Hey Siri, why are American kids so sick? Aaron Siri on DarkHorse
Bret Weinstein speaks with Aaron Siri on the subject of the childhood vaccine schedule. Find Aaron Siri on X at http://x.com/AaronSiriSG and at https://aaronsiriofficial.com. ***** This episode is sponsored by: Branch Basics: Get 15% off Branch Basics with the code DARKHORSE at https://branchbasics.com/darkhorse #branchbasicspod ***** Join DarkHorse on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https:/...
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse podcast Inside Rail.
I have the distinct honor and pleasure of sitting this morning with Aaron Siri.
Aaron Siri is a civil rights attorney.
He's also the managing partner of Siri Glimstad.
If you recognize Aaron, but you can't quite place him, it is very likely it is from his Tour de Force appearance in the U.S. Senate recently testifying about the reality underlying vaccines and the CDC vaccine schedule.
So Aaron Siri, welcome to Dark Horse.
Great to be here.
Okay, you have written a book.
You want to hold up your book?
Sure.
It's in the background too.
It's in the background too.
So you are not seeing double.
Do not attempt to degauss your screen.
That is the book.
It is Vaccines, Amen.
And it is a very interesting book, although I will confess right up front that I did start reading your book.
I have not completed it.
I did not find it exactly anti-Semitic, but I did find it dyslexophobic in the sense that you don't have an audio version out yet.
So anyway, for a dyslexic like me, it's just a slog reading technical material at this level, and I love listening to it.
So anyway, I know I'm joking with you, of course.
I know that there's an audio version that is headed our way, and I am very much looking forward to it.
But anyway, I don't think that's going to impede us here because you and I are both well-versed in different aspects of vaccine technology and you know a hell of a lot about the legal landscape surrounding this technology.
So there's many, many, many hours of conversation that we could have.
We will only get to a small fraction of it today.
But let's start here.
A confession up front.
I was an inadvertent adherent to the religion that you describe in your book.
That broke after the COVID vaccine campaign began because the COVID vaccine campaign revealed lies immediately to me, actually.
The first thing that was said about the vaccines that were headed our way before they were even deployed was that they were safe and effective.
And although I believed the lie that they were effective at first, I knew that they could not possibly be safe, that that had to be a lie.
And the reason that it had to be a lie was because the word safe does not imply without harm.
It implies without risk.
The example I sometimes use is if you drive home drunk and you don't hit anything, it was not safe, even though there was no harm.
It was risky.
If you pick up a gun, put it to your head, pull the trigger and it goes click, it was not safe.
There was no harm, but there was risk.
And so a brand new technology like mRNA Tech being deployed at scale when nobody could possibly have proper data on what the long-term implications were because it had never been used on humans before was anything but safe.
If they had said, we don't know of any harms, I might have accepted it.
But because I knew they were lying right away, I started to dig further into what it meant.
And the further you dig on the mRNA technology, the scarier the story becomes.
From there, I began to realize that the assumptions I had made about vaccines more generally were also in error.
So I had been a strong proponent of vaccines.
I myself am vaccinated against many things, including some exotic stuff, because I was a tropical biologist.
And so yellow fever, I'm a mammologist.
I'm vaccinated against rabies.
So I had been a believer in this technology.
And five years later, I have come to understand that what I was a believer in was the simplified presentation in the biology textbook of how a vaccine works and that the reality on the ground is starkly different.
So I don't know where we should begin in terms of vaccines.
If you want to talk about the COVID vaccines or we should start with the childhood schedule and what's happened to it, what do you think is the best direction to head?
Well, the childhood schedule is currently, you know, in the news, a discussion at ASIP.
And I think in many ways, a more important discussion at this point because most folks aren't taking the COVID vaccines.
Quite right.
All right.
So let us talk about, I am 56 years old.
What did the vaccine schedule look like when I was a child?
So 56, when you were a child, there were only three routine vaccines, DTP, MMR, and OPV, when you came of age to get vaccinated, basically.
So you, and, you know, even by the early 80s, the uptake rate of those three shots was still 50 to 60%.
So if you fell in the camp of somebody who got the full schedule, right, which would mean there's a 50-50 shot of it around that amount, then you would have gotten by your first birthday, three injections of DTP, two oral doses of OPV, and then after that, two more injections of DTP at some, you know, later on, another, I think,
one or two of OPV and a TD at like 11 years of age and one MMR shot.
That's it.
Okay.
And so I'm going to say, I know there's a lot of subtlety in the first, well, really in the second category, but there are three basic technologies that vaccines or things that we call vaccines are built on.
One of them is live attenuated, where it's basically the inverse of a gain of function experiment where we take a pathogenic virus and we select it into a non-virulent state.
So it does little damage.
It gives you a mini infection that causes your immune system to ratchet up and fight, but it doesn't cause a profound illness.
And that gives you immunity, in theory, at least, to the pathogen that is being targeted.
That's the initial technology.
It's the one based on Edward Jenner's discovery with smallpox, which as the story goes, milkmaids were immune to because they contracted cowpox in the conducting of their milkmaid work.
The second technology involves killed viruses or fragments of them, which do not generally trigger a robust immune response.
The immune system has lots of generic ways of cleaning up garbage in the system without developing a specific immunity.
So added to those things is something called an adjuvant, which causes your immune system to react as if you have a pathogenic infection.
And it then, at least in theory, responds to the antigen that's been injected into you.
And then, of course, we have the new gene therapy technologies, which in my opinion are wrongly called vaccines, most famously, the mRNA.
injections.
So of the injections you mentioned that I would have had being born in at the very end of the 60s, what technology were they based on?
MMR would have been the attenuated kind, which is, you know, as you noted, they take the live virus and they passage it through various kinds of cells.
It could be monkey kidney cells.
It could be the cultured cell line abortive fetal tissue because viruses need to grow in cells.
So MMR would have been, fell into that category.
OPV would have fallen into that category as well.
And then OPV being oral poliovirus.
Polio vaccine.
Polio vaccine, right?
And then DTP, the theory of tetanus pertussis, would have fallen into the non-live category, though, because it was a whole cell for the pertussis component.
It wasn't, it's not, the DTP wasn't adjuvanted in the way that people think of like using aluminum adjuvants today to adjuvant the vaccines.
Got it.
This episode of the Dark Horse Inside Rail is sponsored by Branch Basics, which makes simple, all-natural, non-toxic cleaning products.
This holiday season, give the gift that truly matters, health.
Branch Basics believes that creating a safe, healthy home where your family gathers, grows, and thrives is one of the most important things you can do for the people you love.
Most conventional cleaning products are filled with harmful chemicals that can negatively impact your family's health.
From harsh disinfectants to toxic fragrances, these products can irritate skin, disrupt hormones, and even pollute the air inside your home.
Branch Basics offers an amazing alternative.
The Branch Basics Starter Kit is a powerful plant and mineral-based solution designed to clean every room of your home from top to bottom without harmful chemicals.
