Undoctrinate Yourself - #59 - Aaron Siri

Episode Date: August 11, 2026

Aaron Siri Esq. is an attorney and managing partner at Siri & Glimstad LLP where he engages in civil litigation with a particular focus on supporting individuals who are vaccine-injured. He's the author of the Book Vaccines, Amen: The Religion of Vaccines.Website: https://www.sirillp.com/Book: https://a.co/d/075DufKqFollow Alexis ⁠⁠⁠@dralexisjazmyn⁠⁠⁠ and follow the podcast at ⁠⁠⁠@undoctrinateyourselfpod⁠ on IGSupport the podcast by becoming a Patreon subscriber: https://patreon.com/UndoctrinateYourselfPodcast

Hello, everyone. Welcome back to Undoctrinate Yourself. Today I'm sitting down with a great guest for y'all. This is Aaron Siri. He's a partner at Syrian Glimstad law firm. And we're going to learn about the different types of cases that they take in the law firm. But one of the ones that we're probably the most interested in here is like vaccine injury lawsuits. And we'll also talk about Aaron Siri's book, Vaccines Amen, which I heard him speak about on Rogan's podcast. And, It's a very, very powerful message, kind of just showing how if we look at the science and obviously, you don't really know me, but my background is science, molecular biology in particular, but metabolism and I did my PhD at Princeton. And you would think that the science behind this stuff is rock solid, given how much it is preached by the centralized paradigm. But when you actually look at the studies, you see a completely different story unfold. So I'm really excited to chat with you today. And thanks so much for making the time. Pleasure. Yeah, so maybe let's talk about kind of your origin story.

I'm very curious to know if you initially had this vaccine skepticism and like desire to represent individuals injured by these products, even back when you were in law school. Or how did this develop? What was your initial vision versus like what actually happened? I would have laughed if you told me I'd be doing this work when I was in law school at Berkeley over 20 years ago. And no universe that I think that I would be bringing and working on the types of vaccine and vaccine policy cases that I do today.

But I would say that the type of work that I do certainly falls in the heartland of the type of legal work that was often preached and promoted when I was at Berkeley for law school, which is you fight for folks who are disenfranchised, you fight for folks whose rights are being trampled. you fight for folks who are being mistreated. And when you think about those things, it's really hard to find a group that, at least today, in America, is as mistreated as the group of individuals who choose to decline one or more of these products. I imagine any other racial, religious, ethnic, minority group. And imagine I said to you, I said, Alexis,

you know, we should do to that group, all of them. You know, what we should do to them indiscriminately. Throw them out of school. Kick them out of their jobs. Don't treat them in the emergency room. They're selfish, they're horrible. And these very same people, it's actually happening to them. They turn on the nightly news, this is what they hear about.

It's all spoken about them. And who are these folks? They're just folks who just randomly woke up one day and says, you know what I want to do today? I'm going to take a socially ostracizing position that's going to have me called names and pejoratives and have my kids to that school? No.

You don't know folks, people don't make this decision lately. It's usually because they have a very powerful experience, often coupled with looking into the products and sometimes just looking into the products. Those are the groups you see. That's why, and the CDC laments this, most of the folks who don't vaccinate are highly educated, often have PhDs, often higher degrees,

often in the sciences. And so this small group, often with a vaccine injured child, then gets insult added to injury. The very folks who need to avoid these products. And so, no, 20 years ago, I didn't think that I would be doing this work on behalf of this, the group of people in America who, for one or more reasons, wanted to decline these products. And just remember, I'm a lawyer.

I fight for their civil and individual rights to say no without penalty and persecution from the government, as they should be able to because that's freedom, just like the folks who want vaccines. Be free to get as many as you want. So, America, I fight for your right to get them. So, yeah, no, I didn't expect it. Yeah, I feel like the biggest issue with vaccines and kind of our centralized medical system in general is the lack of informed consent around different procedures and products and just, you know, the fact that basically patients aren't educated about the potential risks and downsides to taking these. They're not getting the full picture, essentially. And it's also kind of interesting to see how like the political pendulum has swung in kind of an opposite direction as it has in the past.

Like in the past, I feel like the people who were more concerned or. or like aware of the potential issues with vaccines were like considered far left or like hippies. And now it's kind of swung to the opposite direction where it's like vaccine deniers or whatever are considered like far right. And it's like all these pejoratives are kind of thrown around. But really bottom line is like if you critically think about anything, it's kind of like you're going to get demonized for it and you shouldn't be asking these questions because they're inconvenient. And I can also attest personally. So I am very skeptical of the, you know, kind of the standard paradigm in medicine and mostly because, like you were mentioning,

my own personal lived experiences. So like I basically was abused by the medical system starting at age two. And I actually, in first grade, I was like a normal kid up until that age. And I took, like, I think it was the second round of the TDAP vaccine in that grade. And then suddenly I started getting like recurring strep throat. I had to get pulled out of school. I was homeschooled for a year just because I kept getting sick and my weight exploded during that time. Then I went back to school. I had childhood obesity. It spiraled up through high school.

Like my gut was destroyed. My cycle was a mess. My skin was awful. It was just an absolute disaster. And reflecting back on that time over the past few years, you know, I can't rule out that that could have been a causal factor or like the straw that broke the camel's back, for example.

And, you know, especially with everything that happened during COVID, which I would love to talk about with you as well, I think that really kind of opened a lot of people's eyes to the science, like the religion of science, as the name of your book implies, versus actual science and like the scientific method and critical thinking are two completely different things. And so kind of ironically, you know, with COVID, I think people started to see through a lot of the BS and are now asking more questions than ever, which is actually a win in the long term. Yeah. I think that any awareness or awakening that people have to start thinking about these products as products and not to believe in them is a step in the right direction to correct many of the issues that have arisen around these products. You said, but you've got a vaccine. You don't know if it was associated.

