The Highwire with Del Bigtree - THE “661 TRIALS” LIE: WHAT AARON SIRI REVEALED IN CONGRESS

Episode Date: September 18, 2025

Del sits down with ICAN’s lead attorney, Aaron Siri, Esq., for a hard-hitting conversation following his explosive Senate testimony. Siri takes aim at the false narrative of “661 placebo-controlled vaccine trials,” dismantling it point by point. He also exposes the buried Henry Ford study featured in the upcoming documentary “An Inconvenient Study,” and opens up about his powerful new book, “Vaccines. Amen.” Together, they make the case for why true transparency in vaccine science can no longer be delayed.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Why do we do this? Well, part of it is not just this show and the reporting that we do or the hearings that we attend and are part of or the movies that we make, but probably most importantly the lawsuits that we bring and the battle that we take on in courtrooms so that we're not only changing legislation. We are winning in courts and changing hearts and minds and bringing evidence that then gets used for legislation. All of it is a part of a multi-pronged approach towards change that we're We set out all the way back in 2016 when we started ICANN.

We are going to bring media, we're going to be a media hub. We are going to be involved in meeting with politicians and talking about change and legislation. And we're going to bring lawsuits that we can start changing in courtrooms, things that are not right. Of course, we're attempting to free the five. And as we speak right now, Aaron Siri is in court in West Virginia. He was in court in West Virginia yesterday. He actually asked, can we push this back a little bit? I have a big hearing in Washington, D.C. that he was the center of. He was getting information in the middle of the night. Swear. Aaron has not slept. I don't think in probably five days, preparing for that hearing, which he was dynamic in, but also preparing for this case that he couldn't move. So yesterday, after a full day in court fighting to bring back the religious exemption in West Virginia, which is going to be critical. Can you imagine when that happens, you know what the power of that. We've already got Mississippi. Now if we can pull off West Virginia,

It's looking good. He's working very hard at it. So right after court yesterday, because I knew he wouldn't be here today, I sat down with him to talk about the hearing and his new book, which is Vaccines, Amen. So let's take a look at that interview, which started out with this incredible moment where one of the big arguments that the doctor, I'm forgetting his name at the moment, hit me, Jake Scott, Dr. Jake Scott, he came in with his argument that there has been over 600 placebo-based trials. This idea that we've never tested childhood schedules ridiculous. I built the biggest database. I'm the number one guy.

Boy, did that get torn apart. Take a look at this. We documented 661 trials using inert placebo controls. We confirmed that all 16 antigens routinely recommended for children have been studied in placebo control trials. The claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested. against placebo is demonstrably false. But when you actually drilled down into those 661 trials,

let me give you the breakdown of them, okay? 567 of these trials were not a routine-injected vaccine for a disease in the CDC childhood schedule. So totally irrelevant to the safety of routine-injected childhood vaccines. The remaining 94 studies, 70 of them, did not involve healthy children. Again, completely irrelevant. relevant to the safety of childhood vaccines.

Of the remaining 24, 21 did not involve a US licensed vaccine. That leaves us with three studies, three, that were claimed to have an inert control that were relied upon to license a routine injected childhood vaccine out of this entire list of 161. And these actually helped really highlight the problem we have in terms of assessing safety. One was a trial for the chickenpox vaccine, the varicella vaccine. It was only a few hundred people,

so it was underpowered anyway. But Dr. Scott says it's got an inert control, but actually it was an injection of neomyosin, an antibiotic. That's not inert. The second one was Gardasil IV trial, which had thousands and thousands of girls and women in the control group.

Almost all of them got an aluminum adjuvant injection. and then there were a few hundred, only a few hundred, that were labeled as an inert control, but they weren't. They got everything that's in the vial except for the antigens and the alum, which included elhistidine, subidates sodium borate, yeast protein, not inert. And then the third one was a Gardasil nine trial, which finally, by the way, did have a saline injection.