You use their single concentrate to clean everything from your kitchen counters to shower walls, do your laundry, or even wash your produce.
It's that universal and that non-toxic.
Each bottle comes out to just $2.13, making clean living surprisingly affordable.
Branch Basics ships as two products, a concentrate and an oxygen boost.
And the shipment includes empty bottles that you fill to different concentrations for different jobs.
When you run out, all you need to do is restock the two products, and you're again ready to clean everything in your home from laundry to bathroom to countertops.
And guys, it's awesome.
We have found it effective and easy to use in every place we've tried it.
And the kit makes a great gift for housewarming, baby showers, or the holidays.
Founded by three women on their own personal health journeys, Branch Basics was created out of a desire to heal.
Through years of research and experimentation, the founders discovered the powerful impact that removing toxins from their environment had on their health.
And now they're on a mission to help others do the same.
Get yourself and your loved ones the best gift of all, the gift of clean with Branch Basics.
For a limited time only, our listeners get 15% off and free shipping on their premium starter pack when you use the code darkhorse at branchbasics.com forward slash darkhorse.
That's 15% off your order at branchbasics.com forward slash darkhorse with promo code darkhorse.
Please support our show and tell them that we sent you.
Get Branch Basics this holiday season because cleanliness matters.
So one of the things I've discovered in looking back at, and I should say, not only are Heather and I beyond what would be called fully vaccinated in light of our professional work as biologists, but we also did what's called fully vaccinating our children.
My children are now 19 and 21.
So they got a much enhanced vaccine series based on changes that I hope you will tell us about.
And just in terms of understanding my mindset here, when Heather and I had our kids, we were already awake to the fact that these things couldn't possibly be totally safe.
And so what we did was we postponed every vaccination as long as we could so that as much development would pass before the child got the vaccine.
So if anything went wrong, it would do the least damage.
That was, I think, far too weak an approach to the dangers involved in these things.
But at least it is evidence that, you know, we were not completely naive, but we vastly overestimated the safety testing that we assumed must have been done on the vaccines that would be injected into children, because of course it would be madness not to have thoroughly tested these things before deploying them at scale.
So what the change in the vaccine schedule between when I was born and when my kids were born looked like what?
Okay, so your kids are born in 2004 and 2006.
There have been significant changes.
Most of the vaccines on the childhood schedule were added in the 90s and early 2000s.
So they would have gotten unlike, I could tell you the number today, and then let's work backwards.
Fair enough.
So an infant born today following the CDC schedule would receive, including in utero via the mother, you can call it that, and not including COVID vaccine, 25 injections by on or before their first birth date, as compared to, as we discussed earlier, three injections on or before their first birth date in the called early 1980s, 1986.
25 injections in the first year of life.
Yes.
So yeah, so let's, I mean, I don't know if I want to bore your audience, but we'll just try to do it super quick, if I can remember it all.
And I will relate it back to your kids.
So back in 86, there wouldn't have been a HIB vaccine in the first year of life.
Now a child will get three injections of HIB.
So two, four, six months of age.
What's HIB?
Haemophilus influenza B.
Okay.
And then there's going to be three injections of hepatitis B vaccine, which would not have been given back then as well.
So that gets us to six more.
And then your kids would have also, so in 2004, 2006, those would have been there when your kids were born, but not back then.
And HEP B is given at birth one month in six months.
CDC just changed it, as you know, to two, four, and six months.
So still three shots in the first year of life.
There would not have been three doses of pneumococcal vaccine, Pcv or Prevnar vaccine, which are again given at two four, six months of age, would not exist in 86, would exist when your kids were born and would have been given to them first.
One was licensed in 2000 um, I believe, and then uh or something around there, so that gets us to nine more.
They also um, uh.
We switched from oral polio vaccine, which is three doses given on the mouth, to three injections of inactivated polio vaccine by 24, 2006 when your kids were born.
Very different route of administration.
The body is used to getting infected on the mucosal surfaces, like through their mouth, not deep in muscle tissue through a needle.
They also give kids now um, a flu shot at six months and seven months, which again would not have been given 86, um and and would have, I believe it, on the schedule when your kids were born.
Potentially um.
I'd have to go back and check.
And there's a few others.
I can keep going, but no no look, we've got plenty on the table already.
When you tell me 25 doses, that's more than two doses per month if we average it out in the first year of life.
That raises a completely obvious question to me as a broadly trained biologist.
A child is built by natural selection to live in a world of pathogenic infections.
It is not built for all this technological intervention.
In order to justify that level of technological intervention, I would certainly have assumed there had been massive testing, not only of the individual shots, in which each one was compared to a true placebo, and the thing that was measured, among other things, would be, what is the net impact on health of this shot?
I don't really care its narrow impact on one disease.
What I care is, on balance, is each shot justified by a positive effect on health across a large population?
But I would also be profoundly interested to know how much we understand about what happens when you throw this many false infections at an immune system that in nature would never encounter this level of pathogenicity.
So I am embarrassed to say that I assumed that work must have been done.
I now believe, based on a lot of reading uh across Lots of different literature, that the work was in fact not done.
But what can you tell me?
What do we know about what happens when you not only vaccinate against some targeted disease, but you vaccinate broadly across many diseases over a very short time span in a creature that's still in an early phase of development?
I could start with what they don't know, and then we can turn to what we do know.
And I could try to do that in a succinct manner.
But you're right.
We should be, you know, when we're going to go in and give a product and inject it, not in a normal route into a baby over and over again.
And almost all those injections, by the way, happen in the first six months of life.
So you're talking critical phases of development, neurologically, immunologically.
What is the impact of repeatedly jabbing a child with a powerful pharmaceutical product?
That's why it's licensed.
Well, the place you would normally start, and the place we started our work initially, you noted our law firm, our law firm has over 100 folks, and around 50 of them do vaccine-related work.
So we have a very large vaccine practice, and we need good data, right?
Whether we're talking about a vaccine injury case, whether we're talking about a case that involves civil rights and the question of transmissibility comes into play and so forth.
So the place to start is typically the clinical trial data.
And that's because that is the one instance typically where, especially with the first vaccine for the first disease, you could do a prospective, a forward-looking trial that compares those getting the product to those getting something inert, right?
Something, and then you could see the actual outcome between those two groups.
And you would think, to your point, that before you went and injected every single newborn in this country with a novel product, you'd want to make sure that you have assessed, again, to your point, the total health impact, not just the immediate health impact, not just the first week, not just to acute disease, but to chronic disease, to lifelong disease, to total health impact, not only for that child,
but also the nonspecific effects to them and society at large.
You would expect that to happen because you only need to mess up once if you inject every baby and it turns out it causes infertility later in life.
Well, you just did, you just caused a result that our worst enemies could never have dreamed and hoped to achieve, right?
So we start with the clinical trial data.
And when you look at the clinical trials for each childhood vaccine, there is they unquestionably never affirm the safety of these products.
That is because a clinical trial to affirm the safety of a product typically needs to have three elements.
