The Highwire with Del Bigtree - AARON SIRI ON ACIP AND THE HEP B SHAKE UP

Episode Date: December 17, 2025

ICAN lead counsel Aaron Siri, esq., breaks down ACIP’s historic decision to end the recommendation of universal Hepatitis B vaccination at birth for babies of healthy, Hep-B–negative mothers—moving it to age 2 months and “shared decision making.” He details major gaps in the safety data, evidence of harm buried in our federal injury programs, and an ethical crisis in the U.S. of pressuring parents to vaccinate their children under threat of CPS. Siri also contrasts U.S. policy with nations like mandate-free Denmark, which recommends far fewer vaccines while enjoying better health outcomes.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

I have to say last week was sort of like a pinnacle event, at least in my life and certainly in the work that we've done with the Highwire and ICAN, the informed consent action network. You know, when I started this journey looking at the damage that vaccines was doing and put out the documentary backs and walked away from my television career at CBS, you know, there's certain milestone moments that you were praying would one day happen. And, you know, one of the biggest ones. The biggest story we had, the easiest way to talk about what was wrong with this vaccine program was the hepatitis B vaccine. The world's stupidest vaccine for 99.95% of babies born in America. Of course, if you're born to a mother that's hepatitis B positive, may you need to look at this differently.

But for all the rest of the 99.95% of babies born in America, why were they being forced to take the risk with aluminum loads and all of it? The story goes on and on. We've covered it here, a five-day safety trial. But all of it has always just been from podcast and from the high wire. And, you know, I guess Robert Kennedy Jr. Started talking about it and then ultimately becomes HHS secretary. But to have this conversation happening inside the castle walls, inside the CDC, uttered from the mouths of scientists on the advisory committee on immunization practices,

is Houston, the world has changed, man. We are in a totally different world now. Of course, I'm talking about the ACIP meetings last week, two days. They were historic and they made the changes that we were hoping for, that we were praying for, and that we were dreaming about. But that's not to say there wasn't a different side of the story, a different representation, those that were still shilling for pharma and saying, where's the evidence of harm? I am asking you, what is the risk of a hepatitis B vaccine? Is there any evidence of harm? There is clearly evidence of benefit.

Is there any specific evidence of harm of giving this vaccination before 30 days or is this speculation? How does changing the recommendations and going against decades of data and safety and efficacy correct the problem of process of not having. informed consent. All you're focusing on are these very rare ill-defined side effects and completely ignoring the extraordinary benefit and promise that these vaccines apply to us. Anyone in the presenter, any of the presenters, or anyone on the ACIP is welcome to present any solid, and reproducible evidence of harm. I guess people are opposed to the neonatal birth dose because they think there's harm that outweighs benefit.

Well, why does that change at two months? Is there any less evidence or any evidence of less harm if the series has started at two months instead of one month? I'm unaware of that. We'll lose at least some of the protective effect, And I don't think there's any reduction in risk, not that there is any risk that we're aware of. The Hepatitis B vaccine program is one of the world's greatest achievements in medical health in the protection of children. And I will reassert that for that reason, we have a very high bar to consider before we change, make any changes to the current program.

As physicians, your ethical obligation is premium non-nokere. First, do no harm. And you are failing in that by promoting this anti-vaccine agenda without the data and evidence necessary to make those informed decisions. So I urge this committee to make sure that you do your job appropriately so that we can take care of our patients and not political theater, which what this has become. I mean, it was such an incredible exchange at these ASIP meetings last week.

Of course, hepatitis B vaccine was on the chopping block, and it is now changed, not recommended for healthy mothers that are hepatitis B negative, not recommended for their babies. It's now shared decision-making, but probably one of the most important voices in the country on this conversation, has been fighting it in courtrooms, was also sitting inside those hearings. I am honored to be joined right now by our attorney for the Important Consent Action Network, Aaron, Siri. Aaron, I mean, just breaking that down, right? Where is the evidence of harm? We didn't see it in the four-day safety trial that we had with No Placebo Group. I mean, it's literally what I think of the work that you've done with Stanley Plotkin. And what the world just got to see, and I mean the world, this wasn't just people that have tuned in the Stanley Plotkin.

This is the whole world is now seeing how these doctors think. They have no studies. They do no science. They avoid doing the science. And then when you have a problem, they say, well, where's the evidence of it? I don't see any evidence because they've never done the science to get any evidence. And I really think they showed their cards at this hearing. There's probably more evidence of harm than, let's put it this way.