The few hundred that got the placebo, but they only got it if they first got three doses of Gardasil four. So again, not an actual inner control group. The result is there's zero trials, zero, which were relied upon in this list of 60-61, to license a routine injected vaccine on the CDC schedule that included a placebo, as well as zero trials of a vaccine uses a control to license a routine injection vaccine

on the CDC schedule. Yeah, I'd be very surprised if you went through all 661 trials. We haven't even conducted the full analysis yet. But once... I think Mr. Siri kind of has. He should join our team. I'm... Yeah. You see, he's got a pretty crack team doing that. Yeah. If you let me make the decisions, I'll join your team. Well, he's not only one of the world's greatest attorneys. He's also the author of this

brand new book, Vaccines, Amen. Just Hit the Shelf. You're going to want to check this out. I'm joined by none other than Aaron Siri. Aaron, thanks for joining us today. I know you are right now in West Virginia. You're in the fight of your life right now to bring back the religious exemption. This case is ongoing. I know you got prepping.

In fact, you were just in Washington, D.C. yesterday. We were there. Are you getting any sleep? I mean, you are working so hard. It's really actually hard to imagine how you're still standing. Sleep, what is that? I know you're putting in a lot of time right now.

A lot of different plates are spinning. But let's go to this clip that we just showed. I mean, you know, I think that in many ways, this was like the pinnacle of this moment, in this hearing, but also of how these people come to these debates. This guy just said, you know, my coup de grace argument that I've shown up with, that I thought everyone would just accept, you tear it down. Not a single study he's referencing actually references the argument that he was making against a Kennedy tweet, which is how this all started. It has nothing to do with the childhood vaccine program really in America. Then like what do they think they're going to win with bravado? I mean, it's just shocking. These are doctors. They went to college. They know what winning an argument should look like. And this is total bull crap. I mean, it just, I guess I just keep thinking,

They believe their own hype. Basically, they think they can just show up and they're going to use some humor and a little motion and a study that we don't know anything about is that that's going to win the day. And you just absolutely trounced Dr. Scott here. But what's it from your perspective? You're sitting in the front row seat there. Would that blow your mind when he said, we haven't even looked at our own studies? No, I'm not surprised. I think Dr. Scott and his kin epitomize what I call the religion of vaccines.

They don't actually have knowledge about these products. They don't base their decisions on real evidence. They have beliefs. They have dog. They have things they think and repeat through repetition they believe are true. Actual science, actual data, really doing the hard work? No. There's no pushback.

Since 1986, basically, it's been a one-way street. they've been unopposed, unchallenged. And so they repeat to each other, agendas and catchphrases. And over time, they just start believing them because nobody ever actually questions them. Nobody gives them pushback. Well, you know, Dr. Scott showed up,

not only thinking that he had, I guess, the upper hand in terms of the evidence, which he didn't, because when you read his report, let me tell you something. There are folks like Dr. Stanley Plotkin or who would not have shown up to that hearing. You know why? Because I think that he and his kin, they know they could not actually support the claims that Dr. Scott tried to support. But Dr. Scott, see, he's like almost the rest of the medical profession.

He still believes in the slogans. He believes in the catchphrases and in things that are just mythical claims about vaccines. And so he walked right into it. I mean, I'm sure he believed those things were true, but that's the problem. He believed him. He believed they were true. I want to push back on that a second. You cannot say, you know, Robert Kennedy Jr. makes a statement, tweets out, none of the

childhood vaccines on the CDC schedule were other tested against placebos in a pre-licensure safety trial. He's not just any doctor. The reason he's there is he's the guy they go to. He's building a great database. They keep saying, that's a lie. We've done those placebos. They've been with thousands of times.

we've tested all those vaccines with placebos. He knows for a fact that he's collecting bologna's studies about totally different vaccines from all around the world, most of them not really even saline placibos, injecting you with aluminum and formaldehyde and all the carrier substances, everything

but the virus itself. I mean, we know how the whole game is played. He knows he's lying. He knows when he's sitting there. He doesn't have 16 studies of 16 vaccines with placebos in them, which is how you would win that argument. So he literally knows he's trying to bull crap his way through this.

You can't not know that you are not providing actual evidence. So I'm sorry, he may believe vaccines are safe and effective, but when you show up, it should bother him that's showing up his hearing and that his studies being touted around the world is the evidence that Robert Kennedy Jr. is wrong. When deep down, he's got to know someone's going to call you out, bro. You are lying. You might be correct. Or it could also be that beliefs, they die hard.

You know, challenging person believes, it's hard for people to let go. As he told CNN, apparently, in their article, when he saw Robert F. Kennedy's junior's claim that no routine injected child the vaccine was licensed based on a placebo control trial, he knew, he knew that was false. And he set out to prove it wrong. See, he didn't set out to find the truth. He'd set out to prove his a priori belief that that could not be true. But to my point, can't find it.