The first is you have to compare those getting the product, the exposed group, the experimental group, with a control group that has a baseline of safety that you could say, yeah, this is the baseline of safety, right?
And that can mean either a placebo, so something inert, or it can mean another vaccine for the same indication that itself was properly licensed to affirm it was safe, right?
It could be either of those.
Now, let's assume it is properly controlled.
Then it still needs to review safety for long enough.
Because even if you properly control it, you only review safety for five days or just a few months.
That's not useful too.
And then, even if it's properly controlled and has reviewed safety for long enough, it needs to be properly powered.
It needs to have enough individuals in the trial, right?
As you know.
The issue with childhood vaccines, and I'm sure you know this already, Brett, is one, and this is a categorical statement.
I know that the media contests this, but that's because they rely on the experts instead of the primary sources.
But there's not a single routine-injected childhood vaccine on the schedule today that was ever licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial.
And when another, not when I can even tell you what the control was, it gets worse.
Because what they'll say to you is, well, that's because the control vaccine that they used in those trials was licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial.
But if that wasn't, we can go down the chain.
But that's not true either.
When you go down the chain for every one of the currently licensed routine-injected child vaccine, when another vaccine was used as a control, by the way, it just doesn't often happen.
That vaccine was not licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial and so forth down the chain, right?
And so, and I haven't even touched safety review durations, I haven't even touched power yet.
I'm just talking about.
But let's stop there.
This is so mind-blowing once you come to understand it that I want to just make sure people do understand what you're getting at.
There is a loophole built into our system of safety testing.
It's obvious to me how crazy this is as somebody who has run experiments and knows a bit about experimental design.
But the idea that, well, you would like this tested against a control, but instead we're going to test it against a different vaccine that was tested against a control because presumably that one is safe and therefore it's effectively like treating it, testing it against an inert vaccine.
That's garbage, right?
For two reasons.
One, you're dealing with a complex system.
There's a reason that we do the statistics that we do on scientific tests in the area of biology, and that's because there's a tremendous amount of noise.
So even when we have a result that we think we know its meaning, we have to talk very carefully about how confident we are that we got it right.
And we accept a certain level of uncertainty because it would be paralytic not to.
So the chances that the trial that initially established the safety of something was off, even if it was done correctly, is substantial.
And therefore, to base something else on it later is logically invalid because you're compounding the risk that something downstream has been done incorrectly.
But it also means that in a landscape where there's a tremendous amount of money to be made on these products, that one only needs to commit fraud once, right?
You get something to send you the false indication that it is safe.
And then you use that as a control and it will hide the harms of later vaccines that you test against it.
So from the point of view of the public, the answer is obvious.
The answer is: no, you don't get to do that.
I want a safety test against a true placebo each and every time you want one of these things licensed.
Right.
So the fact that we don't have that, if I had known that when my kid's pediatrician had started telling me which vaccines we were going to give him as we went through the well child visits and all, I'm not a guy who yells at people, but I probably would have yelled at him for the same reason that I would fend off a child molester.
You're talking about somebody who wants to inject an industrial product into a healthy child on the basis of safety testing that is logically flawed in multiple obvious ways.
That's what the pediatrician is doing, whether or not the pediatrician understands it, right?
The pediatrician is really just on autopilot.
We vaccinate kids.
They're sure the work has been done.
They presumably haven't looked into it, but they are facilitating the access of these corporations with perverse incentives to healthy children without any understanding of the risks that they're putting them to.
I give you one good example or give you just an example of that.
And I can talk on the corporate interest part.
But the pneumococcal vaccine we talked about earlier, that's given a two, four, and six months of age, right?
The very first one ever licensed was Prevanar 7, okay, back in about 2000.
That vaccine was licensed based on a clinical trial in which the control received another experimental vaccine.
Can't make that up.
In fact, had you asked me to come up with the wildest, craziest conspiracy about vaccines, I'd never dream of saying that because I would say nobody believed me.
It's crazy.
So let me just make it clear what you've said.
Instead, so once you get in the mode of testing vaccines against other vaccines, even though they haven't been safety tested or properly safety tested, in this case, you're talking about something in which even that isn't done because the thing to which they are comparing it is also in the process of being, it's experimental.
It has not been thoroughly tested.
It's unlicensed.
It's an unlicensed vaccine.
It never went through licensure.
It never went through a trial that merited apparently licensure.
It still, by the way, has never been licensed.
So you took an experimental vaccine and you tested it against another experimental vaccine.
It's like saying, okay, well, there's this, we don't know what this chemical will do to humans.
And so we want to see its effect on humans.
We'll just test it against another chemical that we've never licensed by the EPA either.
See if the safety, and of course, by the FDA standards, as long as the adverse event rate is similar from a regulatory perspective, that is safe to license.
Not safe by logical or reasonable or, yeah, please.
I want to make this even more stark because it's obviously not an error.
This is obviously a scheme from my perspective.
If you wanted to test the safety of a firearm being pointed around the room and shot, if you tested it against a potato, you would discover the firearm is actually lethal.
If you test it against some other firearm that's being randomly shot around the room, you may find no statistical difference between their lethality and conclude that it is safe.
Based on the FDA's approach to safety, yes.
Yeah.
So my feeling is, you know, I went through graduate school.
I earned a terminal degree in a science.
Nobody in charge of protecting the public from the hazard of pharmaceuticals, which is, it's well understood that pharmaceuticals carry hazards.
This is not a wild-eyed conspiracy theory.
This is why they're licensed.
That's why they're licensed.
That's why we have an LD50 on drugs where we know how much you have to give somebody before you're more likely to kill them than not.
Right.
Pharmaceuticals have risks.
Anybody who studied science sufficiently to be in a position to manage the testing of these things in the interests of the public should full well understand why you can't test an experimental drug against another experimental drug and establish safety on that basis.
Absolutely.
And here's the proof of what should have made the FDA go wild is that when they did that trial and they licensed Previnar 7, they only reviewed safety for 30 days for most things, 60 for once, and then a little longer for some others.
So very limited safety review.
Then when they tested Prevanar, when they licensed Previnar 13, they used Previnar 7 as the control.
And in that clinical trial, they reviewed safety for six months, which is actually very long for a vaccine.
That's uncommon.
Most vaccines are licensed where they review safety or monitor safety for days or weeks after injection.
That's it.
So they reviewed it for six months.
And again, and the kids in the trial were healthy infants.
And in that six-month period, around 7.2% of the children that got Prevanar 7 had a serious adverse event.
8.2 or something to that effect of the children that got Prevnar 13 had a serious adverse event.
Now, those rates are similar, but highly concerning.
If you're looking at completely healthy babies having a serious adverse event within six months, 7 or 8% of them, what that should have made the FDA do is go, whoa, we have a problem here.
You know, we don't know what the actual safety baseline is because Prevanar 7, we don't really know the safety baseline because we didn't properly test that one.
