all right, how to comply with section one, right? Talk about important.

Wow, that's really important. Right. How do you make them safer? What do you do? More studies, more surveillance, better ingredients. Then section three of this law, okay, sorry, we're in law class for just a second. It's almost done. I hope not losing anybody.

Section three of this law requires the secretary of HHS. every two years to submit a report to Congress on what they did at HHS to make vaccine safer. Okay, great. So thank goodness. We eliminated the company's self-interest, but thank goodness, the government's here to save us. You know how that goes, okay? The government's here to save us. They're going to make sure these products are safer.

Let's see what they've done. You ready? Okay. Let's start from the bottom. So let's start with the bottom requirement. They got to submit a report to Congress every two years and how did they made it safer? Easy. Right?

They got 85, they had 85,000 people at HHS. Surely they could put some paper together, write a report and submit it to Congress. So we submitted on behalf of ICANN of Freedom of Information Act to HHS and said, hey, can you kindly provide us copies of these binary reports? Oh, we'll do the crap out of you. Okay. But kindly, please provide it. so they they kept they didn't respond they gave us bologna responses and I was like what the hell I'm like just give me the reports so they didn't give them so I sued them in federal court and I said hey

give me the reports and you know the you know the Department of Justice represents the government okay uh HHS and the DOJ finally you know calls me up and I'm like well we don't have any I'm like okay so need a whole federal lawsuit for that fine let's just i wanted in writing i wanted a stipulation i want a sign by a judge so we did we had it signed in a stipulation and signed by the and then signed by the court and it was entered as an order that was five years ago now okay um we a few years later we did another request thinking okay come on we just embarrassed the crap out of you they still haven't done it, Bob. They still didn't do it. I assume Bobby will finally do it, by the way. Yeah, I was going to say, I hope Bobby takes these guys the task while he's in there.

Well, no, Bobby is now responsible to submit the report. So Bobby will surely do it. I assume he, I'd be confident he will do it. Here's the important part. Okay. Remember, the first part of this law that underpins all vaccine safety in America. Okay, is the hard part. The report's the easy part. And they're not doing that. Let's go to the second part. that's to have the task force that's supposed to make recommendations. So again, can we please have copies of all the recommendations y'all made over the years? Same crap. Got to have legal duking it out.

Like, come on, just give me the freaking recommendations. Finally, they had to concede. They made recommendations one time in 1998, and then they dissolved that task force. It doesn't even exist. Bobby just reconvened it for the first time. Wow. He just reconvened it. So I want you to think about it this way.

If they're not doing the simple things of just a report and making recommendations, you think they're doing the hard part of actually making a vaccine safer? Of course not. And that's laid bare by numerous other reports by the Institute of Medicine and other agency stuff and also. But that's enough technical stuff. That's roughly 40 years, though, right? like 40 years so there should have been 20 if it's every two years

it should have been 20 of these reports that we would have seen this is why I'm saying like you're like well you're trying to equate it to fake wrestling they're not even fake wrestling they're not even pretending they're just sitting there like they're sitting there with both hands and the same popcorn you don't feeding each other

and that's what industry and the HHS has been doing for 40 years basically wild what else do we get into in this book because I'm I'm going to deep dive this. I'm stoked to have some fresh content, you know, in this, in this arena, especially in the post-COVID world. Well, I can respond to your measles comment earlier if you want. Yeah.

Yeah, please. Yeah, I mean, I mean, measles is a great example. And you started talking about it. And I like that. It is that you were saying that, you know, they talk about how, you know, without these vaccines, you know, disease would run wild. Everybody would die. Okay. Everybody's going to die.

That's their favorite thing. So in measles might even be their best example It's the one they always focus on Because it probably is their best example But let's frame it Let's put it in the proper cabin First of all

And before I get into measles mortality I love how they always act like Well if you don't get the shot You know then mine doesn't work You don't get it Mine doesn't work do you understand J.P. Sears Did you see JP do a bit on

this during COVID. It was the life jacket. So the swimming life jacket. He said, you have to put yours on. I won't flow. I was in tears. And so many people were in the comments. I was talking shit.