It's incredible how they could not see stuff that's literally. staring them right in their faces. And I'm not talking about the families who are saying that these vaccines injured them or hurt them, you know, in case reports even. I'm talking within their own federal government data. For example, just a few, not that long ago, there was a newborn baby that died within hours of getting a hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Okay, so that's the only shot they got. You know, when the babies die at two months or four months, there's a lot of other vaccines. So this was only the Hep B vaccine. It wasn't a table injury. It was adjudicated as having been caused by the Hep B vaccine in the Vaccine injury compensation program, which I will tell you

is no small feat. Because you are going up against the Department of Justice. They have all the experts. You have no discovery. You can't get documents. You can't depose anybody. You still have to prove it. You have to get an expert that's willing to do it. To prove that is a monumental feat. And let me, so here we have clear, as they evidence, of a baby dying at birth, right after being born from the Hep B vaccine, you know how many babies have died on day one from a Hep B itself, the disease? Zero. Never happened. Never happened. So here we have, on day one, we know which one, death from the vaccine, none for it.

But they don't want to look at that. And they don't want to look at the myriad of other injuries caused by this product. They don't even believe what the manufacturers are saying about what harms this product. They have a basis to believe are causally related to these products. Andrew X-B., probably the most common Hep B vaccine given to babies, disclosures in Section 6.2, as required by federal law, only those reactions for which there's a basis to believe is a causal relationship. Encephalitis. Brain swelling.

And encephalopathy. Right. Brain damage. They're not disclosing that for fun. They threw it in there because, as the federal law says, you only include things for which there's a basis belief there's a causal relationship. And they want to play, you know, they want to cover their behinds. And they want to keep saying what, I mean, Meisner, by the way, it looked like he was about to cry. He was so just flummoxed over this whole thing.

But he just kept saying, where is the evidence of harm? I mean, an ill-defined issue that is so rare. you know why are we like backing off i'll tell you why because this disease you're fighting is so effing rare in babies so why does rarity matter when what comes to the injury when i mean when i was hearing these numbers did i hear this right the known transfer like studied of like children that actually somehow got hepatitis b in community transfer is something like 400 i think it was said to be 16 000 something but it's something like four hundred i think it was said to be 16 000 something like 400 cases have happened. Is that right? Am I getting that number right?

So, you know, if Cody Meisner could calm down enough Yeah to actually rationally weigh the risk rushes the benefits, which I don't think he can because he believes they're completely safe. It doesn't matter. Yeah. You know, he has endless apparent sympathy for anybody that's injured by by Hepby itself, the disease, which he should. Same thing. Yeah, right, right. He gives no accord clearly and he calls almost just dismisses that family whose child died of Hep B, the dad who testified, or even this compensated case, which is a separate one. And there are other numerous cases of reported deaths from hepatitis B vaccine. But putting that aside, if he could calmly and rationally weigh

it, he would say, okay, on the benefit side, for a non-HEPB positive mother, a non-HEPB positive mother, grant mother giving birth, what is the number needed to treat? Meaning how many injections, how many babies do you have to inject to prevent one case? of chronic hepatitis B. In which you heard Retz-F. Levy say, who's from MIT and Mathis's Belewick, it sounds like he's saying it's somewhere in the hundreds of thousands to millions

that you need to inject to prevent one case of chronic hep B. What is the number needed to vaccinated related to babies born to mothers tested negative to prevent one case of chronic hepatitis B? And I think that, I suspect that there is no answer. to that question. And the reason why there is no answer to that question is that the risk is so, so small that the numbers is probably in the millions. Okay, then that means the risk better be really, especially when they're always saying, well, the injury is one in a million. Well,

we're right inside of that now. We're in that ballpark right now. So you're saying that you don't think this thing's delivering one in a million risk, the vaccine itself. That would defy every moronic. I mean, it's a moronic statement anyway, but we're literally in those numbers right now. And if you take every, you know, compensated case in VICP, you take, you give a court to their system because, look, no doctor spends the time to follow Vera's report unless they really think it's related to it. We know that. It takes forever to follow Vera's report. You know, it's incredibly frustrating. I know they say it doesn't prove causation, and it doesn't, but doctors aren't following those for fun. They don't have time, and they do it when they really feel compelled

to. And when you take it. take accord to all of the case reports of hepatitis B injuries out there. And when you look at the data that compares kids that have gotten Hep B versus those that don't. Look at the Goodman studies, for example. Yeah, you are way, way more than one in a million serious injuries from hepatitis B vaccine. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's incredible, the conversation. That was the first vote that went on, Hepatitis B.