I don't know either in your situation. But what I can say is that in the, you know, leading up to 1986 in the early 80s, a child. child following the CDC schedule would get three injections on or before their first birthday. That's it, three. A child following the CD schedule today will receive honor before their first birthday, including three that get, the mother gets, so it's kind of in utero. 29 injections. Wow.

Wow. And in that same period of time, we have gone per the data from under 10% of kids having a chronic health disease in America to over 40%, some data showing over 50, and often multiple chronic diseases and worse and more severity. And what are those chronic health issues? There are often health issues that have some etiology and some form of immune system, dysregulation or dysfunction, even through asthma, atopic issue.

You go down the list, even ADHD, most people don't think of as a, well, what's happened to the immune system. When you look at the PubMed studies, there's immune system dysfunction markers, dysregulation for kids with an ADHD. And so you look at that explosion, you say, whoa, well, and what has gone wrong with the immune system of kids across the country?

Maybe it relates to these products. And then you take a look, and I go through this in chapter 11 in our book. There's about a dozen studies that do look at kids that have no vaccines, the kids that have one or more vaccines. So exposed to unexposed, the way you should do studies, like, you know, if I was gonna study cigarettes,

I would say, people know smoking, people smoking. Spestis exposure, no spastic exposure, right? Simple. And those studies, while, you know, some of them are more limited, some of retrospective, some of them, you know, there are often retrospective epistodies. So they always have limitations. I always have confounders. But they're consistent in what they find, which is kids who are vaccinated have multiple

times the rate of chronic health issues, often the very one, compared to those who are not vaccinated, unvaccinated. And those are the very conditions that have exploded over the last 40 years. So I don't know in your situation of vaccines were causally related. to what you experienced. But I do know that there's certainly a very tight correlation, there's biological plausibility, and there's a raft of epidemiological studies

that would tend to support the relationship between those two things. To be sure, vaccines are no doubt, not the only cause of dysregulation. You have forever chemicals, you have microplastics. There's all kinds of things that can cause harm to the body. it's not just vaccines. Totally.

But everybody was going to go nuts about what I said. But when you do see this explosion in chronic health issues relating to immune systems as regulation and you see the increase in the vaccine schedule with the biological possibility and the studies that show the relationship, it's probably, you know, based on the best available data, a significant contributing factor. Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, one of the main things that we focus on in my community around causal factors in disease is like the light environment, so non-native EMFs, artificial blue light, fluorescent light LEDs, lack of sunlight, like, too much light at night. These are a lot of the factors that I look at in like my own research and in my practice to help build a foundation of health. But I mean, if we think about, you know, stress and assaults on biology as this cumulative factor, anything that's, you know, gets added onto the mix, onto the pile is going to contribute. And some things will contribute

more and some things will contribute less. But I think it's kind of obvious that vaccines would be a player there, especially since their use is like unprecedented. Why, they're safe and effective. Safe and effective, Alexis. Come on. Just say it over and over. Stop thinking. Just say it. Just say it. Safe and affected. The obvious component, I think, is unfortunately, you know, it's obvious when you've actually looked at the data and you studied it, not so obvious when you just repeat mantras. Totally. And one of the things I think a lot about as well from like a first principles perspective is things that we're exposed to from our environment coming in through the mucosa, through the gut, through the mouth, through the sinuses is a completely different story than something being injected

through the barriers of the body directly being exposed to the intracellular fluid, to the Oh, wait. Are you saying that it's not, no, are you saying that the immune system is not normally used to encountering pathogens just originating deep in their muscle tissue, along with a plethora of all types of other ingredients, adjuvants, you know, go through it as well as, you know, in some vaccines like MMR, chickenpox, hepe have literally billions of pieces of human DNA from the culture cell on abortive fetus, for example. You're saying the body's not used to that, that that's not normal? I don't imagine. It's kind of a crazy idea. You sound out there. I don't know what to say.

But you're both, on a serious point, you're right. Most people encounter pathogens on their mucosa, on their eyes, in the lining of their intestines between their mouth and where they go to the bathroom, in their nose leading into their lungs. In many respects, those are still outside the body because they're not in the bloodstream yet. People don't think of it that way. And as I'm sure you know, that's where a lot of your immune system is actually located. And it's where it's encountering pathogens and addressing them. It's not normal to have it to generate immune reaction deep in the most tissue.

And it's sustained one at that given the adjuvants that are included in these products. 100%. And that's the other thing that you bring up that's always at the forefront of my mind when I'm thinking about this topic is that, you know, it's not just simply like antigens or some sort of particles that are stimulating an immune response in the vaccine vile. It's all this other junk that's in there, too, like egg protein, like chick, chick, chick, egg. proteins or like, you know, different DNA from other animals or like byproducts. I'll give you an example of one ingredient since you brought it up. Like, for example, you said it's not just antigens in the vial, right? Like for protussus vaccine, if you just had the little snippets of a protussis, you know, antigen in the vial, right? What would the body do if you injected those peptides, those little pieces of amino acid chains?

Chop them up. We'd do nothing. It would just be junk. Because you only get an immune reaction if you have cellular death typically. Virus is going to cells, then the body kills them or bacteria kills cells. That cellular death then results in neutrophils pouring out of your bloodstream, which results in the inflammation and the whole cascade of immune reaction in the injection site. But if I just put in a bunch of random little amino acid peptide chains in your body, for the most part,

don't do anything, right? So they add aluminum magivants into the vial because the aluminum adjuvants at the injection site cause mass cellular death. And that cellular death results in that immune reactions and then the macrophages and dendritic cells and so forth, they come and they gobble up the aluminum adjuvants often bound with the antigens.

Okay? Then they go to the lymph nodes around the body and they look for the naive B-cell correlate. but then you've got this essentially giant piece of aluminum management, giant on the microscale, right? If like, you know, my fingertip was an ion of aluminum, like a tiny piece of aluminum, aluminum would be the size of like the city I'm sitting in.