I'm like, can you not see this? Please tell me you can at least see this and understand it for what he's saying right here. This is verbatim the exact argument you're making on vaccines. Don't you get it? Stop thinking. Just believe that statement, okay? which is, you know, it's incredible.

Because look, in my personal view, you want to get a vaccine, this is America, that's freedom. I'll fight for your rights. Do you want to get a vaccine a day? Go for it. That's freedom. You want to wear 16 masks, live in your basement and a self-imposed hand. Stay at home order. Do it.

Freedom. America love it, but just never course anybody to get it. All right. Putting that aside. Measles mortality, the United States, declined by over 98% between 1900 and the first measles vaccine ever in 1963. 98%. And you know what didn't cause that decline?

vaccines. That's right. You know why? It didn't exist. There was no measles vaccine. I've literally had that back and forth with doctors, a few doctors, and it's like, they won't say it. They just won't say it. I wonder if they have the history lesson.

Anyway, what did cause the decline? Well, you know, I'm better. It's probably a number of variables. It's probably better sanitation, clean water, better nutrition, and improve. in acute medical care, right? Meaning a lot of stuff that public health authorities probably could take credit for. They could. But do they?

No, they only point to the vaccine. Okay. In England, by the way, so let's just make sure we really hone in on that. From 1900 to late 1950s or the 1960s, we have an increasing population in America, like skyrocketing and declining measles marty. by 98%. So think about that, right? Okay, so we have a trend line. Even though populations growing up, measles mortality going down. In England, by the way, where they did introduce measles vaccine until 1968, meaning five years later than America,

they already had an over 99% decline in mortality, right? By the time a measles vaccine came around, so the early 1950s, early 1960s, we were down to around 400 deaths in America a year for measles. 400. That's one in 450,000 Americans dying of measles at a time when everybody got measles. Everybody got measles. One in 450,000 Americans died a year. In contrast, by the way, they say 500,000 people died of COVID approximately in 2020.

Okay, just to put this in a frame of reference. You know, 40, 50 people die of lightning strikes in America every year. Every death is a tragedy. But 400 is nowhere near millions. There's nowhere near the fearmongering. They make you think measles is. The way you think about chickenpox today, because you live through chickenpox, I live through chickenpox. Well, like it's chickenpox.

That's the way they thought about measles back then. They thought about measles the way we think about chickenpox. Okay. But they have fear mongered you into thinking it's millions. Now, what that probably means, and this really makes what I call the vaccine in men, crowd go bananas, okay? It makes them go wild. when I'm about what I'm about to say

that even without a vaccine there's no reason to believe there's no reason to assume that trend line would not have continued down numerous pathogens were very deadly in 1900 for which they tried to make a vaccine and they failed like scarlet fever

scarlet fever was highly deadly in 1900 they tried to make vaccine they failed and over time scarlet fever mortality kept going down and down and down and down and it just got way too small for the point where it's like, well, at this point, we've missed the boat. Had they been successful, I assure you, I can't assure you.

But I'm highly confident that it would be on the schedule today. They would tell you scarlet fever is the only thing that reduced mortality of scarlet fever from 1900 onward. And if nobody gets scarlet fever vaccine today, everybody's going to die scarlet fever. Scarlet fever still exists, right? But it's just so rare. You don't even hear about it. And there's no vaccines. There's no money to make a big deal about it.

Okay. Now, measles mortality kept going out. Now, I think, so of those 400 deaths, how many would vaccination would have prevented? Now, measles vaccine, unlike most vaccines, can prevent transmission. And it reduces symptoms. So it can prevent you from dying for measles. It can. So measles vaccine might have accounted for some percentage of that continuing decline over time.

All right. But do we just stop? there? Do we say that's it? No looking for any further, right? That's what they want to do at the CDC. That's what they want to do with the CDC. They just want to stop there and say, that's it. That's the end of the story. Whatever those few deaths are that we prevented, everybody's got to get it. But that's not how public health should work. If you're serious about public health, you have to look at the overall impact. And so, one, you have to look at the harms of the product causes, which it does cause harm. You talked about gastrointestinal issues. Do you know that in the clinical trial to license the MMR vaccine,

that we currently use. There were under 1,000 kids. There was no control group, and they reviewed safety for 42 days. A third of the children, a third of the children in that clinical trial had a gastrointestinal issue during that trial, and a third had a respiratory issue.