Should we change the recommendation? They did. they changed the you know voted to remove it from direct recommendation now it's only recommended if your hepatitis be positive that is that essentially so yeah i mean just just to just to put just to put into perspective what they're losing their collective minds about all they did okay was they said for a non-heap be positive mother our recommendation starts at two months versus birth for a happy positive mother we keep it the same that's what they did right just to be clear because you know what the odds of a baby catching hepatitis B that is not whose mother's not

happy positive is for is ill they're they say well well there's you know we miss some happy positive mothers and for that reason we want to vaccinate every single baby where you're talking a birth quarter 3.8 million babies a year 3.8 million babies a year 3.8 million injections. Anyway. Yeah. For 99.95% of babies are being born to hepatitis B negative, meaning 99.95% of babies have no risk whatsoever. You are vaccinating everybody to try and protect against this tiny rare group of people. And I think some of the most important part of the conversation is their argument as well, the blood testing of mothers has dropped down to 88%. It's lower than it was, from 2002. Therefore, I mean, it was, I want to jump through the television. You want to

scream. So you have no problem in forcing a 100% vaccine uptake and you are putting parents. And by the way, you and I, I call you. Aaron, I got another person calling me. They're in the hospital. They've given birth. They're hepatitis being negative. And they want to get out the hospital without getting a bee vaccine and they're calling child protective services. They're threatening this mother. They're threatening to take it out of way that kid, but all of her kids, all, you know, that's what's on the chopping block here. And yet that doesn't seem to matter. Like we shouldn't have a choice here because that 0.5% of children that might be at risk. I mean, the whole thing is so frustrating as a conversation. And so why would it? What, you know,

what is a possible risk? I'll tell you. what the risk is. The risk is to these parents that do not need this vaccine that are being threatened to have their kids taken away. That's the risk. That's the risk we're going to mitigate here and get rid of. Yeah, we get calls. And really, there's no, it doesn't seem to be geographically cabined or hospital cabin. It often seems to come down to who the attending physician is at that moment, where here you have a family, they just had a baby. You know, it's supposed to be a joyous moment and that attending physician decides no this baby's going to get a happy vaccine and the parents say no and that maybe the attendant physician had a bad day fought with

their spouse who knows and decides that's it no threatens call CPS and we get calls from parents in that in that moment that's supposed to be joy you know I mean I think that's why maybe the number of folks choosing to have their babies at home is what it is with a medwife so they don't have to deal with that kind of nonsense but it is deeply troubling. And you have to ask yourself, like, if you're going to use the coercion of the state and have the government get involved, well, why don't you start by enforcing? If you're going to enforce anything, you shouldn't, you shouldn't, how about you give birth?

You have a woman give birth and she didn't get a blood test. You lose your license. That's malpractice. How about we go there, comfortably go there, instead of you give birth, your hepatitis be negative. if you try to walk at this hospital or taking your baby away, I'm on the pressure on the doctor. How about do your damn job? Right, right, exactly.

So if you're going to start with the thing that's 100% safe, you know, is I'm not aware of any injury. He's not going to come from maternal screening for hepatitis B surface antigen. So enforce that. If you're going to mandate something, fine. Then do that. You shouldn't mandate anything. Yeah, I agree.

But they don't because there isn't, you know, it's a different. type of belief around it. But at the end of the day, like you said, parents should be able to choose. If they want it, they should be able to get it. If they don't want it, they should not have to get it. That sounds like the United States of America to me. That sounds like this is all supposed to work.

It actually sounds like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, most provinces in Canada. It is pretty sad when I can start rattling. China even, I think, don't you get a choice in China? A lot of those, I believe China is listed. I've never verified that one myself directly. I don't list it. But yes, it's a report a lot that China also doesn't have.

I mean, it's pretty sad when there's lots of countries. You can start listening that have more freedoms than supposedly the land of the free. I love that out of this, President Trump came out in support of Bobby in support of AIDS-Sip at this meeting and then saying he's now put upon Bobby. I want a comparative study done immediately of our vaccine program compared to these other nations that are using less vaccines. That just seems genius to me. It also, I mean, I know that's, you know, I know that's been in the mix, but holy cow, we have a president that is, is, is, do we have a potential future where we're getting the Denmark schedule?

Which is, what is the Denmark schedule when we talk about it right now? It has nine less vaccines in here in the United States. Wow. Nine less. I actually can rattle the whole schedule off. It's so simple. Wow. At three, five, and 12 months, you get four shots, DTAP, Hib, IPV, and PCV, okay?

Then at a year and something and four years, you get an MMR, you get another D-TAP at five years, and then they give a guard. So, believe it or not, so bizarre, HPV vaccine at like 11 years, and that's it. And not that's the whole schedule. Still all but there's no mandates in Denmark. I love to send them. I mean, that's the part. I want to make it clear to my audience because they're like, oh, what, you like the Denmark schedule?

My kids aren't getting any vaccines. I'm fighting to make sure I won't live anywhere where they were ever forced a single vaccine. but my favorite part of the Denmark schedule is it's not mandatory. It's not mandatory. And Dr. Gautja, who I actually was talking with the other day, he's like, we don't really have vaccine wars here. We don't have that. He's like, you don't want to get him?

Get him. You don't want to get him? You don't have to get him. And they have a culture there, he said, amongst, you know, the medical profession, where they, and I've talked to others about this in Denmark, where they recognize the more vaccines they include, the more hesitancy they're going to have. So they're very sensitive by adding. For example, hepatitis B vaccine rate amongst children there is like 0.01 because they only give it to hepatitis B positive mothers and to high risk groups.