Can't find Endericks B. Can't find the MMR 2. Can't find the actual names of the vaccines we're talking about and a placebo trial with the name of that vaccine. It can't find it. So when he went out to prove it, he didn't find it. What he found was completely and just kept pile. It's almost like I know that we see it in movies,

lawyers all of a sudden they send all the evidence. So you got rooms and rooms and stacks and stacks of paper like no one's ever going to look through all this and catch me at this. That's what he's doing. He didn't win. He knows it. Deep down his heart, he's got to know he doesn't have the answer. Yeah, he's doing it.

And I guess to be as generous as possible to Dr. Scott. In some ways, he kind of, he kind of duping himself maybe. Yeah. He filled the room with so many studies. He convinced himself, see? I do have the that does support the safety. There is, but it's obviously nonsense because all he had to do is, as I said at the hearing, you want to know what the vaccines were relied upon, what trials were allowed upon to license them?

Look at the clinical trial license document. Don't crowdsource random studies off their internet about HIV and God knows what else vaccines. But, you know, and, you know, Look, you're probably right. I'm just trying to always give somebody the benefit of the doubt. Well, you do that. I'm going to take that benefit away myself. Let's move on to another clip.

I actually, I think to the point, I think we've said it. These guys think I have a PhD or doctor, like doctor something. They have the white lab coat. It is like a religion. It's what your book is about here is the fact that they're running this like a religion. You're not allowed to question me. You don't get to read the actual text. only I get to see the text.

And most of the time, I haven't read it. I hear about the text from the, you know, from the Pope. But in this point, I think Senator Blumenthal, you know, tries to catch you with that. You don't have a doctor's license. Let's just play this moment because I think you handled this in a way we've never seen it before, which was fantastic. Let's take a look at this clip.

Mr. Siri, we've been talking about medical issues. You're not a medical doctor, are you? No, sir. and you're not an immunologist or biologist or any kind of... Or vaccinologists, no, but I depose them regularly, including the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines, and I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court with regards to vaccines.

I don't get to rely on titles. Okay. I felt like that moment, Aaron, when I read your book, you really called out, this is what it is. Because I don't have a doctorate. I'm incapable of reading. I don't know what a study is. In fact, you have to do more.

work because you are putting doctors and scientists on the stand. You've got to have evidence and you are winning. And I've said this, you know, to reporters for the last, you know, eight years we've been working together. If we're spreading misinformation, I would love for you to try to use misinformation to win lawsuits against the government in the United States, which is what we're doing, what Aaron's series doing. What did you think? I mean, I thought you really put, like, Blumenthal did not know how to respond. They're like, oh, my God, you're not going to bow down to the idea of a doctor having, you know, it doesn't even matter. I mean, you know, it was like crazy to him that we're not all just going to like, you know, genuflect down to this, the doctor in the room.

You know, as Senator Blumenthal, when we had our exchange last time when I was there, I think it was in May for a hearing, came out at me one time and never came out of me again, if I recall. And, but he did quip. Well, we're both trial attorneys. And, you know, I think that in that regard, you could see the look on his face. I know that look. You got me. You got me.

And he smiles. He smiles. And I think he smiles really, okay, I have nowhere to go from there. I, okay, yeah, because he's trying. He's processing. He's trying. But where is he going to go from there? Because you know what?

He may not understand medicine. or other stuff, but he knows what being a trial attorney means. He knows how exacting, if you're a good trial attorney, if you really take it seriously, and you're dealing especially with an issue where everything's stacked against you, right? You have all the beliefs out there. You have all of the received notions. Go down the list. I mean, of all the issues to litigate, you know, sometimes I wonder, I wish I'd have picked an easier one.

But that's, you know, everybody's got their calling. With that said, he knows what experts, when they're put to task in trials, that really the lawyer that can take that expert to task really does have to be more knowledgeable than the expert. And if they can't take the person who's the head of that discipline to task, yeah, you probably can very much rely on that lawyer's opinion. You know, I did not realize he's a trial attorney, and that helps me understand that look he had in his face. I couldn't quite understand it. There was like a knowing and an acknowledgement.