But since there was no control group, what are you comparing it against? You know, so they licensed it. I mean, it didn't affirm that it was safe, but it reflected something quite concerning. It's not normal for 40, a third of kids that have a respiratory

and a gastrointestinal issue within 42, every 42 days in America. Could you imagine? That's not normal. But there's another data point to consider. People that have had measles, before I say that,

because measles vaccine can stop transmission, measles does not circulate in America the way it used to. And that's probably because of the vaccine. Okay? So in that regard, it can't prevent harms from measles. But studies that have looked at people that have had measles versus those who haven't

have found that those that have measles have far less statistically significant rate of death from cardiovascular disease and cancers. Give you an example. Massive study out of Japan, forward-looking, prospect of the most reliable kind of science, not retrospective, which can be, but they started on day one and they started tracking people. going forward, right? So it's hard to rigged that kind of study. Tracked 100,000 people in Japan. This includes, you know, this is Japanese government and major university there did this study. It involved a lot of things they looked at. But they tracked 100,000 Japanese for 22 years,

and they found is that after 20 years, those that had measles and mumps died at a 20% lower rate than those that had it. Statistically significant. 20% cost. cardiovascular disease kills 900,000 Americans a year. Think about that. If eliminating measles and mumps has increased cardiovascular deaths by even 1%, you've just inverted the public health benefit. And that's, by the way, the only study that exists on that issue. And it's massive, and it's super reliable, and it was highly statistically significant.

But trust me, they don't want to talk about that. Because that just upends their entire public health model. There's other studies about cancer, though they're smaller. They're more retrospective, but they're consistent. They're all in PubMed. They're in the public literature. And what they show is that kids that have had measles and adults have less cancer. For example, one study, these are at a major universities.

They're just very inconvenient, so they don't talk about them, okay? I didn't do these studies. I'm just a lawyer. I just read them, you know, with the words, like one after another. And in the, for example, there was a study that found that kids that had measles had a 66% who didn't have, excuse me, kids who did not have measles had a 66% increase rate of hospital lymphoma and a 166% increase rate of non-hachal lymphoma. That kills 20,000 people in America every year right now, many of them children. So again, if eliminating measles caused even a small percentage of that increase, you are really upside down in your public health benefit.

So, you know, what it, and, you know, what those studies should do is they should make those who are pushing these products a little bit humble, just a little humble. And just for a second, maybe stop and go, you know, maybe have this thought process. pathogens have come and gone throughout the ages. But measles didn't. Maybe that's because of nature, God, whatever one, you know, looks at the universe, lends through. Maybe there was a reason.

Maybe there was a reason. Measles never went away, like many other pathogens, because maybe it conferred a survival advantage overall, that it actually had net health benefit, at least based on this data. I'm not saying it definitively does. but I'm saying that it should at least make you humble enough to look at that data. But they're not going to do that. I lay that stuff out of my book. I go through those studies in my book.

So sure. One, measles vaccine had almost nothing to do with the decline in measles mortality. A. B. Measles was probably going to keep declining mortality even without measles vaccine. Three. While measles can't, via vaccine can't eliminate transmission, we have to ask. ask ourselves, was that net net a good idea from public health perspective?

Those are all important questions to ask. And the thing about is what I just said, if you try to talk to a pediatrician, a typical pediatrician or infectious disease specialist or immunologist or vaccinologist or public health official, they're not going to engage with you intellectually. What they're going to do is have the insane hyperbolic reaction you saw this past week. From ASIP doing what? What did they do? All they did is said to a non-happy positive mother instead of day one, do it on day 60.

That's it. That's all they said. And they didn't even say we're not going to cover it. Insurers still pay for it. The government will still pay for it if you want on a day one. Anybody who wants it could still get it on day one. But they lost their collective minds because they don't want to engage. They just, I'll make it simple.

Vaccines, amen. vaccine's amen yeah you know so that's you know that's an example I'll do one other super quick one which is I mean really short on Hep B you want to have a rational

discussion about hepatitis B here's the discussion that should be had to a non-heppy positive mother how many shots do you how many babies do you need to give this product to it's a product into their body inject them with this product

to prevent one case of chronic hepatitis B. That's your benefit. What's that number? Retziflevy said it's like hundreds of thousands to millions. It's certainly extremely high. You know, it's a very high number. There are different ways to do the calculation, but it is a very high number.

