The Highwire with Del Bigtree - AARON SIRI’S DEBATE WITH PAUL OFFIT

Episode Date: August 20, 2023

Dr. Jim Meehan guest hosts The Highwire this week and is joined by ICAN lead attorney, Aaron Siri, to share his side of his twitter debate with vaccine creator, Paul Offit, cornering him over his false statement that all vaccines are tested under placebo controlled trials. Hear about the 17 tweet smackdown of facts and how these trials are specifically designed to test efficacy and not safety.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

So you remember when Robert F. Kennedy was recently on Joe Rogan talking about this exact kind of problem. None of the vaccines are ever subjected to true placebo-controlled trials. It's the only medical product that is exempt from that prior to licensure. All these controversial opinions that you have, have you had anyone debate you publicly about any of these? Nobody will debate me. For 18 years, nobody will debate me. In fact, I've scheduled many, many debates. And I've asked HOTES many, many times to debate me. And I think you've asked him here, why don't you debate Robert Kennedy?

And he said, because he's a cunning lawyer or something like that. But I've debated HOTUS on the telephone with, you know, with kind of a referee. And, you know, his science is just made up. He cannot stand by it. He can't cite studies. Yeah, when your science is made up, you don't want to debate somebody that can, you know, really bring the facts and the evidence with them. as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can do. But, you know, that wasn't the stopping point of this discussion.

They tried to incentivize Dr. Peter Hotez to kind of get into this debate. So it started with Joe Rogan offering $100,000, but still Peter wouldn't take the offer, $100,000 to the charity of your choice. It eventually rose as many people just piled on and said, yeah, here's 500,000, 250,000. We want to see this discussion, $2.62 million. were offered to the charity of Peter Hotez's choice if he would just simply discuss and debate. This gentleman that's been out there promoting vaccines his entire life, and he will not debate

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Someone that's out of his area of expertise and in Peter Hotez's area expertise, but Peter doesn't want to. He's running and hiding. But you know, somebody that didn't just couldn't stay in hiding, couldn't stay away from the debate, was Dr. Paul Offutt. Dr. Paul Offett, he's one of the four authors of the, or editors rather, of Stanley Plotkin's vaccines, the Bible of Vaccinology. And if you don't know who Paul Offett is, well, watch this. We are live streaming with the legend, the Mac Daddy, the Pea Daddy, the Pea-Ddy, Paul Offit. Dr. Paul Offitt. Dr. Paul Offutt.

Dr. Offutt. Let's bring in Dr. Paul Offutt. He's a physician at the Infectious Disease Division of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. And a member of the committee that gave advice to the FDA on the vaccine. You're one of the world's leading experts on vaccinations. I was fortunate enough to be part of a team here

at Children's Hospital Philadelphia with Stan Plotkin and Fred Clark to make a rote virus vaccine. The rotatac, which was licensed for and recommended for use in all children in this country in 2006, and then for the world by the World Health Organizations. in 2013. You spend 25 years of your life developing a vaccine that saves lives, that saves, I think it's been estimated hundreds of lives a day.

Dr. Offett holds a $1.5 million research chair at Children's Hospital funded by Merck, and future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. So you don't think you have any conflict of interest here. As a guy who created a vaccine as someone who would be seen as not wanting to speak out against this particular vaccine. Of course not. What motivated me to do that and the reward from doing that was, was of course not financial. My interest is in trying to represent the science of vaccine safety so that parents can understand it so they won't make bad decisions that put their children at risk. Tell us about your yes vote and what you expect to come next in terms of timing from

the FDA. Today we have no clear evidence, at least in this trial, that there was any serious side affecting tens of thousands of people. So I think it was a pretty easy decision to do that. I have no problem with mandates. I'm all for them. I think at this point, it's not a matter of saying, look, vaccines are safe and effective. I think that should be obvious at this point. So you have to compel them to do the right thing.

Yeah, the only thing that's really obvious is how conflicted in your interest you are, Dr. Offutt, and how we should really be debating this issue. But he couldn't stay silent as the debate is he tried to go in and defend Peter Hotez. So he weighed in with this. substack article, should scientists debate the undebatable? Well, somebody read that article, somebody that knows the facts and the evidence and has in fact fought for that evidence in court

and won. And his name is Aaron Serian. Here's what he wrote. Virtually all childhood vaccines on the CDC schedule, including Rotatech, were not licensed by US FDA based on a placebo controlled clinical trial. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is correct on that point. New York York Times, stat news, Dr. Paul Offett, Peter Hotez, are all dead wrong. That is exactly a brilliant statement. And it escalated from there. And I'd like to bring on Aaron Siri to tell us about that escalation and how that played out. Aaron, welcome to the high wire. You're always here. You're always such an integral part of the high wire. First thing I'd like to do is as a fifth degree black belt, I'd like to award you your first degree black belt

because I recognize what you did in that tweet. You hit him with a left hook there right in the ego with that rhodotech tweet. He decided to go after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In an article that said, you don't debate the undebatable. In which Dr. Offutt is saying, there's no point in debating

because the facts are clear, crystal clear. And he was really referring back to what Mr. Kennedy said about placebo-controlled trials. And what Dr. Offutt wrote is he wrote, quote, all vaccines are tested in placebo-controlled trials before a licensure, end quote. That's what he wrote. And he wrote that saying, see, science is settled.