And in fact, there's this article and that peer-reviewed, published article by FDA and CDC scientists discussing the safety of Prevanar 7.
And they even say, like, we don't really know what the safe could the safety could have been hidden because of what happened.
Then they used Previnar 13 as the control to license Previnar PCV15.
Okay.
And in that clinical trial, something like 8% of the kids that got Previnar 13 again had a serious adverse event, but something like around 8%, around 9% of the kids that got PCV15 had a serious adverse event.
But again, similar enough, fine for safe.
Even could read the clinical trial documents.
They're on the FDA website.
Everything I'm saying, by the way, is directly on the underlying clinical licensure documents.
They're all on the FDA website.
And so they even say, well, there's no notable imbalance between those two groups.
So that's fine.
Now, again, safe from the perspective of the FDA, but from any caring, thinking, concerned parent, most certainly not safe.
And the problem is, is you see this same pattern repeated vaccine after vaccine.
You could see it if you go through the different clinical trials.
And I always get asked, well, why would they do that?
And it really goes back, Brett, to what you said earlier.
For most, about economic interests.
For most drug products, they're often licensed based on long-term placebo control trials.
To try and not cherry pick, if you look at Pfizer's most profitable four most profitable drugs they each had as of 2019, they each had a long-term placebo control trial.
Okay, happened to find an article that had those four, so I use it in my book.
Then you might say, well, why is that?
Why do the drugs have long-term placebo control trials but they don't do that for the vaccines, for you know, given to babies, healthy babies?
Um, and I think it comes down to economics.
I, i'm certain it comes down to economics.
Leading up to 1986, there were only three routine childhood vaccines, but they caused, as we talked about earlier, but they caused so much harm and injury that they basically were putting all the vaccine makers out of business.
We had six pertussis manufacturers down to one, six measles down to one, three polio down to one.
Now, many industries face this crossroads.
You're making cars and your gas tanks exploding and people are burning to death.
You know, just driving down the street, that's exactly what the car industry faced at one point.
You make a better gas tank.
You have you have doors on your planes that are popping off, as we saw recently.
You make a better plane door.
You have building materials that are causing cancer from asbestos.
You make better building materials.
In no instance that I am aware of did Congresses, did our federal government, react by going.
You know what we're going to do industry, you don't need to make a better, safer product, we're just going to pass a law so that those parents whose children died or were injured can never sue you on the basis to claim that had you made your vaccine safer, my kid would not be dead, my kid would not be seriously injured.
That's exactly what Congress did.
They gave vaccine manufacturers immunity in something called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 1986.
That not only gave them immunity for those three vaccines back then, but for any vaccine developed thereafter.
It is the only product in America that has the immunity I just described, the on a permanent basis, the only one.
There is no other vaccine.
There's no other product that has that immunity on a permanent basis.
Um and so um, what is the economic result when you are in a boardroom in America, when you are uh, you know, if you have Stock Brett, i'm sure you know, you have a 401k, maybe you have a set by or a.
You have a retirement count, you hold stock.
You want that stock to go up.
Okay, you want the company to make money.
That's how stocks go up.
That's what Wall Streets want.
That's what boardrooms want.
That's how corporations make their decisions.
I represented Court America for a long time before I did this.
That's how they make decisions and it's fine normally when it comes to product safety, because the financial interest of the company is aligned with safety.
If they They make a product unsafe or release it's unsafe or don't correct it, they're going to lose money.
But with vaccines, it is they have inverted that financial interest.
And that's why with drugs, you get long-term placebo-controlled trials because the company wants to know.
They have an economic self-interest to know it's safe before they unleash it on the market.
But with vaccines, when they're sitting in that corporate apparatus, they are they have the opposite financial interest.
In fact, if the more studying they do in that trial, the less likely it's to get licensure.
And they don't have any kind of interest.
In fact, it would be against their economic interest to test safety properly.
And that's just the way corporations work.
Yeah, I agree with that.
I want to just stop here for a couple of points that I think are important.
One, the idea of you don't have an initial safety test, but you have something that sort of looks like one, and then you use that as your control.
This is a perfect match for the ironic term that we have in English of bootstrapping, right?
We talk about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, which is literally impossible because of the physics, right?
You cannot lift yourself up by your own bootstraps.
It's not possible.
So the idea of setting something in motion from nothing at all is understood to be an ironic thing.
And yet here, it is the literal fact of these safety testing, right?
The safety testing is based on the last safety test, which is based on the last safety test, which if you go far enough down that line, there wasn't one, right?
So it's no safety, but if you tune in, you know, at the last round, it sort of looks like safety testing is happening.
It's a scam is what it is.
It's a scam with children and their lifetime health as the thing being put at risk.
The second thing I want to say is when Heather and I have traveled in the developing world, especially in Latin America, there's a phenomenon that we ironically call gringo traps.
Gringo traps are holes in the sidewalk, often with rebars sticking out of them.
They're dangerous places.
And the idea is no person who lives there would fall into one because they grow up in an environment where these hazards are common.
And so they look out for themselves.
But a gringo looking into their phone or something could injure themselves badly because these dangers are distributed around the landscape in a way that they're not prepared for.
And what we talk about amongst ourselves is that the reason that gringo traps might be common in San Jose, Costa Rica, but they wouldn't be common in San Jose, California, is because we have a society in which lawyers are enabled to go and sue people who create hazards that then cause harm.
And so our world is made safer by the action of lawyers.
The selfish interest of lawyers suing people who have done harm to other people causes the self-interest of those who are doing construction work or making products to cause them to make the things safer.
It works for us.
Anytime you take away that incentive, you are opening a niche.
And in fact, you are initiating a competition in which those who cut safety corners fastest profit most.
So what we've unleashed with the vaccine manufacturers is basically we've opened up a habitat.
And the question is how many different vaccines that happen to come with immunity from liability because they bear that name can be created and inflicted on the public because of course there will be no fallout from harm.
So I guess what I'm saying is this is completely foreseeable from the Congress immunizing the manufacturers from liability.
If you got anything else, it would be surprising.
Of course you will get manufacturers selling faulty products and not worrying about the fact that their safety testing is garbage because of course it makes a tremendous amount of money.
It's the niche that we created for them that guaranteed that these monsters would evolve.
Agreed.
It absolutely is.
Yeah.
So, you know, and then of course, not surprising to see that the monsters would fend off any rational repair of that system.
Yeah.
I mean, look, when you, you know, when you read about a car having an issue, it's usually because there's a class action against the car manufacturer.
That brings it to light.
The reason that products are safer is because of economic self-interest, is because of market forces.
Government doesn't make products safer.
Cars aren't safer because of government.
Products aren't safer because of government.
They have a little role to play, but it's not what makes products safer to your point about your overseas travel with your wife.
When you go to countries that are highly regulated, but very little market forces, you don't see products being safer.
Go back and just go around the globe and look at those environments.
They don't engender safer products.
To your point, the selfish interests of lawyers, the selfish interests of companies, the selfish interest of anybody in the market is always to make more money.