You want to be very concerned to say $180,000, okay? Fine, fine. All right. That means you better be safer than $1,000. thousand, certainly one or a few hundred thousand, meaning if that's your benefit, does it cause serious adverse events at a higher rate than that? That's what your comparison is. Instead, how do they talk?

That's what you should be do. That would be a rational, scientific way to approach hepatitis B. Right? Okay, we got to inject 100,000 kids to not have be positive mothers to get one kid to not have chronic hepatitis B. Does the product cause serious adverse events at a rate less than 100,000? Right. That's a rational discussion.

I'll give you, but you don't see that. Instead, what you see is they act like every kid who's not vaccinated that B, that's it. You know, you're going to like, that kid's going to be sick where this is not the case. You know, I've, there's recently been a case that was adjudicated where a baby died on the first day of life from a hepatitis B vaccine in the vaccine intercompensation program, adjudicated as being caused by the vaccine. you know what a baby has never died from on the first day of life hepatitis B I've just spoken I just had a lot of stuff so I'll stop No that was flawless I appreciate that deep dive

We could do that for every vaccine Yes and that's and I highlight We'll link to your two vaccines amen in the show notes here for people to buy Are you going to do an audible version? Oh my gosh So Okay I I would love to But I actually apparently have to read

the whole thing. And that is a lot of time. It is a lot of time. It is a lot of time. And, you know, I mean, listen, as you and I sit here right now, we still have over 100 lawsuits going on against the federal government right now, as you and I talk. That's just policy-related lawsuits. You know, we've got endless amounts of other suits going on against the federal government and all kinds, or state government. You know, we're still fighting in states around the country. around. So anyways, a lot of stuff going on.

I get that. Well, that actually answers a couple of questions. I would love to. I want to see what are your thoughts on, excuse me, what are your thoughts on where things are going? You know,

like in my mind, I see kind of two paths are taking place at the same time, right? We've got Bobby in a significant place, in a significant position to make changes. Some people are chirping and it's not happening fast enough. Other people are saying, hey, dude, he's playing the game,

but he's getting shit, on. And then simultaneously, you know, there's, there's Larry Ellison and all these, you know, the super AI, MRI, MRNA push to figure out every disease. We're going to cure cancer with RNA and all this other stuff. Kind of happening and coinciding, you know, simultaneously. What are your thoughts on the future of things like this? You know, it's a long shot for Bobby to change the world in four years and a lot can be reversed if he doesn't get to stay in. So my hope, and I think both of our hopes, is that he's a long shot. in and stays in for a while. It'd be good to see him in for another four to eight years after this

this run. But what do you see as potential issues, you know, to be mindful of what are you guys watching for in the future as people continue to roll out stuff in new directions? And now we have this new technology we can use and infuse with people. And I know you don't speculate a lot. So I want to, I want to frame that for you. But, you know, we got a dad's book right up back here, Cause Unknown, you know, which was through children's health defense. There are certain things we know, right, that have happened from 2020 onward that that can can point to a new technology's failures, right? Through, through myocarditis and various other issues where we can say, hey, this thing wasn't a clean technology. And your plan is to roll out more technologies akin to that.

What do you think, what do you see for the future, brother? Well, I think that I see the pharmaceutical industry continuing to try and do what they do best, which is make as much money as possible. That also includes the medical industry because it's not just the pharma companies that profit from this. It's every single medical provider downstream. The hospitals, the doctors, even the insurance companies. insurance companies often make a percentage effectively of what they have to you know of the monies they bring in right because it can only make often depending on state regulation blah blah blah so you know people think oh they want to pay out less not well they do in a sense but you know they're in some ways it's better that there's more medical spend because then there are percentage that they can make is more so everybody has an interest financial interest in more vaccines selling more vaccines and you know the commodity on which that profit is made is your body and your children's body

and the more they control what you inject ingest and put on your body the more money they can make and so is it cheaper to try and do ads on TV to get you to take a shot or is it cheaper to lobby a state legislative reps to mandate it to school. Which one costs them less money? Because that's the way they'll think about it. It's cheaper to lobby. Right? And they're smart.