It's clear. You should not debate that point. Problem is for Dr. Offit is not true. And it didn't take much to show that, the tweet you just read, I put out there, I made it categorical. I was clear that he is dead wrong in making that claim. It is not true.

And so after I tweeted that out, he eventually changed his claim from all vaccines to most vaccines are tests in a placebo control trial. Because I showed examples that made clear that's not true. The reality is that that's still a categorically false statement. Categorically false. Well, both statements. It is not for them most. Yeah, you showed in that both statements.

We're wrong. Yeah. And here's the thing about Rhodotech. They were using Rhodotech as the example of a placebo-controlled clinical trial. They, the media, doctor, others out there were using rotatech. Because the truth is that if you're ever going to have a vaccine, that you're going to test in a placebo-consider trial, it should be something like an oral or an vaccine. like an oral vaccine like rototech which unlike virtually every other vaccine on the

child's schedule is administered orally so how simple would it have been to just put drops of water or sugar drops that's it instead they didn't do that they used all the other junk that was in the product and they left it in there they just took out the antigens there was no need including the the the growth medium there was no need to include that stuff there it has no therapeutic or medicinal reason they're in there, but nonetheless, they leave that in there. And so even on the lowest hanging fruit, they can't really say, yeah, it was just, you know, a nothing, a sugar water or a saline injection. So that's also why I use road attack. And of course, as you pointed out, it's also his baby.

It's the vaccine he invented. Right. Which I thought was part of the brilliance because it really probably, you could see in the montage that we did before that kind of sizzle off it. He gets really defensive when you bring up these conflicts of interest in him. You can see how he gets, he really reacts. He thinks he does protest too much. Well, after we had our exchange on Twitter, I've sent out the initial tweet in response.

He responded to that. And then I sent back a little bit of a longer tweet in which I said, your focus on this idea of a placebo as immunologically inert is really just trying to focus on efficacy, how effective is the product, right? Not on safety. If I inject somebody with Gardasil vaccine and then I use as the placebo as they did, as the control, a injection that included the aluminum adjuvenant. It's a proprietary product in the Merck's Gardasil vaccine. I include that in the injection. The purpose of the adjuvant is to cause an immune response, right? But nonetheless, they use it in the control.

And then after they do the trial, they found that 2.3% of the girls, the thousands of girls I got articil, and 2.3% of the girls who got mostly just this, this injection of aluminum adjuvant end up with a suspected systemic autoimmune disorder. Well, aluminum adjuvant, we know can cause autoimmunity. In fact, they injected into lab animals to generate autoimmunity. And so by not using a saline placebo in that exam, that's one of the examples I tweeted in response to Dr. Offen, I said, look, by not using a saline placebo,

which you ended up with is, sure, you ended up with a vaccinate group and a control group that had the same rate of harm. So for the purposes of FDA standards, safe, because they're equally harmful, but from the perspective of any rational, normal thinking, caring human being, not safe, not safe at all. That's exactly right.

I mean, this is the great fraud of the entire vaccine program, in my opinion, is that it's, they've never done the proper studies, they've never used truly inert placebos to determine the safety. And then they're basing the safety of the next vaccine. You called them out on Prevnar 7 and Prevnar 13. You pointed out, you brought all the receipts in this, you know, so as as you rocked off it in that first interaction, he starts deflecting to the placebo issue. Now he's trying to, trying to discredit the need for placebos. And it's, you know, I mean, you called it right out. You said, this is, and this is what we've always complained about. You're masking the injuries. When you're comparing, you know, Prevnar 7 to Prevnar 13, when you're using Gardasil and you're injecting a highly active, a aluminum adjuvant, polysorate 80 control group, you're masking the harms and you're trying to obfuscate on the idea that, yeah, see, we killed and harmed. No more women in young women,