In fact, my understanding, I was told by a medical professional in Denmark, you can't even get a hep B vaccine for a child in Denmark if they don't fall into those categories. You can't even get it apparently. Wow. And so America very high hep B8, Denmark, virtually zero. you know what the HEPB, actual HEPB rate difference between Denmark and the U.S. among children is? There's not really any difference. There's no statistical

difference. Wow. There's no difference. So that just gives you mindset. So they don't have that. They don't have T-DAP. They don't have R.S.V. They don't have COVAC. They don't have flu vaccine. I can keep going. Yeah. So, and you know, and by the way, they have far better health outcomes in Denmark than the U.S.

There was another vote after the Hepatitis B recommendation vote that got into TITERS. Should we check for titers and if you're showing tithers, if you're showing that you still have antibodies from shot one, you don't need to get shot two or three. Again, this amazing conversation, there's no data on that. We don't have data on that. Well, let's take a look at some of what they had to say about this part of the vote. We do know that a tighter of 10 milli international units within three months after the third dose is sufficient.

It is protective. But I think the question that has been asked is whether 15 million international units after a single dose is sufficient. And that we do not know. But when you talk about minimizing harm, well, giving one dose and then letting a child become suspicious. later in subsequent years, because we don't know if that will induce sufficient cellular immunity. I mean, that's, to me, that's the harm.

The harm is not giving three doses. We have plenty of evidence of efficacy. There is no evidence in regard to lack of safety. I'm surprised to hear you say that one dose may be as effective. as three there are absolutely no data to support that and just because we achieve a serologic tighter of that we're trying to pass based on our limited understanding of a correlate of protection that passes 10 after one dose of a vaccine that we would get the same immune response as we would after a series of three doses. I think it's an important question.

I just have to say, again, there is no evidence of harm. People talk about a blood-brain barrier. Yes, it's different in infants than it is in older children and adults. But what does that have to do with reactions to the vaccine? I mean, you can always find something. if you look hard enough that you want to worry about i i i just don't understand uh what people are worried about here's what's amazing there's a couple things in this that first of all i think are very disturbing they want us to just believe like believe in the science unequivocally but they tell you we've never studied whether one vaccine does the job or not even if it shows the antibody response antibody response is all that they ever look at to say that the vaccine's

working, but here they don't want to use antibody response as a reason to not give other vaccines. But even more importantly, the hand that I felt was outed here was we don't understand how cellular immunity works in this vaccine. Oh, yeah. They don't. Completely and totally. Like, we don't know, right? So for anyone out there that may be questioning why we're here, oh, they're, you know, they're geniuses. They've got this widened. They don't even know how the damn product works. I mean, because what they're saying is, we have seen people that have no, you know, antibodies, but still mounted defense, which means there's a part of the immune system we have no concept about that is somehow working

and it somehow works after three shots. We're not sure why, and we're not sure it might even work after one, but we haven't done that science. We don't know Jack is what he's saying. We really don't know Jack, but we want all of you to shut up and stop asking any questions and just stick to the program that sells three of these products instead of one because the manufacturer are going to make a hell of a lot more money selling three than one. He didn't say that.

I'm adding that part in myself. Well, I make two additional points. One is they, in the absence of data, he says, oh, we should not make a decision to make it one dose. But when the absence, when it comes to efficacy, absence of data means a reason to just halt in your tracks, don't move. Don't do it. But when it comes to safety, absence of data means let's just run forward. Pedal the metal. Let's not worry about it. No issue. So that's one. I think that that highlighted that very clearly.

Yeah. Number two is, so, you know, if you open a immunology textbook, like the summer I have in my shelf in my office, right? Yep. And you start reading them and you get to the end of any particular chapter. It often ends with, at least the immunology, the medical ones I've got with, and here are all the things. we still don't understand how they work, why they do it, how it happens, you know, how does your body, for example, when it's creating, you know, naive B cells and so forth, how does it prune out the ones that would attack self, that would be for self? They don't even understand how that

process works yet. They don't understand how some of the most basic parts of your immune system work, but yet, you know, they'll confidently do. He says, yeah, well, they're cellular immunity because when they tracked it, the antibodies for HEPB, do wane over time. In fact, some people, it's undetectable, but yet they do appear to amount a response even without antibodies. Yeah. And obviously, they also, you know, they know their cellular immunity because there are people who don't have the ability to create antibodies,

and those folks can live full lives. Right. Right. So, yeah. They know it's there. They know it's there. But the most revealing part is that. But it shows you. I mean, you know, again, it's the, you know, the absence of evidence, they are fine. They're like, oh, we cannot proceed. But on this efficacy side, but on the safety side, they have no problem. That just shows you, it's really revealing.