First, they mandated for preschoolers and middle schoolers, then high schoolers. Then just college. Oh, then, you know, then for clinical rotations. Then, oh, then just nurses. Just, oh, then doc, all doctors. Then just preschool teachers. Oh, just flu shop. now it's another shot and you see this ever-expanding's chipping away at the at the right to say no

because at the end of the day you know in terms of where i see things going are we going to be able to repeal the 1986 act i i think it's unlikely they farm has over a thousand lobbyists i you know how many vaccine safety lobbyists there are i don't think there are any i don't think that's such a thing that don't exist right so i don't think you're getting through Congress. Now there have been bills proposed to appeal on them. I'm assisted in drafting them. But, you know, they get a few dozen. There are a few dozen brave members of Congress who ascribe to them, but they also know they've lost all pharma funding for the most part. But I don't see that happening. Okay. So are you going to be able to make pharma companies have an economic interest to make them safer?

No, probably. Okay. So that's a lift I don't see happening. You're going to make them to be at good corporate. stop lobbying to mandate them? No, I don't see that happening. How are you going to do that? It would be destructive to our democracy actually to prevent it. Are you going to make the health agency act better? Bobby's working real hard on that, but is he going to be there forever? Probably not. Okay, can you rely on the FDA to require better clinical trials? No, not over time. Can you rely on post-lisor safety? Do you know? So in this train of horribles, what's the last stop? What is the very last stop on this whole train if you can't fix it all is you the individual as you a parent who wants to say you know what i looked at that package insert i looked at and i'm like i don't want to do it

based on that clinical trial or i don't want to do it if the company that makes it won't stand behind it and be responsible for the harms or i don't want to do it based on this other data point i saw what's the last stop is the ability for you to say no without any penalty that's where to my mind we need to get to and my hope is that while some of the stuff I just mentioned we will will be corrected to some degree along the way it will vacillate maybe we'll get the FDA to require better clinical trials now Bonae preside you saw his recent memo he's running the vaccine division at FDA I'm hopeful that things are going in the right direction there but he's not going to be there forever and then maybe it'll go back I don't trust government

I don't just government at all. So my hope is that where we end up with is a recognition at the end of these three years that mandates are destructive. They are rights crushing an infringement of the most basic civil individual rights and that all states in this country, many of them will go the way Florida is going right now, eliminating mandates. So that this way, every family can make a choice about what to do. period. To me, that's why I hope things, I am hopeful things are going. And I would say when I

started doing this work about a decade ago, I don't think there was a legislative representative federal state whose office would even let me in, nor was there. And I would tell you my standard for a policy lawsuit of vaccines. It was this. If somebody in my firm brought me a lawsuit about, you know, vaccine policy, like we're going to change protect rights. My standard was this. You better bring me a case where the judge will look at me and go, I hate you. I hate your client. I hate everything about this, but I have no choice but to rule for you. That was my standard because there's a lot of gray in law. Okay. So I need to be all black. That's not by the way a knock on any judge, genuinely, because judges are very busy. They have dockets with thousands of cases.

They have to rely on cultural cognition. They have to rely on their, otherwise they'll never get through their docket. So if all they know is safe and effective, they're not going to take the time or it's hard to get engagement on, but Your Honor, it doesn't stop transmission. I'm telling you, it's the CDC that's right? It's like, ah!

So that's where I was then. Today, I would say in half the. courtrooms in this country. Again, again, it's no knock on any judge, genuinely. Because it has now come into the cognition of the, you know, people, I want you to go back seven years. If you said a vaccine wasn't safe, it would have been like, what? Today, you could say that in many circles. Oh, yeah, vaccines can harm people. Ah, the rate and so forth you can argue about, but you could say that. They'll even admit it now. It can harm some people. They just, they just contest the rate. So that's, we've gone on the, on the judicial front to a complete,