It's massive on the micro scale, right? And so where does it go? Well, in studies where they inject animals, rabbits go down the list with aluminum management, and then afterwards they sacrifice the animal to find where the aluminum adjuvant go? Where do they find? They find them in the organs all over the body, including in the brain.

And so that's an example where people don't think about it. It's not a good idea to have aluminum management in your brain creating a sustained immune activation. Not a good idea. Well, what it sounds like you're saying is the MRNA platform should be great then. We don't need an adjuvant. We can use lipid nanoparticles to deliver the cargo directly to yourselves. And then your cells can make all this great, you know, these transcripts and stimulate your

immune system. And it's a perfect kind of. I wish you would say that on the stand. I'd have a fun time cross-examining you. But, yeah, different platform, different problem, which, by the way, is why trying to call something a vaccine based on the technology uses a problem, because they're all different. Have B vaccines or a common to DNA technology. MRNA is MRNA technology, toxoid vaccines, attenuated vaccines.

You have all kinds, and they all work differently, and they all have. have different efficacy and safety profiles, and there is an actual reality to that. And it's not just the word safe and effective repeated over and over again. Absolutely. Yeah, the bucket of vaccines is very heterogeneous and misleading in that way. And I think the COVID one in particular, because in theory, the platform should be safer and should be potentially more effective. But when we see it actually play out and we look at like where these lipid nanoparticles end up and how they're basically being concentrated in mitochondrial rich organs, which can create mitochondrial damage, and that cargo is being delivered there too. And we know spike protein, which of course is the

antigen, the MRANNs they chose to target is also toxic in and of itself. It's immunogenic at the least, that somebody doesn't want to use that term. Totally, which AKA means it's going to create some level of inflammation and whatever organs it ends up in. And I think we're also. On your bloodstream where it's floating around. Totally. Your endothelial cells, your heart, you know, so many issues. And we see people who took one, two jabs, like early on during when they first got rolled out,

their antibody levels are still through the roof. It's crazy. Like, I have friends who are super healthy. Like, they do everything right. But they didn't know to, like, not take the job. They wanted to keep their job, et cetera, during, like, 20, 21, 22. Antibody levels, if you, like, go to lab core and get, like, the quantitative spike antibody. they're like over 14,000 still, even though it's been four years, five years since they've had that

vaccine. And so this stuff is still kicking in their system. And it's, it's really crazy to see because obviously we didn't have safety studies on this vaccine in particular, like the Pfizer and Moderna, specifically also because they corrupted the control group, which you kind of talked about earlier about how there's kind of a lack of good solid controls for multiple reasons. But yeah, well, listen, And to give them credit for the COVID vaccine, if you're going to take a vaccine based on the clinical trial and how robust it was, as compared to all childhood vaccines, you should take a COVID vaccine every day. Because compared to those, it is an incredibly robust trial comparatively. It is still incredibly anemic as compared to clinical trials relied upon to licensed drugs. But as compared to all their vaccines, they reviewed safety for six months, right?

where most vaccines review stage for days or weeks after injection, they had a control group that received an actual placebo control, right? They did. There was a placebo control group, and Pfizer had about 30,000 Madonna, like Pfizer-Modernia had 30 or 40,000 people, a half got a placebo. And the placebo group at least survived for about two months. They did vaccinate them.

They did, quote-unquote, the crossover. When there was granted EUA, they went out, by the way, against actually what the FDA had asked them to do, Pfizer-Moderno went out and basically vaccinated their entire control groups to eliminate them. Okay, I mean, clearly why they did it. But we at least had on average two months of data from a placebo group. And when you look at that data, you call the corrupted. I mean, yeah, they corrupted it, but at least we have the two months.

And let me give you something. You want to hear an interesting data point from what it actually shows? Please. Okay. So you remember they told you that FIger's vaccine was 95% effective? You know what that was based on? No, I actually don't recall. Okay.

Here's what it was based on. It was based on the fact that there was about seven cases of people with typically sniffles, some symptoms, in the vaccinated group compared to about 160-something folks who had sniffles, mostly, meaning just some awesome, in the unvaccinated group. And they said that differential, they did a statistical comparison, said 95% effective. By the way, after I sued the FDA in behalf of our clients, excuse me, PHMPT, and we got all the underlying documents to license the Pfizer vaccine, guess what we found? There were thousands of other individuals who apparently also were symptomatic,

but they were included in that calculation. Why not? Why weren't they all tested? This was a time period where everybody in America was told to test and was given daily tests for free. But you couldn't do that in the Pfizer trial?

Because if you'd have done that and you tested every one of them every day, not only would you have known the true efficacy, you would have known whether it stops transmission. But they didn't do that. Wonder why.

Okay, let's put that aside. But let me give you one of the data point. So in that instance, they should have looked under the hood, right? Because there's a lot of potential for bias. Then when you go to the other extreme, not sniffles, but actually death, which group you think had more deaths? The group that got the placebo or the group that got the COVID vaccine?

Well, I mean. And by the way, there were more people in the placebo group, a little more. So they were about the same size. How many people, which one you think should have had more deaths? Vaccine or placebo? I mean, the placebo should have had more deaths. You should have had more deaths. And you would expect if more people died in the vaccine group, they pulled a plug.