I thought I was just going to his head. So you're right. Now I understand what I was looking at. You had him. He knows if you're good at what you're doing. It doesn't, nobody's going to, you know, have better facts than you do. Speaking of facts, you know, Senator Johnson did a great job of breaking down the death rates, you know, that were told, like are modeled in America and showing how ridiculous those are. But you had a great moment also where you, these numbers that the WHO's touting about, you know, death rates of COVID in the world. It was really a spectacular moment. Let's take a look at this.

The choice before this committee is clear. Based public health policy on transparent, peer-reviewed evidence that anyone can verify or on an unpublished analysis with acknowledged fatal biases hidden from scientific scrutiny. Vaccines have saved 154 million lives globally over 50,000. years, the data are public. The evidence is overwhelming. Parents deserve policies grounded in this evidence. Thank you. I welcome your questions. Thank you, Dr. Scott. I'll start with the questioning. I'll just basically turn it over to Mr. Siri. Do you want to start with 154 million claim? Absolutely. I think the claim about 154 million lives saves is it actually is the epitome of the corruption of science. It reflects the corruption of science in action. This

study is just based on guesswork and assumptions. It is a study published by the WHO. It is essentially an advertising piece by them for how effective their immunization program has been over the last 50 years. So what is the confidence interval at 154 million claim? What is the reliability range of it? it doesn't have one. You know why it doesn't have one? Because it's totally unreliable. As buried in page 42 of the supplement to that quote unquote advertising piece by the WHO, it said in a section entitled uncertainty of estimates, it says, it says that, quote, it cannot put, quote, bounds around the veracity of the estimates. It can't put bounds around the vastity of the estimates. And that, quote, any bounds are arbitrary, end quote, and that quote, It should not be interpreted as a claim to where the edges of valid estimates possibly lie, end quote. What that means is it could be equally true that 200 million lives were lost because of the vaccine program. It's an unbounded estimate.

That is the corruption of science. Yeah, I remember that moment in the room, Aaron. And I'll tell you, the audience started like getting vocal, the energy. By the way, a lot of people in that hearing, when we were all walking out, they said that was the most fiery, interesting, exciting, uh, hearing I've ever seen. I mean, it really, there really were like fireworks in there. Um, just because I think the disparity between, you know, facts, like what a fact is was so much different how you were presenting it. And then this guy, Dr. Scott, just keeps getting blown out of the

water. I mean, I'd hate to at a certain point. You said, I mean, honestly, we almost had that negative effect when you start feeling sorry for the guy that can't is just just outmaned in this debate completely but what is it again this modeling thing these numbers they're so absurd or do they think we're stupid or are they just stupid they think they're morally intellectually and otherwise superior and that all comes from belief in that in that regard it very much as a religion in a scientific you open, you are open to questions. You are excited when somebody comes and says, hey, there's another piece of data here.

It might make what you're looking at now, you can make your model better, the way you look at it. This is you want to get it right, except that's not the way this universe works. They have their belief, these products are safe and effective, and they engage in selection bias, where the only thing they really are willing to accept and let into their minds are things that affirm those beliefs.

And you saw that on full display. I mean, that's why he gets angry. He has to withdraw. He doesn't know what to do because when presented with the reality, I mean, it's, you know, the thing I said about the WHO study, for example, I mean, if you're a serious scientist, it does not take much to look at and go, wait, there's no confidence intervals. Wait, how reliable is that number?

Okay, let me go look at the limitation section, right? Oh, wait, it's not in the study. Oh, I got to go find the appendix. Oh, I got to go all there to page 14. And when you read it, you're like, holy crap, they're saying these are totally unreliable. And, you know, what I did is what a scientist who is being objective and thinking and not believing would do and could reach the same conclusions and make the same points that I made, but they don't do that in that universe.

No, I mean, and that's exactly what was on trial I felt like in this hearing like we've never seen it before. I know at the heart of it was the, you know, this study that we've got coming out of Ford Medical Center by Dr. Zervos, one of the most damning studies we've ever seen. But, you know, Senator Johnson said to us, I don't want to just make it about the study. I want to make it about this orthodoxy that keeps people from publishing the science when it's in front of them and not being afraid to put it out there. And then this belief system, because they're not seeing in the science that doesn't get published and they're in their own thought bubble, you know, I think one of the greatest ways to show that was this moment where Senator Johnson challenges

because, you know, Dr. Scott ends up talking about how deadly COVID was and the hundreds of patients. Then he, then you can tell he's out over the tips of his skis as numbers start changing and then ultimately how are you treating them? Take a, let's take a look at this. I think early on, yes, there were a lot of deaths. I lost over 100 patients. Okay. I mean, From COVID or with COVID COVID COVID from COVID was terrible. Did you say you lost a hundred then? I'm sorry. I'm not trying to I've lost dozens of patients probably over a hundred. I lost track to be honest It was awful. Okay, I lost many many nursing home folks Who live nearby and multiple a day sometimes. What was the protocol? G is did you use? Did you use remdesivere? Were you using?