It was a very major revealing hypocrisy. But it also shows, I think, for people that were really watching the whole thing, it's something I've said, these are not evil people. These, you can tell, they just have this blind spot. They don't see that the whole world. just watch the hypocrisy. Where there's no data on safety, then we just move forward and assume safety. Where there's no data on the amount of vaccines to take, we can't move at all. We shouldn't change anything at all. We got to stay where we are. I think a lot of people saw that taking place going, wait a minute. You care about data when it suits selling the product. You don't care about data when it suits maybe being conscious like four-day safety trial. Maybe it wasn't long enough I'll put it in the most I'll put it in the nicest light I can for them okay yeah and this is the nicest light I can and I've seen this over and over with them the way they see it

is every shot in the arm is a benefit because they're protected but that's not the right metric you could say every shot in the arm is a potential for harm too but they don't view that metric either right they need to look at what we talked about earlier the number needed to treat how many shots in the arm is to take to prevent one X of which you're trying to prevent, which is chronic at B. They don't look at it that way. He sees every shot as the benefit. And then when it comes to the risks, he has to say it's completely safe because if he thought about it in terms of number needed to treat, the risks would have to truly be one in a million. If it's any worse than that, they're in bad territory for non-Heppy positive mothers. It was really awesome to hear I can mentioned

in an ASIP meeting. The fact that they brought up, you know, our query to the CDC, you know, asking, is there any, give any example, one single case of a child catching Heppe in a school setting. Of course, they came back and said we don't have anything that responds to that. That was brought up at the ASIP meeting. Yeah. Let's take a look at that. That's a great moment. Yes, it can occur among certain high-risk immigrant communities. But the evidence for horizontal transmission among most U.S. children is very, very sparse. And really, all these years, has been based on a fit to seropositivity data that really wasn't statistically significant. Just a final note on horizontal transmission in childhood.

The informed consent action network, ICANN, ask the CDC through their lawyers, and I believe one of them is testifying tomorrow here, for documentation. sufficient to reflect a case of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting. The CDC's response, a search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. But look, there's being, you know, having I can mention in a case that you brought, but nothing beat watching you give, you know, an entire dissertation on the vaccine program. First of all, how did you find out that that was going to happen? Bobby, reach out to you directly.

No, I had a call from the CDC. Really? Yeah. Wow. I mean, it was just amazing. Of course, it's the body of the work that we've been presenting here, like years and years in making a lot of the lawsuits that we've won. But just for a taste of it, here is what that incredible dissertation looked like.

I was asked to speak about the development of the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule. I'd understood, actually, I'd be speaking about the schedule alongside Dr. Paul Off and Dr. Peter Hohetez-Winder, so we're invited. But it appears I will be presenting about this on my own. To provide a visualization of the schedule between 1983 and today, on this slide, what you will see are all of the standalone routine vaccines given in 1983 versus today. So you can see there's been a significant increase in just the routine vaccines. The concern is that not one of them was licensed based on a placebo-controlled clinical trial, nor was any vaccine. used as a control to license any of those vaccines,

license based on a placebo control trial, nowhere down the chain. And we shouldn't even have to do this, because the secretary of HHS has made this point clear many times. It's a critical point because without a proper baseline of safety, you're laying assumption upon assumption that the product is safe as you see serious adverse event rates in those trials, because you're just looking to see

as safe as the existing product. Why do we need the 1986 Act if vaccines are so safe too? Why does a product need immunity if it doesn't cause harm? Why do products that have been in the market for decades, like the hepatitis B vaccine, still need that immunity? Do we still not know they're safe enough to lift the immunity on those products? If there are members of this committee and prior committees and any future committee that wants to increase vaccine confidence, I would say that there are three things that they

should think about and look at. Number one, it needs to depoliticize vaccines. You need to take them out of politics. And the way you do that is you have to end mandates. Mandates make vaccines political. When you take away somebody's right, you have made it no longer just a medical question. You've made it a legal one. You've made it a political one. Lastly, I would say we do need to care about everyone. We should absolutely critically important to care about any child that will be injured or die from an infectious disease. for it was incredible i could talk about that but i think really let's talk about the response at the end of your presentation everyone got to weigh in or ask a question and cody meisner was just

absolutely out of his mind that you were even allowed to give this presentation let's take a look at this the implication is that the safety of this vaccine was not measured that's outrageous. We're preventing disease. All you're focusing on are these very rare, ill-defined side effects and completely ignoring the extraordinary benefit and promise that these vaccines apply to us. But for you to come here and make these absolutely outrageous statements,

about safety. I think it's a big disappointment to me, and I don't think you should have been invited. I will be completely honest. I think the most egregious thing, if I may, is to call and reflect on folks who have been injured by these products as somehow rare and ill-defined. There are clear, serious risks. You just stop listening to parents. HERSA didn't give that long list of harms to the Institute of Medicine out of nowhere. Didn't come out of GROC or CHAPT. It's real. These are real lives. These are real people.