That's the whole point of the vaccine. Reduce mortality, right? Yes. 17 deaths in the placebo group, 21 in the vaccinated group. More people died in the vaccinated group. Now, what I can tell you definitively without saying is a statistically significant, blah, blah, is 100% the vaccine did not reduce. mortality. Clearly, that you can say. You can say. And in fact, when you look at the underlying deaths, there was almost double the number of deaths relating to cardiovascular issues in the vaccinated

group versus the placebo group. So when you break it and you slice it down, but then you've really got to ask yourself this, why when the data fit the dogma that they do with statistical comparisons for the sniffles, even though, even though it was highly confounded based on what we see, whereas with the deaths, where that's binary, you are dead or you're alive? That's pretty freaking binary, okay? And it's hard to mess with that. You can't leave out deaths. You're not going to fake deaths. It's like you're dead or you're alive. They didn't do a statistical comparison. You know what they did? They let Pfizer explain every single death away and say they're unlawful. related. That's exactly what you shouldn't be doing in a clinical trial. That injects the very

bias, the whole point of doing clinical trial is supposed to avoid, which is a statistical comparison. So when that didn't fit, they let him inject the bias and explain away every death. So was the data corrupted? Yeah. But worse than that, meaning after the two months when they crossed over vaccinated the placebo group, was the data. data we do have, in my opinion, is damning. Because they tell us, oh, rely on the clinical trial. Rely on that clinical trial, it's prospective data. Okay, great, what does it show?

You know, it kind of shows what we saw after the role of COVID-19 vaccine. 2021, excuse me, 2020, pandemic, virus ripping through America, no vaccine, right? A lot of people die. In fact, about half a million, there was a half a million person increase from mortality. 2.7 million people died in America in 2019,

about 3.2 million died in 2020. Half a million extra deaths, a lot of extra deaths. Now, a lot of people have argued that's because of lockdowns, you stop treating for cancer, you treat, whatever, whatever the hell it was. Okay, half a million extra deaths. Now, COVID can kill people, particularly the elderly and the frail, people with costs of comorbidity. So in 2020, it probably killed most of those folks.

especially when it was ripping through nursing homes. You would expect that, therefore, in the normal course, by 2021, mortality would go down anyway. Now, okay, so they roll out the vaccine in December 2020, and in a few months they start vaccinating almost the whole country. By the summer of 2021, they vaccinated, you know, whatever, 50, 60% of America, 70% of America. So you would expect the 2020-1 to be less overall mortality in America,

all-cause mortality. Guess what? No. more people died overall in America in 2021 than in 2020. Wow. After the weakest and most frail among us died in 2020, when there was no vaccine, and the rate of infection, according to some data,

I have in my book, reflects that about the same percentage of Americans were infected in 2020 as 2021. So, you know, the data does not fit the dogma there at all, because, again, you can argue with, well, did they die of COVID? Did they die of not of COVID? Did they die of the vaccine? Did they not die of the vaccine?

But you can't argue with this all-cause mortality. Binary, again, everybody in America, how many deaths total? The fact that all-caused mortality did not go down in 2021, to me, is an indictment of the program in and of itself, when coupled with all the other data points I just mentioned, and they're all supported in my book. 100%. And I think the power structure is mostly just relying on people not actually looking into things and like looking at the data for real instead just like listening to the talking points. Are you familiar with Kevin McCarinen's work?

I believe I've seen it, yes. Yeah, so he's a friend of mine. He worked on the human genome project in like the early 2000s and like works in the cannabis space now, like doing sequencing of different like genomes of different plants and, you know, trying to understand. biosynthetic pathways, but he got super interested during COVID when the, you know, the jabs came out, the MRNA ones in particular. He ended up doing some sequencing to figure out, you know, what's in these things and found in the Pfizer plasmid construct, SV40 promoter being used, and ultimately blew the whistle on that.

And then somebody from USC, I believe, corroborated his data and published it and essentially showed that not only is their SV40 promoter, which, you know, SV40 kind of got a lot of flack back in the early days of polio because viruses weren't discovered then. And so their viruses essentially were, or their vaccines rather, were contaminated with SV40. And there's links to cancer and there's links to just, you know, kind of cell growth and cell control issues in response to SV40. But the promoter is, you know, basically both viable in mammals and in bacteria. And that's why it's not supposed to be used. And apparently in the construct and like the design that they sent in to get approved by the FDA, they did not disclose that they were using SV40. And that's why it was also a big deal that he was exposing this. And I don't know if that's going anywhere currently with regards to like, you know, suing Pfizer for basically just straight up lying about that. He's also showing that there's a ton of DNA plasmid contamination in these vaccines that can lead to oncogenicity as well and insertions into the DNA and creating essentially uncontrolled growth and potentially cancer. And there are,

even doing some studies where they're sequencing tumors from patients with, quote, unquote, turbo cancer and showing that basically the vaccine constructs and the DNA plasmids is in the tumor. And it's just pretty crazy. And I don't know if they, you know, I would love to connect you all if you aren't connected already because I think, you know, his work is important. And it seems like it's up your alley as well. Yeah, well, hopefully one day, Pfizer will be able to held accountable for anything and everything improper with their product. But that day, unfortunately, is not going to be today because of the

PEP Act. And that's a federal law that currently immunizes them against essentially being held accountable for the harms and injuries their products cause. Conveniently, I think the MRNA products weren't considered vaccines right until the definition was changed. So I guess it wouldn't have fallen under the Immunity Act until after that definition changed technically. Is that the case? No. The procurement contracts, and I've got a substack where I've got links to many of them, procurement contracts of the federal government signed with Pfizer, Moderna, and so forth, to purchase the vaccines explicitly provide that they would have prep act immunity. They guaranteed it contractually. So that was a contractual guarantee.

And the prep act immunity applies to any countermeasures developed to address. COVID. So it included remdesivir, it includes hospital treatments. So whether it was categorized a vaccine or not a vaccine, because it was a countermeasure, the immunity would have still applied. And, you know, I know there's a lot of scuttlebutt about, well, is it a vaccine? Is it not a vaccine? In my opinion, it's a vaccine. You can maybe also be considered gene therapy. It can be considered a drug as well. In fact, all vaccines that aren't purely biological materials wouldn't be just a biologic, it would also be a drug. And so, you know, like we talked about earlier,

there are a lot of different platforms. Is it a recombinant DNA vaccines, not vaccines? Is Hep B vaccine not vaccine? I mean, if you're going to do it based on the technology, a lot of times what people say is a vaccine is that it's subs transmission. But that doesn't work either because most vaccines don't stop transmission. Justice vaccine doesn't, tendance vaccine doesn't. The current polio vaccine last 25 years, the IPV doesn't.