monoclonal antibodies where you did you ever try ivermectin or budesinide or some of the other generic drugs that were recommended so i was going based on the best available evidence my role was actually to focus on the best available evidence for therapeutics i helped develop the guidelines and so yeah we used you know remdesivir if patients met eligibility uh we used dexamethyzone which clearly shows or had been shown to be life-saving By the way, I had Pierre Corey, I think in May of 2020, he talked about corticosteroids. He was vilified and savaged in the media until a couple months later they actually had a study come out of England that dexomethosone worked, which is corticosteroid. Now, generally underdosed when they gave it, but regardless, I mean, continue.

Yeah, so, I mean, we used a number of things. Did I ever use ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine? I don't think so. That about says it all right there. And what he's saying is, and this guy, he's a top expert. Not only did I, you know, use Remdesivir, I was one of the guys writing the protocol based on the available science. The available science coming down, as your book clearly points out, coming down from, you know, the Pope and the religion on high, what we're allowed to teach, what we're allowed to use. I mean, you do it so beautifully in this book, talking about everything from their, you know, the Pope.

version of original sin, the golden cap. I love how you put this together because it's what people don't understand when they're saying, how is it this is happening? How are these people so clueless? Is it money? Is it greed? Is it power? I said, no, no, it's much, it's something different. It's a religion. These people are, they believe in an orthodoxy and a religion and it's heresy to even ask a question. I mean, and that's where this guy is in capable of asking a question about hydroxychloroquine. Ivermectin. Every doctor that looked at that saved lives. Everyone that said, wait a minute, totally safe product. Everybody's using it around the world. We've been using it forever. We should have no fear of using it. So why are we letting Tony Fauci telling us it's dangerous?

These are two of the safest drugs that have ever been on the planet. And yet he's like, no, I don't think I ever went near that. We stuck with remdesivir. And I wanted to jump up there and say, and killed like nine out of 10 patients. So yeah, you saw a lot of death, you moron. It's really sad and unfortunate because a lot of doctors, as we've heard many of them testify, like Dr. Jordan Bond, who's got numerous clinics, had an extremely low death rate. And so depending on the protocol, and, you know, when you even, when you look at some of the things they did, like, for example, yes, somebody comes in and they have a low blood ox level, right, where normally that would mean they have mechanical issues with their lungs, so you would intubate.

But these folks could breathe. They just had a low blood oxygen level. So their lungs are working fine. Why intubating them? Obviously, it's just illogic. Like, think about it, right? It doesn't make logical sense to do that. Obviously, it was all about ventilators until they realized they were killing everybody on these ventilators,

that's the most part. Yeah. And then they stopped doing that. The best evidence. That was the best evidence at the time. and we stuck to it until we just killed so many people. But you know, I tell you, ventilator, a good example of, and there are good crossover vaccines for the following reason.

It shows you how financial incentives can pervert medical care. Yeah. They were giving basically bonuses, incendiually. If somebody was admitted with COVID and you treated them and you went through the protocol, including with the ventilators and so forth, those hospitals end up getting this, you know, bolus bonus. Tens of thousands of dollars extra, yeah. It's just like vaccines where they gave them immunity,

what I call the original sin in 1986. And from there, it spurred an entire industry that pumped out product after product without any concern for how many people they killed or injured. In fact, as, you know, as you and I have talked about many times, it is the only product in America where a company can kill a child with impunity, even if they could have made the product safer, even if they knew how to make the paper. Only one. It's amazing. You know, I look, you're in the middle of a case.