healthy women between 9 and 26 in the Gardasil vaccine in the control group that got this active, this active control that had the aluminum adjuvant, that had the polysylate 80. Everything was in that control group that was in the Gardasil vaccine. itself except the antigens. It's a critically deadly serious important issue. Yeah. Because if the baseline control that you're using in the clinical trial is not something in Earth, it's not something where you're like, yes, that's a safe thing. It can mask potential harms that the product can cause. So as an example of Prevnar, right, the Prevnar vaccine, the initial Previnar vaccine, Previnar 7, was clinical trial against, and this is,

sounds unbelievable, but it's on the FDA website. It was clinical trial against another experimental vaccine. If I was going to make up something crazy about vaccines, I wouldn't even have dreamed of making that up. But there it is, right there in the FDA's own licensure documents, and it's for the world to see the FDA website. You just got a lot. So the original, the original,

yeah, the Prebinar, the original. The original Prevonar7 was the original clinical trial was the control group got a meningococcus vaccine that was experimental and was it ever approved by the FDA? Not that I'm aware of. And then in that clinical trial, the adverse event rate that occurred between the vaccinated, the experimental group, the Prevvvvvonar 7 group and the control group, they got another experimental vaccine, that was. As long as, since that rate of harm was the same, it was deemed safe. Then when they went to license Prevnar 13, they used Previnar 7 as the control vaccine.

In that clinical trial, actually unlike most clinical trials of childhood vaccines, they actually assess safety for six months. They look for serious adverse dose six months. And the truly concerning finding was that 8.2% of children that got Previnar 13, something like that ended up with Syria, a serious adverse event and something like 7.2% of the children like that

have Preventer 7. Well, that should have made alarm bells go off at the FDA because you don't really know the baseline of safety for Previnar 7. And it is not normal for entirely healthy children. That's the kid you recruit in these clinical trials. Babies, within six months, six months to have a serious adverse event, 8.878% of them. And serious advent event under the FDA definition means something very, very serious. It means death, disability. You can look it up. That's also on the FDA website. So, and this is the problem. Once the FDA has licensed the first one and then now it's done the second one, is it really going to go back and tell the American people, oh, by the way,

oops, sorry. You know the product we told you to inject your baby at two, four, and six months of age? Yeah, we kind of made a mistake. That's the, that is, that is the, that becomes, this whole machine kicks in once the product's out there. Pfizer's making billions of dollars on this product. The CDC has stake and the FDA stake their reputation on this product because they've licensed it and recommended it, told everybody to get it. Going back, which is really hard.

The normal check on that would be when it causes harm, the product liability in class action laws would sue the pharmaceuticals would sue the pharmaceutical company, sue Pfizer for the harm, but they can't do that typically because of the 1986 Act. So this isn't the gotcha on Paul Offett. This is, you know, using, we just used to guard us, so we just had Previnar 7, and we can go through all 17 vaccines, categories of vaccines that are currently on the childhood vaccine schedule. There's 17 types of vaccines, each has a number of products that are licensed, and they all virtually, every one of them suffer from this exact defect I just described. From the very first shot on the schedule, which is hepatitis B vaccine, licensed based on five or four days of observation after a,

injection with, you know, that's, it's laughable. And you can go down the list. It would be funny if, again, it wasn't such a serious concerning issue. It really is. And these are not just products that you can take or leave often. Often if you don't take these products, you can't go to school. You can't become a nurse. You can't become a doctor. You can't go work in a hospital. So these are, you know, these are serious. And if the pharma industry and health authorities, quote unquote, health authorities have their way, you won't be able to do anything in American society without taking this product. That's right.

And as I put in that tweet, the link back to the article, it links to the FDA documentation for every single one of these vaccines in the clinical trial. The proof is all categorically there. And all Paul often had to do was look at the FDA's own licensure documents for a man who sits on the FDA's committee that recommends and decides whether the license child to vaccine. that should be deeply concerning that apparently didn't look at it because he's continuing to say that most licensed based on clinical trials, which isn't true. Yeah, well, I was watching this in real time. I read every one of those 17, you went through a 17-part tweet where you brought all the evidence.

And, you know, the question I had is, did Offutt not know this? I mean, he made such an egregiously wrong series of statements. And I think he started to figure that out. I think you educated Paul Offutt. Maybe tomorrow he wakes up and says, man, I've been wrong all this time. A lot of doctors have during this pandemic. No, I don't think so. I don't think, I don't think, I don't either. I think cognitive dissonance is an extremely powerful thing. I mean this.

You know, when you take a position, when somebody takes a position about an issue and they do it not from a place of knowledge, but a place of assumption, when they're challenged, they don't draw knowledge. They typically draw their emotion. And that emotions can be more powerful than any type of intellectual. It takes a lot to overcome, especially when he's taking a public position in that way to come out and say, oh, sorry, I'm wrong. I think it's probably unlikely. He is self-schema, his self-worth is, I think is all wrapped up into the idea that these products are, you know, God's sense. and, you know, he's part of saving the world, admitting issues, I find to be unlikely.