you know, to a new place where when I go into courts, I, I don't have that standard anymore, depending on where I'm going, because the grays, I can win the grays. I don't have to be in all the black because I think they will look at the data. I can't get judges to look at the evidence. They will question the products in ways they've never questioned them before, which is what they should do. And then on the legislative side, and we've represented 17 members of Congress to challenge mass mandate on plane. We sued the CDC. We've represented, you know, we work with state legislative reps across the country to help draft laws, look at laws and so forth on behalf of, not ICAN, the 5013, but 511C4, I can legislate, which is a different I can. And so we're

you know, we're really getting there. And, you know, if, if, when you look at the discussions that are happening now, if all we get to in the next two to three years is a majority of Americans, not coming away going vaccines bad or I hate vaccines, just going, they're products. Let's just start treating them like products. Like, they can do some good. They can do some bad. They can, but we got to like, you know, we should be able to ask questions and look under the hood on. If we get there, I think we can get to a place where people's fundamental right to inform consent and the ability to say no will become the standard. And then everybody can go on and live their lives.

So they want you want to get the product? This is America. That's freedom. I get they can cause harms. But we're not the last, if we're looking to the government to protect us from all harms, that's how we end up losing our rights. That's not what we should be doing. And on your point about new technologies, I would submit to you that all vaccines in many,

most vaccines are quote unquote new technology that they've never been properly studied. The science shows that. I mean, recombinant DNA vaccines for hepatitis B, yeah, I've been around for 40 years, but show me the studies that affirm that they're safe. I'll show you a lot of studies show they're not safe. So what, that it's an older technology. And if it's so safe, why does it still immunity, why does it still need immunity for liability? For 40 years.

It's so safe. Lift the immunity. Come on, hey, Congress, where are you? Lift the immunity. Come on. Put your laws where your mouths are. You say they're safe. Lift the immunity.

There's a reason that lifting that immunity. I'm not sure I directly answered your question. You did. Because it was very broad. But if there's a different iteration of the question of the answer. I love that. I love that. And you don't have to dive it.

I mean, MRNA is speculation at this point. with exception to what happened in 2020. So, like, that's fine if you don't want to tackle that one. Oh, I could talk about the MRNA if you want. Yeah, man. I'd love to finish off that. And then I want to leave, you know, I can have supported 100% via donors. That's, that's it, right?

So what you and Dell are up to. And there's two parts to that. You know, there's the nonprofit and then there's the legislature. So we'll have two links for that. They are different from one another. You know, it's worthwhile to just go in there. Throw them 10, 20 bucks a month if this is something that appeals to you. and just let them auto deduct, you know,

that you can set up a payment program like that that I think is very worthwhile. To me, you know, I'm fucking so grateful that I have completely healthy kids and I credit it to people like yourself, and Dell and Mickey and Susan Humphreys and Thomas Cowan and the Westenay Price Foundation because without you guys,

I wouldn't have been able to make those decisions. I wouldn't have had an informed decision to make, right? I wouldn't have had that. And obviously, that was, built off of, you know, the mothers and fathers who had her harmed children, you know, that they knew because, of course, they know their kid better than anyone else. No one's going to fucking gaslight you on that. And people were gaslit on that. And doctors continue to gaslight on those things. So I really appreciate that. I want to get, you know, whoever's

listened to this, if you have made it this far, donate to these guys because they're doing great work in the world. Let's finish on MRNRNA. And then I'd love to have to have you back because we could keep going, I'm sure. So on an MRNA vaccine, I mean, they tell you, well, look at the clinical trial data, right? They say, we do clinical trials, and that's what we affirm they're safe. Well, let's look at the FISA clinical trial. You might recall that news article, how the FDA wanted to wait 75 years. 75 years.

Right. So that, you know, that was a lawsuit we brought, right? And it's 75 years because they want to release at a rate of 500 pages a month, and it would have taking 75. At the time, 75 years came from the fact, by the way, that it was 450,000 pages that the FDA said was the sum total of the documents. Turns out, it was almost 2 million pages. So it wasn't 75 years, by the way. It was hundreds of years. Hundreds of years. You know how we know that? Well, I don't want to get sidetracked, but they were not transparent, I would say, because they told the Corps 450 a year later, we're like,

when you guys still producing, I'm like, we're way past 450. And we're like, with Hasco, like, oh, yeah, we got 1.8 million pages. I'm like, well, the judge issued his ruling, clearly making clear he wanted it all done that year, which is why he did it at the rate of what he did per month so that they would all be produced that year. I'm like, did you think at any point to tell anybody about that? Like, hey, DOJ, was your client the FDA going to be transparent about at least that? So we foyered for the contract because they didn't review the documents to produce them. The FDA got an outside vendor to review the documents to produce them.