I don't want to hold you up too long. Let's just play this final clip. This is just beyond the pale. We're in a science discussion. This is supposed to be about a debate about a vaccinated versus on vaccinated study. We keep saying CDC should have done this. The world health organizations should do this. Every, you know, decent database in the world should just compare these two groups of people. Every time it's done by an independent, smaller group, we see horrific results from, you know, in the vaccinated. This for the first time ever is a study done by a pro-vaccine scientist, Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Ford Medical Center. The very same scientist was the center of disclosing the Flint, Michigan water crisis and the toxic water there and

went up against the health system. So a guy that's usually fearless, he does a study in one of the most, you know, probably prestigious, but also pro-vaccine medical establishments. Everyone on the team is pro-vaccine. And yet this bombshell comes out that in almost every health category, the vaccinated are just doing far worse. That's what this hearing is for. But this guy, Dr. Scott, after having every one of his points destroyed, proving that you have no actual science. It is a, you're bringing in mountains of useless, you know, fodder and calling it science. Instead of ending with, like I'm expecting, well, this should be good. I'm sure he's thought about his great closing remarks on science.

Instead, it becomes like a rebuke of, you know, are our emotional levels around this? And are we dangerous? It was unbelievable. Let me just play it. There has been a very alarming degree of threats against doctors and public health experts. I mean, I think that it's very important that we recognize the CDC shooting for what it was. And I hope that we can all agree that regardless of our beliefs and opinions about vaccine safety, that we don't send

mobs looking for scientists and physicians. I believe what you're trying to say is you're characterizing those who take issue with this product as violent, which is precisely what folks do when they don't agree with another person's position. They dehumanize them in that matter, so I don't agree on that score, but I, of course, abhor and always condemn violence from anybody. We need to be civil and we need to be respectful. There's nobody out there that you can talk about. the way that the media and the medical profession talks about people that don't vaccinate,

throw them out of school, kick them out of their jobs. The way that those folks are treated, they're not to be lectured by anybody about civility. That is, that is the height of absurdity, absurdity. I mean, truly absurdity. So next, I actually, I actually, I actually, it's an insult on top of injury. That's what it is. Obviously, you know, and I know you have, as I've, I've interviewed thousands of parents with injured children, you've litigated for them. It is, it is so hard to listen to that. Instead, I mean, all I know is, is thousands, tens of thousands, millions of parents of vaccine injured children that day to day, you know, stand in that with their children, love those children, and then go out and try and take whatever moments they have away from

that child to warn everybody else, look out, don't let this happened to you? To me, I mean, these are the most giving, beautiful. They were filling that room. And again, this guy with, can we not be attacked? Can we not make this about emotion? And I think in light of what's happened today with the assassination of Charlie Kirk and this discussion of violence, it really is disturbing that this is where they want to go in, to end a scientific discussion. This had nothing to do with violence. And what is he talking about? What mob is going after scientists?

No mob is going after scientists. This is a fiction that people, this is what people do when they want to dehumanize a group. All he did, he didn't reveal anything about the people who don't vaccinate. He revealed everything about himself. He revealed how he, sees the people don't vaccinate because he sees them as violent he sees them as as inferior that's why he calls out a fiction that doesn't exist that they need to be somehow control what is he talking about

you want to talk about sending a mob him and his kin send truly send mobs the government when the government comes a child from you because you don't vaccinate that is a form of violence it's violence, but it's violence in a way. When they throw your children out of school and don't let them walk through the threshold of that building, that too is a form of scorer, so to speak, mob, whatever he wants to characterize it. When they go on TV and they say those parents aren't, when they talk about them in the most outrageous language possible, that they're immoral, that they're selfish, that they should be

excluded from society. When I think of the Jimmy Kimmel moment, you know, you need a heart transplant or whatever, or, you know, or your asthma, whatever it was, no vaccine, you're not allowed in here. Good luck, wheezy. I mean, that is violent language against innocent people that somehow, because you haven't taken place in this ritual that you're involved with, you're not allowed to be taken care of. You're not allowed to be cared for. In fact, we don't have to care about you at all.

It doesn't get more disgusting than that. He, what he doesn't understand, and he's just not getting it. And Senator Blumenthal doesn't get it either. Is that, you know what breeds the most vaccine hesitancy? Is there utter and shameless disregard for the millions of individuals who are injured by these products in America and far more abroad? That is what breeds vaccine hesitancy. You know, you, when you talk about these products, when I talk about these products, it's not like, you know, there's this whole universe of folks who are just so interested in this particular consumer product. No, they have a personal, they've been personally affected by it.

That's the person I meet over and over again. And the stories are just, it's one heartbreaking story after another. You know, and I will readily admit that in that moment, that bothered me when he said that. And I don't usually, I usually don't get bothered in these hearings. And I don't usually, and of all the, you know, it's just because it was just, you know, we were having an exchange of facts, an exchange of evidence, a discussion about critical trial designed, a discussion of whether the evidence he put forth was good and he attacked my evidence. Wonderful.