Now, I understand, I totally understand that an infectious disease doctor every day is confronted by folks who are harmed by infectious disease. So I understand that they are more oriented towards that. And obviously, for me, I, every day, have encountered folks who are injured by these products. And so obviously I'm more oriented to that. I accept that bias, by the way. Accept it. But I am willing to say that vaccine, that children can die of infectious disease. But, you know, the families who are impacted the other way, they're not, they're just not treated right. And until they are recognized, treated well, accepted, don't have nasty notes put in their file if they say it's from vaccine.

I've seen that often and off over and over. That's just going to continue to grow vaccine hesitancy in this precious program that you're, you know, that you're worried about. It's, you're going to be its own undoing. I mean, he was obviously very upset. Of course, you know, it's ridiculous to save a problem with the five-day safety trial. I mean, I just, in what world? In what world?

I mean, it just, we are living in two different worlds. I mean, watch just the two of you right there. And there's many watching this show, probably most are rooting for you in that moment. But you sit there and going, these are two people that believe what they're saying. How could they be so far apart, right? I mean, it was mind-blowing to watch. Well, he's taking issue and he's using adjectives and pejoratives to describe, he's tending to deflect it on me, but he's really talking about, you know, the data.

He's upset really about what he saw substantively. And instead of a substantive response, what did he respond with? Emotion. It's ridiculous. It's how dare you say they weren't properly studied. How dare I'm, it's not me saying it. It's what the studies were. Like he got all apoplectic about it's.

I don't think you said that's too short. I think you just said this is how long it was. I mean, that it was ridiculous to claim the, you know, the new macauccal vaccine wasn't properly trialed. I mean, I literally quoted CDC FDA, own scientists saying, yeah. Oh, he got upset when you quoted Stanley Plotkin and Paul Offit. How dare. I mean, he quoted them. How dare you bring them into this conversation as anti-vactors? It was, it was Ornstein and Plotkin. As if I make it, I'm just, they're the ones pointing out the gaps. So it's okay.

for them to say it in their 2024 article when they were trying to get money right to do supposedly more safety science even though they in that article while admitting all the you know also describe what they kind of wanted to do which was going to not really be they wanted to affirm safety not study safety so it's okay for them to do that but for me to quote them saying the gaps somehow that's inappropriate it's it really is amazing it just shows you the blind spot he has it's because the man is not thinking in that moment. You could see that. He is believing.

He is emotional about it. He cannot accept the evidence that was right in front of his eyes. He can't accept it because it's destructive to what he believes, not what he's thinking. I love the point that you made there. You ultimately said, look, I get it. If you're looking at infectious disease, that's what you're looking. That's what you're seeing. You know, all I'm seeing, I get that I'm a lawyer and I'm getting all the injuries.

Oh, I said I'll see both. You know, I accept both. He does that. But that's what I love that you said. Say, I'm willing to admit that people die from the disease, but you are not willing to admit it doesn't sound like that people are dying from this vaccine. And that is the problem. It's been the problem from the very beginning. It's what I dealt with when I was Director of Communications for Robert Kennedy Jr. I just kept saying to Bobby, this is very simple. You just say, all that we're saying is there is a group of people who are being maimed, injured, and killed every year by these products. and we just want them to be recognized, and we want science to figure out how to stop injuring them. We want science to figure out how to help them once they have been injured, but it takes recognizing that they're there and ignoring them is only making this worse. And you made that point so clearly, it's the only point. Vaccine injury is real. If it's rare, okay, prove that.

By the way, where's the data on how rare is it? We know how rare hepatitis the disease is, especially amongst hepatitis B, negative moms, but how rare are these injuries? Whether it's rare or not, which it's not, is not the right question anyway, but that's what they want to talk about. It is doing that comparison, which they don't even want to do. And even after you've done it, then you have to be honest about it. And then you should also try, if you're going to keep these products, to minimize it.

They don't do any of that. And that's the problem. They just want to pretend like these folks. don't exist. They want to pretend those kids who are dying or not dying, the kids who are seriously injured, the kids who are seriously injured, the kids who are in wheelchairs, who are paralyzed from vaccines are not happening, the kids who have neuropathies, that's not happening, the immune issues are not happening. They just want to pretend none of these things exist, but that is going to be the undoing of this whole

program. It really is. I agree. And the more that they keep mistreating the folks who are injured by these vaccines, the more they're going to end up in a really bad place. In Denmark, probably the folks who aren't getting vaccines are the ones who are injured, so they can avoid them. But then they go and they say, no, you're in California. Don't care if your older kid died with vaccine. You've got to keep giving them to the younger ones. Don't care if your kid's in a wheelchair from a vaccine.