That's the selfish interest that you're talking about.
So it's not just the lawyers per se.
Liability can, yes, eventually come from lawyers, but it can come from the recall they have to do before the lawyers get involved.
It could be from the fact that nobody wants to buy their product because there's a bad news cycle about it.
It could be from all kinds of externalities that happen that result in losing money.
But when it comes to these products, the business model is perverted.
Normally, you have to earn your market.
Here, they don't have to earn it.
They mandate these products.
So if I'm sitting there in the corporate boardroom, we could spend $200 million in an advertising campaign, or we could just throw $20 million in lobby and get them mandated.
So they don't have to earn their market.
They don't even have to promote their products.
The government does do that for them.
Billions of dollars a year promoting them.
They don't have to worry about whether people can pay for it.
The federal government pays for the products.
And they don't have to worry about harms.
Government immunizes them.
It's the most incredible business model that nobody would believe exists, but it does when you actually, I think, when you describe it for anything else other than vaccines.
Hey, Brett, I got a great business idea.
We're going to create this widget.
What does it do?
Don't worry.
We just injected people.
Does it hurt people?
Don't worry.
Government will immunize us.
Who's going to take it?
Don't worry.
It'll be mandated, right?
But what do people still don't want it?
Don't worry.
They'll market it and they'll pay for it.
You'd say that's crazy.
You'd say that that can't be real, but that is the business model of these products.
And the people who don't take it will be demonized.
Well, that's what happens when you have an industry with 40 years at this point since 1986 almost of no normal market force pushback is how do they spend their dollars?
Do they go on TV and say, hey, get your HIP vaccine, get your PCV vaccine?
No.
But they have a marketing budget, but they deploy it in a different way.
They deploy it in a manner that gets their message out through learned intermediaries.
They fund journals.
They fund medical conferences for doctors.
Go down the list.
Every trusted, learned institution around these products, they have their monies in.
It's not a conspiracy, in my view.
It's just good business.
But it's good business run amok with no check from the other side.
Well, look, I've heard you say that before.
And every time I hear you say it, I know exactly what you mean.
And I don't disagree with you at a technical level.
But I will say the personality that it takes to knowingly make a product that you full well understand puts healthy children at risk of chronic disease is that's not a mentally healthy person.
And so my sense is there's a kind of selection in the background that if you are analytically capable enough to figure out how dangerous these things are and you have a moral compass, you will not end up in a position manufacturing these things because you won't be able to sleep at night.
So I do think we have effectively sociopathic entities creating these things, probably inhabited by more than the expected number of sociopaths because it just wouldn't work any other way.
So when you say it's just good business, I get it.
Yes, you would expect businesses.
In fact, businesses are legally required to act in the interests of their shareholders and so to take advantage of all opportunities.
But nonetheless, I don't like letting them off the hook because frankly, well, and at the end, I want to get to the linchpin of the whole thing.
I don't disagree with you, by the way, on letting anybody off the hook on any of this stuff.
Completely agree.
And when I said not a conspiracy, what I meant is in the vernacular often used, which is there's these evil levers of whatnot.
I'm saying that a lot of the problems are really out there in the open.
I also don't disagree at all that those who affirm the safety of these products, these little cabal of vaccinologists, right, are selected by the companies because I think they have some of the qualities you just described, which is they're willing to engage in the science in a manner that's most likely to increase pharmaceutical company profit.
And so there's a selection process where they only fund the vaccinologists that will have an approach to vaccines that are, as you said, will not look for the long-term issues, minimize issues as they are, assume that they're safe and so forth.
So I would say, as a biologist, there's one aspect of this that is obvious to me, but I find it just absent from the larger conversation.
And I hope you'll take it to heart, which is when you have a niche, it gets filled.
What you're describing is a niche that guarantees harm to children.
Of course, it's going to be filled.
You don't know how many people walked away from taking advantage of that niche.
What you know are the ones that decided to do it.
So those people may be defective, but it's not the defectiveness of those people that created this business model.
It's the niche that was opened up by the Congress that immunized them for the reasons you've so eloquently described.
So the answer is close the niche, whatever it takes, right?
Because nothing else will work.
You could end Pfizer tomorrow, and that niche space would be filled by somebody else deploying a very similar strategy.
It just common sense at the level of the complex system.
A couple other points that I wanted to add to your list of features of the childhood vaccine market that work to the advantage of these monsters.
Okay.
One is unlike most products, the recipient of the product, whether we talk about that as the child or the parents, is not in a good position to evaluate whether it worked, right?
Only in the very rare case where it fails, right?
You got the measles vaccine and then you got measles.
Are we in a position to know what impact it had, right?
That is unusual.
So the amount of faith involved in, you know, okay, you get a flu vaccine, then you get the flu.
And they say, well, oh, this year wasn't very good.
Or this year was pretty good.
So it was 40% effective, but you got unlucky.
The point is you're not really in a position because you're not a population of people to say, hey, wait a minute, this flu vaccine, you know, was negative.
It increased people's likelihood of getting it.
You have to take on faith that this needle, this precise technology has introduced molecules you can't see that have interacted with an immune system you don't understand in a way that somebody told you enhanced your immunity to disease.
You're just not in a good position to judge whether or not it worked.
And you're certainly in a terrible position in the case of, you know, for example, a live polio vaccine.
A live polio vaccine is an actual evolving entity, even within you.
As the infection develops, not only does it have a unique interaction with your personal physiology, but it is being selected within your body by your immune system, and that has unpredictable effects, which will be brushed aside by manufacturers and doctors.
But what can you tell me about the various polio vaccines and the impacts, the unintended consequences of their administration?
The unintended consequences of their administration.
Well, with the oral polio vaccine, which has been phased out in the U.S. as of 2000, it could cause paralysis, to your point.
It evolves every person that is administered it.
You know, the virus continues evolving and it can revert to virulence or some other form that can cause disease.
And it not only could cause paralysis and injury in those that got the oral polio vaccine, but because it's live attenuated, it then would shed, could infect others and some parents of children who got the oral polio vaccine ended up paralyzed and so forth.
So please.
No, that's The idea that there would be a medically administered technology that its purpose is to prevent polio, that causes a certain amount of polio, it's obvious you should not take such a thing.
Your chances of getting polio are exceedingly low in modern times.
And the idea of gambling on being given polio by the very thing that you're taking to prevent polio is a non-sequitur.
I mean, well, I think that's, you know, what the health authorities would tell you, federal health authorities would tell you is that, you know, by the 1990s, that is the reasoning for switching from OPV, oral polio vaccine, to an activated polio vaccine, IPV, which is injected in the arm versus administered orally.
And because it's administered in the arm, because it doesn't, it's not a live vaccine, it doesn't shed.
You're not going to spread the Frankenstein version of polio in the vial to others.
But polio also has a very interesting history, OPV versus IPV.
The IPV vaccine, which is injected in the arm, doesn't create any mucosal immunity.