I welcome it. I like those kinds of debates. I will debate that any day with any vaccinologist, infectious disease doctor, immunologist, you name it. Let's do it. But that was an attempt to dehumanize the millions of folks whose hearts, who's who's, who's, who suffer in silence every day. I see them, interact with them. You said, I mean, it's, you know, in some ways,

when their children get injured or they get injured, I often you think that it would make them angry, but I often find it makes them even more caring, more human in a way. It often has the opposite effect. Even people whose children have devastating injuries. I'm always amazed at how, just how, how they their focus is on their children.

Their focus is not on anger or revenge or vengeance. Their focus is on their children. And then this guy is going to sit there and pretend like these folks are going to bring them a mob against scientists. It's it's and I stand exactly by my words and I stand at the tone and I said them. It is absurd and is the height of absurdity for that man or any of his kin to dare after the way they treat unvaccinated lecture. the folks who choose to not vaccinate their next child after one child has been injured, you know, that they're somehow the ones who are going to use force

in any way to get their well, precisely the opposite. Let's talk about your book real quick before I let you get back to, you know, getting ready for tomorrow's day in court. So many of us, I mean, even I know you really well, but been waiting for you to write a book. We all want to get inside the head of Aaron Siri. what is going on in there? How does your mind work?

How do you put these thoughts together? How are you so eloquent? You know, the strategies you come up with. We watch these incredible hearings, nine-hour hearing with Stanley Plotkin. But, you know, why vaccines amen? Why is it that, why this book, when you decide to write about the really, you know,

was it eight, nine years now you've been litigating for I can, also doing your own work with vaccine injury, with your law firm, why this story, this book, Why was this what you decided to go with? Well, unlike these vaccine scientists and infectious diseases, a vaccinologist, when this journey started when, you know, at the very, very beginning, we started looking at vaccine safety, we approached it.

I certainly approached it with an open mind. I wanted to see what does the evidence actually show. And I will say that in the first few years, it was one shock after another. You know, when I deposed Dr. Stanley Plotkin, that was actually early on. I actually knew a small fraction of what I know today. And I will tell you, the night before I took that deposition of Stanley Plotkin, I was absolutely expecting turns, twists.

I was expecting him to bring up stuff that I hadn't anticipated facts, data, studies that I'd missed, that I'd be like, ooh, you got me, okay? But, you know, during that nine-hour course, I was amazed. There's none of that. And it wasn't like he didn't have a chance. He had every opportunity. I actually even asked the extra question, so to speak. I went back. I gave him an opportunity. I said, well, where is it? I said, oh, it's in your book here. Your book's in front of you, right? You're saying that there are clinical trials, placebo control trials to license the MMR vaccine. He goes, yes. I said, great. I said, where are they? He says in this book. I said, go ahead, I'll wait here.

Go ahead. Look in the book. I'll wait. Right. I mean, I gave opportunity. And so, you know, what I have come to realize, over this period of time is that I don't know a better way to characterize all of these books, knowologists and doctors that I have deposed, I've crossed examined, I have debated with, I have interacted with, I have exchanged with. It's like a religious belief. Now that's not meant that as an insult to any religion

or to religion at all, right? But obviously, there are things in life that you can't explain. And so you have to draw on beliefs, right? I don't know where the universe, you know, I can't explain that with logic. I have to essentially, to some degree, there's got to be some element of belief in some level,

you know, life, death, the big questions, okay? As a scientist will always tell you and me, there's no place for that in science, right? Okay, great. Well, and there shouldn't be no place for that for a liability-free product. We inject over and over and over and over into healthy babies that you say are perfectly safe, okay?

There should be no place for that. But in fact, that's what I keep encountering. I keep encountering these experts in the field, the leading experts who policy, who set the standards, who influenced the CDC, the ASIP, that they have these beliefs, and they're impervious to reason, to logic, and they're even impervious,

and this is the most part that I always find most credible, even when their own Oracle, the CDC, or even when the studies that just make things something irrefutable come out, they still, it's like they just can't accept it. They can't even accept sometimes their own evidence. It's amazing. You can watch it in some of the depositions to take to them.