And we know some of those folks in Cali. They're out of school now unless they get more of them. What do you think you're going to do? What do you think you're creating when you do that? Leave that percentage of the population alone. And if you don't, that will be the undoing of this program. And that's why what the AAP did, I said it on this show, by saying get rid of all exemptions, non-medical exemptions, because you can't get medical exemptions. It's controlled by the medical community by the, they're not going to be the death knolls of this program.

I have to say, you know, this is not a political show. I'm not into being political. But this is only happening right now because President Donald Trump is allowing it to happen, brought Robert Kennedy Jr. in. But I said earlier in this conversation, he really went out of his way to make a point, you know, ding dong the witch is dead, there goes the hepatitis B vaccine, a vaccine that so many people didn't need overused, really was outspoken about it. But I am, you know, demanding essentially that Robert Kennedy Jr. now do a comparative look and study at our vaccine program to other nations that are getting far less. They are doing just fine. What are the implications of the President of the United States making a statement like that? What do you think that makes? means, really. Oh, it's massive. So Article 2 of the Constitution invests in one person, the entire executive powers under those Constitution, right? So right now, Donald J. Trump is the embodiment of Article 2 effectively, right? He is, he has all of the executive powers

embodied in the Constitution under Article 2, including those that are given over by the Congress under Article 1 and so forth. And so when the president speaks and the president says this is now the policy within the confines of the Constitution, obviously, and within the confines of the statutory scheme that Congress allowed to enact, that is the directive of what the executive branch is supposed to do, right? It's a pyramid, and he's right at that top. And so that directive, that empowers Secretary Kennedy to now,

go and do. In fact, Secretary Kennedy actually is required constitutionally to do what the president has directed him to do. And you know what else that means? Any deals that Secretary Kennedy had, like let's just say with one or more senators, okay, those deals, first of all, like with, you know, this supposed deal that Senator Cassidy says he has with Secretary Kennedy. Kennedy, that was an enforceable to begin with. You can't bind one member of Congress can't bind the executive branch to do anything in that way. That's totally unconstitutional to begin with. But now, now that the president has spoken and given that directive to Bobby, if Senator Cassidy tries to say to Bobby, no, you had a deal, he'd be, Senator Cassidy will be violating the

Constitution. Wow. Because Article 2 vests that power in the president. And basically what he's saying is, no, I get to override the president. Wow. That's not the way this works. That's not the way it works. If he wants, he can go try to pass a law as long as it complies the Constitution to direct the executive. But barring that, he needs to sit on the sidelines. Amazing, amazing stuff.

Aaron, I know you've got to run. You've got a case potentially going to the Supreme Court amongst Amish children. So beyond just having this incredible week that you just had at ASIP, this maybe could end up being one of the most important cases on religious freedom. There is what just happened. There was a ruling that came down, explained what that was. Sure. So New York State, the Department of Health, decided that they wanted the Amish to abandon their real religious beliefs and adopt instead the Department of Health's religious beliefs. They have a religious belief about vaccines, and they want the Amish to basically abandon their way of life and inject their children, even though it violates their sincerely have religious beliefs, and has started to fine them, fines that essentially would ruin them.

Basically, they're trying to kick them out in New York, okay? And remember, these Amish communities, they don't take government money, they still pay taxes because they want to be law-abiding. They send their children to school in Amish schools on Amish land, totally self-funded, totally on their own property, no government involvement in their own communities. These, you know, usually 20 kids in a room with no air conditioning, one teacher, just teaching the kids. So it was the New York state that just kept coming to this community and finding them. And the Amish, they don't want to fight. They're very, you know, they're peaceable people and they don't want to engage with, you know, the non, with the outside community as much as they want. But, you know, this is an existential issue for them.

They had to defend themselves and we ended up representing them. And the, as expected, the lower court and the Second Circuit rule that no, the fines are a fine. And it's okay to basically force the state's will upon. The religious beliefs of the Amish, essentially. I mean, and that's what Roe, I mean, not Roe v. Jacobson v. Massachusetts made them pay fine, made him pay a fine for not wanting to get a smallpox vaccine. So in some ways it's marrying that. There's fines involved.

But what just happened in this case? So, yeah, I was going to say persecute them. Persecute them. Persecute them in the way of all. I mean, so we went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, which means allow us. us to go there and they deny almost all requests for certior. In fact, the other day, it was nine pages of cases listed and the Supreme Court basically denied the request for certain

virtually every single one of them, but granted it in this case, which is a very good sign and signal that they view the case as having merit and, you know, presumably want to help and grant relief to the Amish. But what they did is they granted cert. They, they, they, they vacated the Second Circuit's decision, and they sent it back down to the Second Circuit to reconsider, like, hey, reconsider this, in light of a decision called Mahmoud that just came out between the two of them, which has implications on how the Second Circuit to decide this. So as it stands now, the Second Circuit will reconsider it, and we'll see where they go with it. If, you know, they'll either decide, you know what, we better find a way to grant the Amish

relief here, which would mean the Second Circuit, probably one of those liberal circuits in the country, will have to find a way to actually say yes, you can't have a religious exemption to vaccination, or they're going to decide to go the other way and again decide against it, and then it will go back to the Supreme Court of the United States to decide. So that's where we're at. Amazing stuff, Aaron. You're in the middle of, I've said it before, making history. These are such important moments this year, 2026. I know we have a lot we're working on. It's so important.