You can go down the list. I go through all this in chapter 9 in my book. By the way, everything I just said, CDC, FDA, SICE, the source is not even controversial in the medical community. So it can't be transmission either. So what is it? What is the common theme of vaccines?

To me, the most common theme for vaccines is that a vaccine, to me, means a product that causes so much harm that it cannot survive in the market without immunity for the federal government for the harms it would cause. That's what it is.

That's what makes to me. me something, a vaccine, because vaccines are the only product in America, literally, they're the only product in America where you cannot sue the manufacturer to claim that had you made that product safer, my child wouldn't be injured, my child wouldn't have a chronic health issue, my child wouldn't be dead, I wouldn't be injured, I wouldn't have a chronic cancer, I wouldn't be dead. It is the only product that has that permanent immunity, the only one. I don't know of any other product that has that form of prone immunity. The PEP Act provides temporary immunity

just for countermeasures during a period. That's the closest thing to it. Some people say, well, guns have immunity. Well, that's because you've never read the law of immunity for guns. You don't know what actually says. I can still sue a gun manufacturer to claim, a design defect claim.

And I could sue it for saying, hey, had you made that product safer, X, Y, and Z. The only time the immunity applies is really, and it's in the commission of a crime of an illegal act, and protects the manufacturers in that regard. It's a very limited immunity, actually.

Unlike vaccines, which have blanket immunity, the very product they tell you is totally safe and they inject into babies. That immunity has existed in 1986, the National Child Vaccine drug. Remember we said earlier? There's only three injections given to a baby in 1986 on the CDC schedule.

It's only three vaccines, MMR, GTP, and OPV, and they were causing so much harm that they were going to go out of business, the last remaining manufacturer of each of those products. Now, a lot of industries face that crossroad, right? I mean, when they figured out asbestos caused cancer on walls, did they say, oh, the building products industry is so important that we've got to give immunity.

No, no, no, no, no, we can't stop making sheetrock and popcorn ceilings, and we got to let them sell with us. No, we didn't do that. We said, go make a better safer product. When gas cars were blown up, when it's say, oh, no, no, no, no, no. Cars are too important. We just got to give them immunity. We got to, we got to accept the cast tanks blowing up. No, it's intuitively ridiculous. But that's exactly what they did with vaccines. Instead of saying, go make a better save for product,

they said, it's okay, we'll just make it so nobody can sue you for those harms. That's the national title of the vaccine in draft of 1986. It is one of the worst, or maybe the worst law ever, ever passed by Congress. It kicked off the original sin, and it removed the economic and self-interest that companies have to assure the safety of their own products, which is how products get made safer and be made safe. Totally. I mean, incentives dictate outcomes. And if there's no pressure on the companies to make changes, they're not going to because

they don't want to spend the money and they would rather, you know, use it to line their pockets. With regards to like the legality around that act, like, what, what kind of like pressures or circumstances were in place at 80, around 1986 that actually allowed that. to pass. And like, I'm shocked that people weren't protesting it or maybe it just wasn't common knowledge at the time. Do you have any insights around that? How many of the current one to 300 laws a year being passed are you aware of? Yeah, no. Not at all. Or the thousands of regulations that get passed by federal agencies.

Yeah. The average American doesn't even know what's being proposed, what's being passed, it's being legislated. And in terms of the pressure, you know, there was obviously, part of what I described. There were like six manufacturers of protustis vaccine down to one, six of measles down to one, three, polio down to one, something like that,

one left of each, which is exactly what you would hope for when a product causes harm, that they would force them to find a way to do. You want to tell me that a product that they give to millions of children a year,

they can't figure out to make profitably? They sell drugs to tiny markets, tiny markets profitably. Tiny markets, profitably. how. They do two things typically. They make them as safest technologically feasible, so they avoid design defect claims, and they disclose all the risks that they're aware of avoiding failure to warn claims. You do those two things, you typically insulate yourself from a lawsuit. So manufacturers,

of drugs to even small markets, right, that cause terrible adverse events. They can make money selling profitably because they do those two things. Why don't they just do that with vaccines? Why can't they just do that with vaccines? They don't do it for either. They don't want to to make them safer, which they could. Or they don't want to disclose the real risks, which I think is really the serious problem. They don't want to disclose the real risks of these products and the harms, the risks that they actually cause. They do disclose many of the risks in Section 6.2 of the package's insured of each vaccine.

But if they had to disclose all of them and the rate, forget it. I don't think they want to do that. And I think that's why they'll fight like heck for the vaccine. immunity, amongst other reasons. Yeah, it's further complicated by the fact that they kind of get plausible deniability, right? Because like some kids or maybe even most kids will take these things and not have any overt acute reactions or maybe even be fine for most of their life. Wait, you mean, I'm so sorry.

Because most of the shots are given a two, four, six months of both. Are you saying that those infants can't talk and explain? I know, imagine. Or symptoms if they have dysotidomia or not. And you mean years before they would even be diagnosed for, for any of the neurological, immunological, developmental issues that might arise from those products when they're given at infants and they never bother actually tracking that.

Yeah. Right. It's unfortunate. I mean, we joke about it, but it's very serious because, you know, as a nation, I mean, first put aside the amount of human suffering that could be resulting from these products. I can't tell you definitively and quantify for you exactly. What is the scale of chronic health issues that these products have arisen? I know there are many studies that reflect that it's quite serious.