So we're like, we want to see that contract. So we got it. That contract was like days, within days of the judge's decision, meaning they knew, and it said the one point something million pages in it. So they knew from the very beginning how many pages it was. Anyway, I've gone on total tangent. We got all those documents, okay? So we have them now, all right?

And we have the underlying reports. And let me tell you what the underlying clinical documents show and what, including the FDA's review shows. You do a clinical trial because you don't know what the product will do. It's a new product. So you want to have an objective way to assess its safety. So you compare those who get it to those who get something inert. Palsivo. That's the definition of a placebo.

And you compare those two groups. And you do it statistically. You just compare the numbers and that avoids injecting bias. Right. If I didn't have a control group and somebody dies who gets the vaccine, who's going to decide if it was from the vaccine or not? How do you do it? Usually they let the pharma company do it.

that's injects bias, it's a problem. You just do a straight mathematical comparison. And deaths is very binary, typically. Either dead or you're alive, right? It's not like, well, do they have a neuropathy? Do they not? No, you're dead or you're alive, like you know. So there was a placebo group in this trial.

You would expect more people to die in which group if they were going to license it. The control group if they were going to license it. That's right. That's what you would expect. right that's what you'd expect so before i tell you the numbers of the deaths let me tell you what the 95% efficacy number means do you know what it was based on it's based mostly on sniffles i'm not kidding what they found was that in the vaccinated group about eight people had sniffles and when tested positive for covid in the control group in the placebo group about 160 something

had some sniffles and tested positive for COVID. So they said, ah, it's 95% effective. What did they do? A statistical comparison. But you know, they really should have looked under the hood. And I'll tell you why. Because when we got all those documents from the FDA, guess what?

There were thousands of other people's with symptoms in that trial. You think, and I would have thought, they just tested everybody. Like in that trial every day or at least every day. or at least every few days. Remember, remember they was saying everybody's got to get tested every day and giving off free test kits? But yet in this trial, they didn't do that.

They just tested based on a pattern that's really unclear. That injected, from my review, an incredible bias. Because what about all the thousands of others with symptoms? If we really put them all in, tested all of them, would it have been 95? Would there have been more with sniffles in the placebo group? They shouldn't have done a statistical comparison there because the design, in my view, was designed to create bias.

How did they choose who to test? Who decided that? Okay, let me stop. Let's go back to the deaths. Fine. So they did a statistical comparison. Fine. Let's accept it.

So what should they have done in the death? Statistical comparison. Now let me tell you the numbers. 21 people died in Pfizer's vaccine group. 17 died in the placebo group. 21 to 17. More died who got the shot versus those who didn't. At the least, I can definitively tell you.

It didn't cause a reduction of mortality because there are more people dying in the vaccine group. Did they do a statistical comparison? Uh-uh. The FDA let Pfizer explain every death away. I'm not kidding. Every death away. That's why if you actually look at the actual FDA licensure documents so forth, they don't claim it prevents death.

They don't even claim it prevents hospitalizations. They didn't show that. It just showed this sniffles thing based on this ridiculous. How can you get away with everything they say on TV and everything Fauci said, you know, in terms of like the death prevention and 100% effective, 95% effective, 90% percent effective. You know, it's, it's 40 percent effective, whatever the fuck it went down to. By the end, you know, okay, it's, it's not effective. I just don't, I don't understand how there, there's almost no recourse. Like if you have the data and then you say something

completely else, you know, online in the media, how there's just nothing, there's no, uh, it seems to me that the people that were pulling the screens and making this, this a full court press on society, you know, that there's, there's, there's no accountability. Well, you know, when a company misrepresents, you can sue them false advertising, right? So you can go after them for that. When the government official lies to you, there's often no way to really hold them accountable economically in a private, in a civil action. Trust me. I would love to bring those lawsuits.