It doesn't create immunity in your intestinal tract.
And polio virus, as you know, is transmitted from fecal to oral contamination, right?
Basically got to get somebody's poop in your mouth.
And so if you're not creating immunity in your intestines, it's not stopping the poliovirus, if you're infected, from multiplying and from continuing to spread it.
But countries that exclusively used IPV, never used OPV, polio disappeared.
It's a very interesting phenomenon.
In fact, developed countries only seemed had polio really up until the 60s.
And then somehow, you know, and they said, well, that's because there was too much hygiene, right?
There was a theory of why polio began to spread in those countries.
And then developing countries really only started having polio a decade or two later.
But the developed countries that never used OPV, that could potentially stop transmission to some degree, polio disappeared.
So there's a long history about polio.
I go through some of it in chapter eight of my book, but it's probably a lot for, you know, unless we have a lot of hours to go.
Well, let's put it this way.
I think the polio story is the perfect red pill because so much of our self-harm in the area of pathogenic disease comes from our response to a few stories that cause most people to understand the world of infections in a particular way.
One of the stories is polio.
One of the stories is Spanish flu.
And one of the stories is smallpox.
Now, I've had Forrest Moretti on the show, and we've talked about polio.
And I will say his book, even though I was wide awake about vaccines at the point that I read his book, his book blew me away because it took a story that I thought I understood and revealed all of the dimensions that effectively nobody in the public understands.
And it so I believe in the iron lung, right?
Yeah, I'm off in the iron lung.
Great book, yeah.
And the story that he tells very compellingly is, well, first here's the fact I didn't understand.
Poliovirus exists.
It's not the only cause of polio, but poliovirus exists.
However, in its normal state, poliovirus is a nuisance at worst.
It's a gut virus, and it causes gut pathologies.
And only when it escapes the gut does it impact the spine in a way that causes paralysis.
So the question then is, and the focus of Forrest's book is what is it that caused this virus, which was not causing polio until the Industrial Revolution?
What was it that caused this virus to go from having minimal effects on human beings to having disastrous effects on them?
And it effectively, the culprit is metals in things like pesticides that cause breaches in the gut wall in which the virus spills out.
And it happens that it can grow in spinal tissue, which then causes paralysis.
But this explains both why polio vaccines have some effect.
There is a virus.
If you stop it, it does have an effect on polio.
But it's obviously the wrong focus.
If the real problem is that an innocuous virus is ending up in the spine because of breaches in the gut, then the question is, well, what did we do that breached the gut?
Does that match your understanding of the story?
Yeah.
I'll overlay some, just some data points on that just that build it out.
The very first cases of actually any polio clusters was in the 1890s, first time.
If you go back and you look at measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, chicken, these have all been recorded long before 1890s, right?
We can go back to England.
England tracked these diseases for decades before.
There was no polio, no polio from, right?
And so really it starts in 1890, which as Forrest talked about, that's when Paris Green became commonly used, which is a common, it has arsenic in it.
And then from the 1890s up until the 1940s, you have the slow increase of polio, which, you know, the case of paralysis and death.
And it doesn't really explode until the 40s and peaks in 1952 in the United States, precipitously declines.
And the very first polio vaccine is Jonas Salk vaccine in 1955.
So to your point, well, at a time period from 1900 onward, every other disease for which we vaccinate, mortality was precipitously declining without any vaccine.
Measles mortality went down over 98% between 1900 and 1963, no vaccine.
Diphtheria, go down the list.
In fact, every single pathogen, mortality and its harmful effects were just plummeting.
No vaccine.
Okay, nothing to do with vaccines.
In the face of that, one disease stands out, polio.
Polio was going the other direction.
What was it?
Now, back then, they came away and said, well, maybe it was because of, as I mentioned earlier, clean, more hygiene.
We were having, because we were more hygienic, the argument was, well, babies were typically infected in the first six months of life when they got immunity from the mother.
And so they were protected.
But now, because we're so clean, they don't get it till later.
You know who debunked that theory?
Alfred Sabin himself, the inventor of the oral polio vaccine, because what he did is he went to places like China and he went and he tested the antibodies of children.
And he said, whoa, there's tons of kids here with no antibodies until two, three, four, five, six years of age.
No polio to be found.
While on the U.S. Army base in China, or in the United Kingdom Army base, tons of polio cases.
So here you are, you're going into the 30s, 40s, into the early 50s.
You have polio pretty much exclusively in the developing world, not in the in the, excuse me, in the developed world, I'm sorry, in America, Europe, not in the developing world, none, except on bases of soldiers and civilians from developed countries.
That clearly reflects American bases in foreign countries.
In foreign countries.
Well documented.
In fact, they often had multiple times the rate of polio, even as compared to the average rate in America or in Europe.
So, you know, this virus doesn't know.
So what is it?
The virus, when it gets onto the U.S. base in China, causes paralysis, but when it infects the local population, it doesn't.
Obviously, there is some kind of environmental exposure.
I think it requires straining all reason to reach any other conclusion from all the readings I've done.
It's a two-hit.
It's the virus, presumably, but something else.
And to your point, there was the parascreen, which was replaced in 1910s with lead arsenate, and then there were other chemicals.
Now, those various chemicals have been tested in animals, and they have been shown to damage the horn.
I'm just not too technical.
They just damage portion of the spine cells where the polio virus, they say, can sometimes, as you point out, go from your intestines into your bloodstream and then attack your spinal column.
And they damage these cells, which can lead to the paralysis, the classical symptoms, which only happens in a very small percentage of folks who are infected too.
And so, and why them?
Why do 94%, according to the CDC, have no symptoms when they're infected with polio?
Another 5% have some symptoms.
1%, less than 1%, will end up with any paralysis.
And only a tiny fraction of that will end up being permanent.
And even smaller will result in death.
What's the difference between those folks and those folks?
As Forrest Moretti argues, it's an environmental exposure of various kinds that created that susceptibility.
And maybe, just maybe, maybe it was that.
I personally don't.
I don't know if I think the environmental exposure argument is really not difficult.
What exactly are the environmental exposures maybe gets a little more complicated?
So I don't usually go there personally.
But what I do say is this.
I do say is that it is the most parsimonious explanation for why a country that never used OPV, polio went away.
Even in parts of the country where nobody got vaccines.
How can that be?
How can that be?
It's because probably whatever that environmental exposure was that created susceptibility went away.
Yes.
A couple of things I want to add to that.
One, Forrest Moretti's model is extremely elegant.
It explains all kinds of anomalous features of poliomyelitis.
One of them being, why children?
And the other being, why do they have paralysis without loss of sensation?
And the answer is because this is a virus leaking out of the gut.
It only contacts the spine in children where the gut is lying right on top of the spine.
As you develop, these things move away from each other.
So the vulnerability disappears.
And the other thing is, why is it paralytic?
Well, because the motor neurons are on the part of the spine facing the gut and not the sensory neurons are on the far side.