But not only that, we don't as a nation address the chronic health issues that we're facing in this country. We won't even have military readiness. We don't even have enough folks who could even join our military. Enough folks who can be productive in the workforce. Enough folks who are not spending their time taking care of the folks who need assistance because they have disabilities that make it so they can't care for themselves. I mean, we are at the precipice of an economic, a human suffering crisis that if the current curve continues, we're in incredible trouble. The unfortunate reality is that organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and down the list, when you look at what they complain about, just always ask this question first.

Remember, they're trade organizations. They represent the pecuniary interests of their members, okay? Is the act going to make their members more or less money? If it's going to make their members less money, they get up in arms. Less vaccines, up in arms. More chronic health issues? Silence. Bring it on.

Because where does that cut? More money for their members. I'm not saying that they're promoting it. I'm not saying it's evil and nefarious. I'm just saying that if you, there is certainly a correlation between the pecuniary interests of their members and what they tend to take issue with. 100%. And I think especially in like the, you know, the inflated fiat system that we have, we, you know, it's very easy to make people wage slaves, essentially. And in the same way, if you invest in certain companies in the stock market, you want to see them do well because you want to get good returns. It's like the same concept.

and I'm sure, hopefully, most of the people involved in this kind of pharmaceutical industrial complex are really just being selfish and self-serving and not like full-blown nefarious. That's just business. I don't think it is. I think that I think that pharma companies, when they put out a drug, they look at what is the quickest way to make money. That's what the investors want. That's what those who own their stock want, including everybody, most people watching the show, I bet, who owns stock. They want their stock to go up. So does Wall Street, so does the CEO, so does everybody down the chain in that company, that stock options. And so they're going to lay a look at designing that drug trial. They say, what's the quickest way to money? Now, when you do that, when you're responsible for injuries and you're going to be liable, you want to know how safe it is.

Because if the injuries are too much, too many, then you could end up upside down financially. So they do long-term, often double-blind placebo-controlled trials for most drugs. With vaccines, they don't have that incentive. In fact, the quickest path to licensure is the shortest, smallest, most ridiculous, laughable clinical trial you could ever devise, which is what most of them are for trial to vaccines. Don't take my word for it. Go to the FDA website. There's one page called FDA licensed vaccines.

Go and look at the underlying clinical trial reports or read Chapter 10 in my book where I go through the clinical trial relied upon to license every child of the vaccine. And what you will find, there is not a single routine injector child of the vaccine license based on a trial that had a placebo control group. I know that that's fact checked. The problem is that the fact checkers don't check the FDA sources. They just call Paul Offit. Check the FDA sources. That's true categorically. Not only that, when another vaccine was used as a control,

that vaccine was never licensed based on placebo control trial, so forth and down the chain. I go through every single chain in Chapter 10 in my book. Number two, even if they use a placebo control, they don't review safety long enough, often days or week after injection, laughable. And even if they had a placebo control and they review safety long enough.

They're often underpowered, meaning they don't have enough kids. So you don't even detect safety issues. And so, you know, it's a serious problem. I think we've beaten it to death at this point on this show. Yeah, I think so too. Unfortunately, it's a conversation I think is had kind of in the alternative media space, but like in the average, kind of among average, like lay people,

people don't really want to talk about it and kind of feel uncomfortable, Well, partially, I'm sure, because it's like, okay, you gave your own kids and yourself these vaccines. So like, what do I have to be worried about now? Like, I can't do anything to, you know, well, at least the mindset is I can't do anything. The alternative media space on this issue is going to become the majority of media space. It's, it is getting there closer and closer. Most recent political poll reflects that as much as much. And so does even some of the coverage, at least by the more conservative, quote unquote,

a mainstream part of the media sphere that will cover this issue and we'll do so often pretty fairly. I mean, I've been on Fox News many times talking about this. I was on News Nation even, was able to talk about this and other platforms, Wall Street journals published, you know, op-eds that I've written. So, I mean, there's a lot of coverage that's happening on it. And so I think that it's just a matter of time. As they expand the schedule, as they proceed without any caution or in any way,

the more people they injure, every one of those injured goes into the quote-unquote alternative bucket you're talking about. Also, everybody's rights you infringe upon every kid you kick out of school, every person who you mistreat over their decision on this product, you're turning them. And I would say at this point,

it's solidly at least 30-something percent of this country, I think, like really, really understands it. We're not far from that tipping point. Tipping points happen, and when they happen, boom, the reality changes. abortion was always going to be legal. And then by a million cuts, Roby Wade was overturned. And then boom, the reality changed three days later.

Everybody adjusted. And now, you know, it can be outlawed in states. I think that tipping point will happen on these products as well. It's coming. In your book, do you talk about the history of, like, how the initial vaccines were created? Actually, maybe do a brief overview of what we can expect when we read your book. I'm excited to read it. Oh, sure.

first six chapters are pretty short each. They kind of lay the foundation of the hierarchy. You know, I go through the infrastructure of how, you know, who's kind of running the show and the entities. And it's fun. It's a fun read. I promise. That didn't sound fun. And then in chapters seven, eight, and nine, I go through the biggest and greatest beliefs, right, that everyone would die without them. And when I go through in chapter seven is like, I go through, well, how many people actually died of measles before the vaccine in the year before? How many died of mumps, rebella, pertussis, tetheria, tetanus, I go through it. Let's use the hard data, the actual numbers.

Is it millions? Right? And was the mortality curve declining? Did it accelerate after? These are important things to look at, right? And then chapter 8 I go through polio, because you got to go through polio. Chapter 9, I go through transmission, and then 10, I go through the clinical trials. What were they?

11, I go through post-licensure safety, and 12, I go through vaxed, unvaxed, comparison. And, you know, in broadstroke, I will tell you this, there is, when I started doing this work, I just probably had the same conception of vaccines as anybody else. We'd all die without him, I guess. I don't know. We saved everybody. I don't know.