Oh, my gosh. Forget it. I would be so busy. I'd have to hire thousands of attorneys, okay? Even my firm, which is a pretty big plaintiff's firm, which could not even come close to handling 0.1% of those cases. But the way you do is political accountability, right? Because they're politicians.

I mean, even Fauci, people view NIH or CDC as medical organizations. They're not. I don't view them that way. They're political organizations. They don't do science, in my view. They do policy. policy and they go forth. So you need to vote all these folks out of office.

You need to clean house. I mean, look, that's why, you know, within HHS right now, I mean, there's a lot of folks who did exactly that kind of stuff, and they should be gone, and I hope they will be gone. But, unfortunately, that's the way that's the way you would hold them accountable, typically. barring that it's tough which is you know why you know if you ask me the ultimate solutionaries you got to get the government out of the business of these products why is fouch even saying that why is he doing it he shouldn't be involved in this there shouldn't be virtually no involvement of the government in vaccines other than maybe acting as a regulator okay and even there it should be minimal that's it they shouldn't be promoting them they shouldn't be paying for them they shouldn't be giving them immunity.

They shouldn't be doing any of these things. It creates an incredible conflict. When the government tells you something safe, you know how often the government says, oops, I made a mistake, sorry? How many times can we see that? Every day, yeah, every day. I've heard Bill Clinton on TV that day

apologize for all the things they did wrong and Bush and everybody. They're all on there all the time talking about all their mayacalpas. No, they rarely, if ever, because they view the public having faith in the institution as incredibly important. And for that reason, well, we can't admit a mistake. People will lose faith in our institution.

Bobby is like one of the only politicians you'll ever hear, if you can call them a politician, who will say actually no, the way you restore faith is to tell the truth and admit our mistakes. Yes. But you don't hear that from anybody else. He is truly rare in that regard. I mean, that's why the update to the vaccines and autism page

is making them crazy. It's making them crazy. And because it says the reason we said it in the past was not because it was true, not because we had the studies, but to avoid vaccine hesitancy, we weren't, we weren't forthright with you. That's what it basically says. That is what it says.

Find me on another government webpage that says that. You're not going to find it. Yeah. That's wild. Yeah. Absolutely wild. Brother, it's been so awesome having you on where can people find you and get a hold of you?

We're at the hour and a half mark. Where can people grab you it or reach out to you? and of course we'll link to the ICAN sites for people to donate and make sure the mission continues. Oh, sure. So my law from is SiriLLP.com. I am on Twitter, Aaron Siri, S.G. I think Aaron Siri official.com is where all the different handles from all the different social media ways. And I've got a substack as well.

That's injecting freedom with Aaron Siri. But as you pointed out, most of the policy work. that we do is supported by ICAN. So, you know, those, you know, that core of folks, you know, that almost 30 that just do it full time and then everybody, lots of people the firm contribute is all supported by ICANN. And, you know, the suits that we do, typically are ones that there's no money in. Now, if there's money in it, we typically don't touch it because other firms will do it. But, you know, suits to strike, you know, restore an exemption in Mississippi so that kids

can go to school without vaccination to strike down co-vaccine mandates in California for school, to strike down law in D.C. that would allow doctors vaccinated kids without parental consent, striking down flu shot requirement and all that stuff, which you normally wouldn't do, and trying to restore exemptions across the country, which we're working on now. We just had a win the other day at the U.S. Supreme Court,

actually, on behalf of the Amish, where they're trying to shut down the Amish schools in New York, because the New York State Health Authorities, they want the Amish to abandon their beliefs in favor of the health authority beliefs in these products. That's basically what they want. And so the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the New York's decision that would have required these schools with regards to, you know, basically finding that the law was valid that did not allow a religious exemption to vaccination and remanded it.

So it's a really exciting win there. Anyways, the point is ICANN is a great organization. I really love working with them, especially because, you know, They do what's always best for the win. And if that means, for example, not publicizing the case at all, they don't do it until it's actually won and so forth. So they're amazing to work with. So, yeah, supporting them is great.

Hell yeah. Well, thank you so much, brother. Thank you for being on the podcast. And thank you for Dell and everybody at ICANN. You guys are doing great stuff. And thank you, Bobby Kennedy. All right, share this far and wide. That's it.