So what you effectively have is you're accidentally growing a virus in tissue that it can grow in, in the spine, but that's not something that it is built to do.
It's built, as you point, to move from one person's gut to the next, anal oral transmission.
So in any case, it tells you something about the complex nature of all of these things.
Is there a poliovirus?
Yes.
But you have to understand the ecology of the poliovirus and then understand that poliomyelitis, the condition that we so rightly fear, is the result of that virus behaving in a way that it would not under natural conditions, and that therefore there's an environmental exposure implicated, which would be the obvious place to intervene.
The pattern you describe about it showing up on U.S. bases in developing countries and not in those countries themselves is fascinating.
I will just give you one anecdote.
I was doing my graduate work just before I was in Panama on an island administered by the Smithsonian in the Panama Canal, Barrow, Colorado Island.
And so we were living in the canal zone right before the handover.
So you had five military bases there, and the military bases were in the process of being decommissioned, but they were still administering the canal zone at the time before it was handed back to Panama.
And I remember distinctly in Gamboa, the town that was the jumping off point for the island where I was working.
So I was back and forth through this town frequently, and some of my colleagues lived in this little town.
I remember the pesticide trucks driving down the road, spraying pesticide to control mosquitoes so that malaria, which was effectively excluded from the canal zone, would remain excluded.
And so I can easily layer that onto the story about why military bases were showing signs of or showing cases of polio in countries that didn't have polio.
You know, you've got some sort of bureaucrat who's decided that the right thing to do is to fend off malaria with a pesticide.
It's being sprayed generally.
This is the exposure that causes this otherwise innocuous virus in the guts of people living on this base to be breached.
And voila, you've got it.
But sorry, I know I'm on a rant here, but the point is, we all have a story.
Polio is a terrifying disease.
It was addressed with a vaccine.
And thank God, because you wouldn't want to live in fear that your child might be afflicted with this debilitating condition.
Yes, but the debilitating condition is a self-inflicted wound.
It's not some monstrous virus out there in nature that we controlled through brute force.
It's a virus that we made lethal and then have made many errors in attempting to control it by the wrong pathway.
The right pathway was clearly to control the environmental exposure, not by intervening in the immune system of the child in ways, you know, you point out, okay, oral polio vaccine, at least it's going to develop an immunity where this virus lives, right?
Rather than injecting it into the arm.
But in any case, the polio story, once you understand that it isn't the story we've all been told, that's one of three major stories that tells us about infectious disease and our need to have medicine save us from it.
And it collapses.
If I may add to the polio story, just please to really bring home your point, it is that in 2020, you know, the CDC claims around 500,000 Americans died of COVID.
Okay, just want to contextualize death vis-a-vis a virus.
That's what they say.
And all-cause mortality did go up around that number, by the way, between 2019 and 2020.
All right.
In 1955, 54, the year before the first polio vaccine in the United States, okay, they were reported a thousand deaths from polio and a few multiple of that of paralysis.
Now, here's where it gets interesting.
So just to put it in context, now that's what was reported.
SALK vaccine comes out of 55.
Well, they're only second graders got it.
So a very small core, okay, 56.
A group of the premier scientists in the country go back and they reevaluate the data from 1950 to 54 and then 55 to 60 and they're 59 because they do this in 1960.
And they say, okay, what effect did the Salk vaccine really have on polio?
And here's what their report describes.
And this was done by, and you can link to it in my book.
You could read the report yourself.
It was actually the headline of newspapers around the country at the time, all forgotten now.
But one, they changed the diagnostic criteria between 1954 and 55.
To be diagnosed with polio in 1954, you needed to have had symptoms 24 hours apart.
That's it.
Paralytic symptoms.
Some form of paralytic symptoms 24 hours apart.
That's it.
Doesn't mean it's permanent.
It could just be some weakness in the legs.
Okay.
You know, sick child in bed might just be like, I don't want to move my legs.
After 1954 and starting 55, you had to show paralytic symptoms 60 days apart, plus, plus, for the first time ever, you had to have a laboratory confirm, confirm it was the polio virus.
Okay.
Now, so that differential also resulted in some, that change of criteria could result in something else, Brad.
When they started actually looking for what is the underlying pathogen that caused it, you know what they found?
In lots of cases, it wasn't polio virus.
It was Coxaki.
It was some other, and there's a whole long list of other causes they identified.
So they're like, okay, so what these scientists did is, and I will, I'll add one other third point, which is in 1954, beforehand, if you diagnose a kid with poliomyelitis, the government gave you all kinds of aid and funding.
After starting 55, there was an incentive that kind of went the other way because they wanted to make the vaccine look as good as possible.
But let's leave that third factor aside.
Let's just talk about the two more objective ones.
Okay.
So, what these scientists did is they did a reanalysis using the 55 criteria for 1950 to 1954.
Okay.
And I have the chart in the book in their study.
What they found was when you go back, most of the cases that they said were polio in 1950 to 54 were now polio.
Okay, were likely now polio based on their percentage reanalysis.
They didn't go back and retest them, but they applied the same percentages and looking backwards.
And what they also found, and this is fascinating, is that applying the same diagnostic criteria of early 50s, pre-post-vaccine through the 1950s, there's not really statistically significant differential in the number of cases of polio between the early 50s and the late 50s with Salk's vaccine.
By the end of the 1950s, there's not that many cases of polio, just like there weren't as many cases in the early 50s before vaccine when you applied the 55 onward criteria.
So it already was nowhere near COVID, even at the inflated 1,000 deaths, a few multiple of that paralysis.
But using the more objective criteria and using lab confirmation, it really got lower.
By the time you had the first Sabin vaccine in 1961, Sabin came out with that's the oral polio vaccine for one, you know, because there's type one, two, and three of polio.
There's three different types.
So by 61, 62, 63, they came out with for different types.
Polio was mostly gone in the United States because of this new criteria in large part of looking at it.
So in any event, I'll add that piece to it.
And I'll add one other just.
If you can remember your next point, I don't want you to lose it.
I won't forget it.
The story of the polio vaccine just gets crazier the more you know about it.
So here's what I'm learning from you here.
Okay.
The change in diagnostic criteria will make it look like this vaccine is causing a radical reduction because basically the threshold for diagnosing it has leapt at the same time you're releasing this vaccine.
Okay.
So it's a self-fulfilling prophecy at some level, maybe by design or maybe by accident.
But nonetheless, the appearance that polio is being greatly reduced by this is a statistical artifact of the change in the diagnostic criteria, at least partly.
Second thing that you're telling me, and there are glimmers of this in Moretti's book, but that poliomyelitis, which is the condition of being paralyzed in this way, is a syndrome.
The polio virus is a pathogen that causes this condition, but it's not the only thing that causes it.
And some large fraction of cases of poliomyelitis are caused by some other pathogen.
Now, here's where I would extrapolate two things.
One, odds are good that these other viruses are in the same situation as the so-called polio virus.