So my best analogy, my best framing of this whole thing is that vaccines amen, you know, that there's a point at which all I can say to you is, or you're saying is, well, I guess what you're saying is vaccines amen, that that's what you're, that's your, that's your closing argument to me because you have nothing else. And, you know, and I'll add this. You know, and this is obviously a little bit of semantics, but you never hear somebody say, I believe in tools. I believe in cars.

I believe in lamps. I believe in telephones. I believe in window coverings. No, they're all products. I believe in TVs. But you hear all the time, people say, I believe in vaccines. And let me tell you something. I carry a truism.

because most of what you hear about vaccines really are beliefs. So I wrote this book, and I'll tell you why I wrote the book, putting aside it was a labor of love, and I just had to put this all down someplace. If we're going to make sure that we secure our rights, our right to choose what medical interventions we want, you want to get a vaccine, it's America. Go get them, that's freedom.

You want to wear 50 masks, go for it. If you don't want to get them, the government should never be coercing anybody to get a vaccine. And in that regard, I would like to give an incredible, I mean, just a shout out to, you know, Surgeon General Joe Lodipo, the governor and his wife in Florida for recognizing that incredibly important principle. Promote vaccines. Spend billions of dollars promoting them.

You even try to persuade if you want, but you got to let the people choose at the end. And so if we're going to make sure we secure that right, the more people who truly understand this issue, not just understand one piece of it. Some people understand it from the perspective of their child was injured and so they have, you know, a very deep knowledge in regards to that component of it, or they have this particular vaccine that they have an issue with. A lot of people that's been COVID vaccine, they could tell you about MRI and biodistribute and spike protein. They don't really know a lot about the other vaccines, but they also believe in informed consent and medical liberty. This book is intended to arm anybody that reads it with the knowledge, with the ability to effectively advocate on this topic.

Not with youth beliefs, not with mantras, not with slogans, but with evidence, with exactly the type of evidence that I use all the time in my court cases and that you saw in that hearing before the U.S. Senate. This book is intended to create an army of people who understand and maybe even emerge from there some warriors. the day will come, I won't be here. And so this book is there for others to pick up and continue to fight because more people out there to fight, the more we can do it. You and I can't do this alone. We need as many allies and effective advocates out there. And this is for everybody out there who wants to advocate or who just wants to learn more by

this products. Especially recommend to anybody who's in any way. you know, says they believe in vaccines or catches themselves saying that phrase. Yeah, I believe in vaccines. I really urge you to read this book. Where do we buy it? Where can we find the book right now? It's available on Amazon and that's where you can find it.

It's apparently like it looks like the number one seller in vaccination. So that's great. It gets in the hands of a whole lot of people and not just hold them, but actually really, really read it. I hope people enjoy it because it really was a labor of love. long time to do and I try to make it interesting and fun along the way as well. I don't know how you found the time, but you are one of the most spectacular individuals I've ever met. It's really great the years we've gotten to work with you. I look forward to more and I can't wait to hear about you winning this case. So get out there tomorrow. Go get them,

Aaron. This is huge. Let's bring religious freedom back to West Virginia. Give children the right to go to school without being coerced. Let's stop destroying our commitment to the Nuremberg Code. and the right to inform consent. It's in your hands, and there's no better hands out there. Thank you, Della. And if I may just make one last comment about freedom and those who fight for freedom, I think we lost somebody who dedicated himself

to the freedom of speech. And obviously, there are some who viewed him as controversial. There are others who saw him as somebody who was trying to create dialogue, whether you agreed with him or not. and he was exercising his First Amendment right to speak. He was exercising his first Amendment right to speak and in his own way he was trying to engage in dialogue. And may he rest in peace, Charlie Kirk.

We're going to wrap it up there. I think we're all feeling that so did it. But it's about doing the work. Aaron's, you know, dedicated so much work to help the people and the children that have been a part of our work with ICANN. If you want to know what really motivates this beautiful man and you can see the emotion there, you definitely want to check out this book. You want this to be a part of your understanding of what we've been doing, what Aaron's been doing. It truly is spectacular. Thank you for the work that you do.

Thank you for your courage. You're one of those heroes out there too. We're all thinking about that today. The loss of Charlie Kirk, but thank you for your courage. Go out. Let's win this. Let's win this case. Let's win this debate.

Let's finish this. Let's go save our kids. You're doing a great work, man. Thank you. We'll talk to you soon. Thank you, Del.