I think there was the Bible and then there was vaccines, something like that. In any event, what I have found over 10 years of literally litigating hundreds of cases around vaccines, opposing the world's viewing vaccinologists, is there is what the public health authorities tell you. And then there's what the evidence shows and what they're forced to admit when they're backs in the wall in a federal lawsuit and they have no choice but to admit it or they're in a deposition, they're confronted with the evidence and they have no choice but to admit the truth. Those two things are the most incredible contrast. Hard to even believe in so you have to see with your own eyes. And if anybody reads the book and at any quite point, you're like, really? That's why almost every sentence has a footnote and every footnote has been permalinked when permalink was available.

So the evidence will always be there. And it's mostly the government sources and so forth. So that's what you should expect. When you started litigating these cases, you said about a decade ago? Oh, yeah, over a decade ago at this point. What was the impetus that made you decide to want to take these kind of cases on? What were you litigating before that? Like, what kind of cases were you working on?

There's no group. Well, for most of my career, I did commercial litigation. Okay. So I was at a U, one of the biggest firms in country representing, you know, some of the country's biggest financial interests, multi-billion dollar bet the company litigation, and then my own firm, I kept doing that, bit of the smaller scale commercial,

and then I eventually tipped into doing this and plaintiff's side work more generally. I reaffirm what I said to earlier. There is the group of folks who make the decision not to receive these products, they need protections, they need to be safeguarded, The irony is that people point them and say, oh, they want to take away our vaccines. No, I don't actually know people want to take away your vaccines. It's the opposite.

It's those who are vaccine proponents, zealots even, they want to propose their will on those who don't want to vaccinate. Those don't want to vaccinate. Those don't want to be left alone. They just want to live their life in peace, and you can go do whatever you want to do. You want to get vaccines. Go nuts. This is America that's freedom. You're 18.

You have no comorbidities. And you want to get COVID in every other vaccine. vaccine every day of the week and have 30 masks and live in your basement. I support your right to do it because that's freedom. And if you're 100 years old and you've got every comorbidity in the world and you don't want to wear a mask and get a vaccine and you want to go buy a latte, you should be free to do that because that's America too. 100%. And when you first started litigating these cases, were you kind of did you have a stance on this? Or is that when you started investigating like the science behind what's what's going on with vaccines? All right. So all right. You want to know like how.

I even got it. So, all right, the very first thing I ever learned about vaccines was somebody sent me a packet information when I was working at that old firm. Somebody said this was 16, 17, 18 years ago, something like the 8, I don't know, 15, I don't know, a long time ago. And I remember looking at it. I don't understand any of it. I don't know the immunology, infectious disease, you know, pediatrics, uh, vaccineology. I didn't know any of the science, but I saw the 86 act. And I was like, really? Wow. And I did you know about that act? Before that? No.

Never knew about the act before that. But I did understand how corporate interests and how corporations operate, representing big corporate interests. And I was very, now it wasn't like I saw it and I was like, oh, my God, oh, my God, vaccines. I was just like, that's pretty messed up. Because they tell you these products are safe and they inject them into babies. There should be the very last product that needs this immunity.

And it's like, come on, it's been like 40 years since you licensed like I had B vaccine. You still don't know it's safe enough to lift the immunity. what the hell's going on? Something's weird about that. And then as years went on, I started doing, the very first vaccine case I did was a guy used to work with my old firm.

He went to go work for the Department of Justice. He was handling a vaccine injury case. Remember, you can't do the manufacturer, but you can sue the federal government, this little program where you can get some limited compensation. And he was going to work for the DOJ who defends those cases or he was conflicted. So he asked if I would take it.

It was a nurse. I got a flu shot that ended up with pots. So I took it. I got her some compensation. And then I started doing some other vaccine cases. And then the, you know, before I knew it, the more I did it, the more I became, I got more media attention whereby eventually the big corporations and so far the representative was like, I don't know if I want to use you anymore.

And instead, I started doing plaintiff's side work, which I, you know, best decision ever. I'm always happy to put money in the pocket of the little guy. So about I got 120 people in my firm, but half of them do plaintiffside class action cases, and about half of them do vaccine-related work. Wow, incredible. So important. I don't know, maybe you have an idea of how many law firms are doing this kind of work, but it seems kind of far between.

I don't know of any other firm that does this type of work at scale. Yeah. Meaning I don't know of any firm that has, I think we have, as far as I know, the largest vaccine practice in the world, as far as I know, that does not represent. represent pharma companies. Represent pharma companies? Different story. It doesn't represent pharma companies and that fights for medical liberty and the vaccine

injury. I think we're the largest one in the world as far as I know. With regards to cases that you're bringing to like get, you know, basically like submit claims or get funds from the vaccine injury, like, you know, the subset of money that's apart on that. Is that once you get to that stage, is the government just like here, like here's some money or do they actually like push back on? Please.

No, they don't just give you money. Not even in the least. It's quite the opposite. First of all, there's a statutory cap of $250,000 in pain and suffering. If you're in a wheelchair, you're going to suffer a neuropathy whereby you feel like you're basically being stabbed for the rest of your life. In a regular court, you know, you would get millions and millions of dollars of pain and suffering. That's good for you. That's also good to conform the corporate conduct.

That resulted in that kind of devastating, horrible injury. is somebody who took their product they said it's safe. Okay? So $250,000 cap. $250,000 cap on debt. So you can kill as many people as well. I only pay $250, it doesn't matter how many of the kill. That's the cap.

Doesn't mean you get to $250, by the way. Wow. Okay. Then when you are injured, unless you were, like, hospitalized, you've got to wait six months. If you're injured by anything else, you can go to court right away. Here, you've got to wait six months for, quote, unquote, severity. Then we have to collect all your medical records, and that takes a long time. And then we file it.