Yeah, I agree with you. And unfortunately, I think it's just, it becomes an emotional argument for many of them. He's spent too long in this area, profited too much. He's, you know, he's, the bias is strong in that one. And I don't think anything changes from that position. But what you did do, and thank goodness you were on Twitter, and everybody should go read Aaron Series substack on this, because he provides all the evidence. It's really one of the most distinct exposés on this tobacco science that the childhood vaccine program is built on.

The lack of true vaccine safety studies being done, Aaron exposed that beautifully. And he really, you know, as I said, this was number three on the list of editors of the vaccine. So I'm looking forward to you bringing some education to Walter Ornstein next. That'll be a 4-4-4 brother. That's a, I will award you your second-degree black belt. Well, as I proposed to Dr. Off, but I welcome to Dr. Ornstein also. If he wants to sit down on a stage anywhere, anytime, for as long as either of them would like, I keep that invitation open with evidence.

We each have an opportunity to present all the evidence to show the main points that they often like to talk about. You know, they talk about how these vaccines are properly clinical trial before licensure. Well, let's go through that. Let's share evidence. clinical trials are so important and I just again it's not a it's such an important substance point if I could put another point to it and it's this the only real way the main way that you determine whether or not a product medical product causes an injury is you have to have a clinical trial because once it's

licensed you can't conduct certainly not a placebo control trial. And without that, you cannot determine causation between an alleged harm and the product itself. That's why the clinical trials are so important. They're so critical to do before licensure, because after licensure, they'll tell you it's unethical. You can't do it.

It's a licensed product now. You must give the standard of care. And so the clinical trials and doing them properly before you go, and inject them into millions of babies typically is so unbelievably important. Once you do pharmaceutical apparatus, making money kicks in and their PR machine

and the regulatory agencies of promotion and they stake their name on it, they're not gonna change. All you get after licensure, the best indication of what the product safety is after licensure for the most part is not from studies. There's not many studies done.

Pharmaceutical companies have no incentive. incentive to do the studies. The federal health authorities don't want to do the studies. Literally, you know, you can't sue the vaccine injury. You sue federal home. You literally sue the Department of Health and Services. You sue the federal health agencies. So they do any signs that shows that a vaccine caused an injury.

They're basically making an admission against interest. So where are you left with? Well, there is a regulation out there. And there's a regulation that provides that a pharmaceutical company is to provide on the package insurers for each vaccine only, Only, this is the federal government's regulation, only those adverse events, which it has a basis to believe there's a causal relationship with the vaccine. When people pick up those package interest, they say, oh, they just list everything. No, they're not allowed to.

They're only allowed to list those things. They have a basis to believe there's a causal, not correlation, causation relationship. And when you pick up those package insert for those childhood vaccines, and you look in section 6.2, that's where they describe, where they disclose those issues. 6.1 is they're described in clinical trial. In section 6.2, there's over 100 serious adverse events that these pharmaceutical companies, which is mostly Merck, Sinofi, Pfizer, and GSK, are saying that they have a base to leave. These products given at one day old, Hepby, at two months old, five to six shots, at four months old, five to six shots, at six months old,

five to six shots. Over a hundred serious conditions they believe could be caused. They have a basis to believe are caused with this product. You know what those harms are too? Those are the same harms that parents often complain the vaccines are causing their children. And you know what doctors like Paul Offutt and all the other doctors and all the other health authorities tell them when those parents come and complain? They say, oh, that's just anecdotal. That's just correlation. You have to prove causation. And you know the only only thing that's, you know, the only thing, wait for them to do that? A clinical trial. Oh, but that's not done beforehand and you can't do it afterwards because now it would be unethical. Yeah. It's an incredible state of affairs and it really

heartens all the way back to this exchange with pull off it and why this discussion about placebo control trials is not just a gotcha. It's not not just like a one, you know, one step in the safety procedure. No, is the critical essential element for assuring safety. Because once you license without it, there's really no going back and ensuring the safety. At the least, I would say, we got to make sure parents have choice. Amen. Before they, you know, in terms of these products. Yeah. Well, Aaron, you, you're doing great work in the court, winning so many freedoms for us. You're doing great work outside of the court,

bringing the truth to the misinformation as it gets presented by some of the leading experts on the other side. And we are blessed to have you. Thank you for being here. And keep up the great work. I'm going to keep following you closely. It's fun. Popcorn time when Aaron Siri is tweeting. God bless you, man. Thank you.