I just want to say to everyone out there, it's your donations, your funding, that have allowed us to have this incredibly talented lawyer on our side, fighting for the rights of our children, the future of our species, and putting together this body of work that ended up being one of the great speeches at the advisory committee on immunization practices,

the ASIP meeting. It's just been an honor to be on this journey with you, standing with you watching you. It's incredible, man. Keep up the good work. I really look forward to seeing what you get done in 2026. All right. Awesome. Look, it was historic. We're going to play it for you. The moment, the first vaccine that I know of that has been on the schedule for, you know, years and years and years finally being removed from recommendation. Is this a sign of things to come? Here is what that vote look like last week at Asaph. We have closed discussion. I'm going to go ahead and call for the vote. Yay or nay on vote one. Going to vote no, no conflicts of interest. The language offers flexibility, access, coverage at any time I vote yes. Stein. Vote yes. Vicki Pebsworth. I

vote yes. Malone, yes. I vote yes. I vote yes. Yes. And I will just say, we have heard do no harm is a moral imperative. We are doing harm by changing this wording. And I vote no. I agree with Dr. Meisner that this has a great potential to cause harm. And I simply hope that the committee will accept its responsibility when this harm is caused. And I vote no. For our DFO, what is the result of the vote? The DFO has transcribed eight votes yes and three votes know the motion passes. Well, I mean, what a historic moment. Eight to three vote there. Absolutely incredible. MIT scientists and inventors of MRNA technology. Really fantastic to see that this is finally happening. And if you watch those hearings, it was just

amazing to watch real dialogue happening, real questions. Even from the, you know, from both sides. But let's be perfectly clear, because this is being misrepresented in the media, nobody yanked the hepatitis B vaccine from existence. The only thing they did is say that it's no longer gonna be forced upon day one old babies. We're gonna make it shared decision making.

Now it's gonna be a conversation between you and your doctor. Oh my God, earth-shattering, end of the world if you were to listen to the pro-vaccine side of this, God forbid this be a choice made by you and your doctor. Absolutely incredible. They just want to go around your doctor and say no matter what, you're forced to take it. This is a hallelujah moment. Thank God. God is good. Absolutely fantastic. There was one famous scientist, doctor, if you will, that was not in attendance. It's been in attendance of many ASIP meetings throughout the years. In fact, I would say was, you know, one of the kings of the court, if you will, when we used to go there, there was only just Aaron and I at this country club called ASIP. Of course, I've talked about Dr. Paul Offutt.

He didn't show up there, but he decided to make an appearance on TMZ, of all places, to talk about it. I just put out a post today on this. Take a look at this. Dr. Paul Offent appeared on TMZ this week to complain about the hepatitis B vaccine vote by the ASIP committee at the CDC. This is what he said. What changed here is that if the mother does not have hepatitis B, then basically they've said, delay this vaccine until two months of age, to talk about it with your doctor. and you may choose not to get it. That was what was the bad thing.

But what's bad about that? 99.95% of pregnant mothers in America test negative for hepatitis B, which means their infants don't need this vaccine. But he goes on to say, It's just hard to watch this clown show, this parody of a public health agency, act the way that they do.

It's just we're all sort of standing back in horror. But you didn't have to stand in horror. You were invited to the CDC to defend your position, but you didn't show up. For your information, doctors Paul Offutt and Peter Hottes were invited to present and discuss their perspectives as well. Our intention was sincerely to hear a diverse set of views, but Dr. Offit and Hottes declined our invitation. So Dr. Opit, you skipped out on appearing at the CDC where the fate of children is being decided only to appear on TMZ. You do know that TMZ is America's clown show, right?

I've been having a lot of fun lately on my social media channels. So if you want to follow me there, I get a little bit less than we here on the Highwire. You can follow me at Del Bigtree on all my social media platforms. Of course, there's also at Highwire Talk, at Jeffrey Jackson. You definitely want to be following at Real Jeffrey Jackson, the Highwire. All of these different places, we're putting out sorts of different content, some of it more personal for me, having a little bit more fun on that side of it. But I meant what I said. I think it's outrageous that a scientist or a doctor's invited, again, obviously afraid of having

the debate with Aaron Siri. How is Paul Offer going to defend a five-day safety trial with no placebo study? The absence of evidence does not mean it's safe, yet that's what they want us to believe. And of course, they're irate. All they have is loud blustering on TMZ as a response to real science finally happening that is not being driven by the pharmaceutical industry.