Then the Department of Justice, often gets nine months, 12 months, to even respond. So you're like two years in. Then the games start by the Department of Justice because, you know, they're not like a rational actor. Big corporations, you can at least pressure them with financial interests. Here, it's the Department of Justice. You know, they have all your money and they can just take more of it to fight you forever

with your money, right? And so basically then there's just endless delay tactics. Then they lowball your client. it is a tactic. It's the Department of Justice has a tactic to make these cases go as long as can so that your client is bled out, especially if they don't have another source of income, they're so desperate. They'll accept the ridiculous lowball offers that Department of Justice often puts out. And that's unfortunately, so the answer to your question is no, they don't just roll over and pay in any way whatsoever. Wow. Yeah. And I can see how if you were dealing

directly with a corporation, it would be potentially the opposite because they kind of just want to shut you up and, you know, give out a little bit at least to, I guess, it's not going to make much of a dent in their, in their profits. Different world. That was like the Vioxx thing. If Vioxx was a vaccine, I'm almost certain it would still be on the market and considered safe and effective and you'd be called a quack if you said otherwise. Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised about that at all. my head is like swirling and I'm very annoyed and like frustrated now because this has been you know a topic and issues that I've been thinking about for a long time

but it just seems like people aren't mad enough and like not enough is changing I don't I don't think people should be mad honestly I think that I think that you know that once you should just get educated because when you're educated about the issue you can good decision and more people who start thinking about this product, I mean this, and stop believing in them, the closer we are to getting good outcomes in the legislature, the courthouse, and so forth. You know, when you think about judicial decisions, you think about changes in the legislative houses, often what precedes them is the change in what the public thinks about an issue.

Gay marriage was never, ever, ever, ever going to be found to be a constitutional right by the United States Supreme Court by reading the Constitution as they did in the 1800s or in 1910 or 20, 30, 40, 50. What changed? Popular views in this country did, whether you agree with that, don't agree with that, it doesn't matter. Okay. I don't even think government should be giving out license certificates. I don't even know why they're involved, but that's a little different story. Period.

To anybody. Okay, but that's, that's, my view is not popular. But if they do, they should be, they should be equal treatment, right? if they do it. But even though that principle is simple, it should be equal treatment, right? It shouldn't be, it only changed when there's enough folks who are aware.

And that's not a knock on any judge, by the way, or any member of the legislature. They're all busy. They have to rely on their preconceived notions, and they often rely on what their constituents think. So, you know, a big part of why I wrote the book was also so that I get folks to start thinking and understanding these products

so that the next time you confront somebody who says something about them, you can just correct them, you can explain it to them. You can meet with your state representatives. Show them just the basic science. Say, look, hey, look, look, look. FDA, protester vaccine doesn't stop transmission. So why are we mandating it? Simple.

Why? Maybe we like asthma inhalers, too, but we don't mandate them. Right? So the idea is to, you know, people should really just think about them and be able to articulate and address them. be able to, there are some things that these vaccines can do, like measles vaccine, stop transmission of measles. Wonderful. But then that's where they want to stop the story. There's more to it. And the more you know, the more you can discuss these things rationally, the closer we are

to the day where they are once again treated as products and not just items of worship where irrational decisions get made in courthouses, in legislative houses and across private businesses. we don't end up where we were back in COVID. Yeah, I completely agree. How long did it take you to write your book? Long time. I'm sure it was a process. Long time.

It's just I got, you know, I got 120 people, law firm got endless cases, got a million things going on. So, you know, it was interweaved over time and, you know, eventually I got it done. Are most of the people that come to your firm

for assistance in this domain? involved in like class action suits or is it mostly like individual clients when it comes well on the vaccine side yeah what class action suits i don't know actually right right there's almost none i can bring i mean there's like some limited stuff i can do on the ethics side but no i mean there's the folks who are vaccine injury we have like a 20 person practice that does the in the federal court of claims in that vaccine injury compensation program that has paid out over five billion dollars even with the caps limitations I described. We have a group that does vaccine exemptions in every context, you know, imaginable,

including in immigration. Okay. We have a group that does for employees fired for refusing vaccines of various kinds, and we have lots of those cases. Some of those are class action. And then at the heart of it, we have a vaccine policy group that fights to secure the rights of individuals to say no for these products without any medical product, without penalty of any kind.

And that vaccine policy group is probably the largest group in the vaccine practice that we have. So, and folks in the other stuff cross over and do that work too. Probably everybody participates at some degree on the vaccine side and doing that work. With regards to the exemptions issue, I know I'm in Jersey and it's pretty strict here. I think it's pretty strict in California as well. Do you know of any like loopholes that people can be aware of? Yeah, there's an exemption. In Jersey, there's an exemption.

You can go to public school. If your convictions are contrary to the practice of giving this product, you can get an exemption of public school. For private school, it's up to the private school in Jersey. That's the way it works there. So the private schools are some that say they'll accept an exemption. There's some that say they don't. And if they don't, why do you want to give them your money? Don't go there.

What about daycares? It's the same policy. As the private schools. Yeah. Yeah, that's the thing. I have a couple friends who are pregnant and recently giving birth and like struggling with this. But obviously like it's kind of a can of worms. No problem.

They can send their kids to preschool and to school. They just got to not go to ones that are, you know, go to ones to share their values. Why do you want your kids to be educated by folks who are? Totally. Insert the blank. Yeah, exactly. I couldn't agree more. Is there anything else you'd like to talk about while I have you?

I think we covered a lot of good stuff. I think we covered everything. Yeah, I think I'm really excited to check out your book and to share it with and the podcast with my audience. And yeah, I'll send you some links and everything once it's up. But thank you so much for your time. This was very enlightening. I think people should feel pretty fired up and like ready to learn and like just be kind of going into this unbiased like with beginners eyes and just see things, you know, how they are and like try to get, you know, feel for the objective reality around these products. Thanks for having me. Thanks so much. All right. Bye.