That they are leaking into the spine and damaging the same neurons that are in contact with the gut and therefore not surprisingly causing the same pathology.
Basically, it is the viral destruction of neurons close to the gut that causes the characteristics of poliomyelitis.
But here's where the rubber meets the road.
In this story, you've got an environmental exposure.
Moretti makes a good case that it's metals and things like pesticides and dyes that are suddenly the public is being exposed to them for various reasons that he describes.
That is causing a virus to go from a place where it's not causing poliomyelitis to a place where it does.
If you attempt to intervene in this story by going after the virus, at best, you will eliminate those cases that are caused by the virus that you targeted.
If you inoculate somebody for the so-called polio virus and Coxaki virus is causing some fraction of polio cases, you won't touch it.
So it is a foolish intervention.
If what you're doing is poisoning children and causing their guts to be breached, and that is causing viruses to grow in the spine that wouldn't ordinarily be there, and that is causing poliomyelitis.
The only reasonable place to intervene is the exposures that cause the breaches in the gut, because you will get a multiplicity of viruses causing this, and you would have to give a vaccine for each one.
And who knows what the interaction between those vaccines might be?
It's a foolish approach.
It's foolish if you're not trying to make money.
I agree.
You know, think of all the, to your point, had they identified Coxakia as a cause and developed the vaccine, I would bet you, I would suspect it would be on the childhood schedule today.
They would tell you kids will die of Coxaki en masse and be paralyzed if you don't give everybody that shot.
Just like scarlet fever.
Scarlet fever was a massive killer of children in 1900.
They tried over and over to create a vaccine.
They could never successfully create anything that they deemed useful.
So it never got to market.
Scarlet fever is basically innocuous today for the most part.
But had they developed a vaccine, scarlet fever, which is a bacteria and just like diphtheria, they get lypholized by a virus, which then releases a toxin, which causes harm.
I bet you scarlet fever vaccine would be on the schedule today.
They'll tell you all these kids died of scarlet fever, which they did.
Even though most of the reduction in deaths would have happened before the vaccine, they would tell you that they would only point to the vaccine as the reduction of mortality.
And that's what it would be.
Second point about the polio vaccine, which you asked me not to forget, is, you know, and it's not like these products are without risk.
The initial inactivated polio vaccine, the Jonas-Salk vaccine in 1955 and then Sabin's vaccine, both were developed using monkey kidney cells, live, living monkey kidney cells.
So the viruses in those kidney cells from those monkeys ended up in the vial being injected into millions of humans.
SV40, which is simian virus 40, the 40th virus identified, you know, from simian, from monkeys, you know, as part of these polio products, got injected into millions of Americans before they realized it and they got it out.
Tumors to this day can be, you can find SV40 growing in them.
And there's a lot of controversy.
Is it just in the tumor?
Does SV4 cause the tumors?
I think, though, if you take that literature, stack up, and then separate out all the ones that are industry funded or agency conflicted and just leave the ones that are done by anybody you could actually deem independent, it looks pretty bad.
Well, let's put it this way.
It's a disaster one way or the other, because let's say best case scenario for the maniacs who engaged in this behavior is the SV40 is not causal to these tumors.
It is either so common in the tissue of the people with the tumors that it's in the tumors also, or it's a fellow traveler that finds the tumors.
In any case, this virus shouldn't be in people.
And you've strayed into my area of expertise, and so I want to make it clear just how nuts this is.
You had an admittedly terrifying condition harming the most innocent among us, polio, in children, right?
Lifelong, debilitating, terrifying.
The root cause is not simple.
It's the combination of a virus plus an environmental exposure.
If you don't have one of those objects, you don't get the disease.
But we go after it with a vaccine.
We target the one pathogen, which doesn't address the other pathogens that can cause it.
And in order to grow the attenuated virus, we grow it on a medium from a different species, which obviously exposes us to the danger that we will pick up viruses from that other species that would not have jumped into people but for our scientific activity.
This is, I want to make this point clear because this point has a high relevance in the case of COVID also, which appears to have come from bats via scientific activity.
A pathogen is tightly adapted in general to a specific host.
There are some examples of things that violate that pattern because they switch between hosts.
They have a life cycle in which they jump from birds to other things, for example.
But in general, the selective pressure for a virus to become attuned to a particular host and therefore not good at infecting other hosts is very powerful.
So it is very rare for the conditions to exist where you're in the forest, there's a monkey, it has a virus, and you get it.
That's a very hard jump for a virus to make because it's too well adapted to its host to jump into something that isn't very much like it at the molecular level or is dissimilar at the molecular level.
We then show up and presumably with the best of intentions, we start using tissues from these wild animals that presumably have their own pantheon of pathogens with no thought that we're going to end up transmitting some of these pathogens across this gap that they couldn't jump on their own.
And what I see in my mind, right, you have certain, There's a basic rule that viruses tend to evolve towards being less virulent, less harmful over time, because in general, they spread better if you're on your feet circulating amongst your kin.
There are a few exceptions, not viruses in the case I'm going to mention, but malaria actually profits from knocking you flat on your ass because it's transmitted by a mosquito that has better access to you if you're unable to even lift your arms to swat it away.
In this case, these scientists and doctors with their syringes have basically taken over the role of the mosquito, right?
They have become a vector for disease from monkeys into humans, a disease that would not afflict humans if not for their activity.
So at the very least, if we are tallying the benefits of vaccines against their costs, we have to put on that balance sheet prominently the fact that we have actually inflicted on humanity viruses that they would not otherwise suffer from in the process of trying to address other viruses.
This is madness, right?
We should never risk introducing new pathogens because we're upset about some older pathogen.
That does not make sense.
It's not a risk that any rational civilization should take.
Have you ever read The River?
I have not.
Okay.
You should read it.
It's an incredible, it's a book, and you should read all the scientific studies around it.
But to your point about since we're talking about polio vaccines, I'll might as well bring up one of the most controversial topics back in the 80s, this was 90s, this was huge controversy.
There's tons of published literature about it.
But with regards to the origin of the HIV virus and where did that come from, to your point, you know, the prevailing theory is the cut-hunter theory, right?
That at some point, some hunter in Africa, you know, cut or ate a chimpanzee and then the simian version of the HIV virus adapted to be able to infect humans.
One theory, and it's a theory, right?
And they try to use what I believe called phylogenetics, the biology, the evolution to try and say, we'll trace it back.
The other theory that was proposed in this book, The River, was that there was something called the chat trials.
Has ever heard of that?
It rings a bell, but I couldn't play so.
So Alfred Sabin's biggest competitor was Kaprowski.
Sabin and Kaprowski were in competition.
Who was going to create the first oral polio vaccine?
Kaprowski, who was from the Windstar Institute, had went to the then-controlled Belgian Congo and conducted an experiment with millions of people in 1959, 58, 59, where they gave late 50s, excuse me, where they gave them his version, not Sabin's version, of the oral polio vaccine.
And to your point, here they are in Africa.
They have to create millions of doses to administer.
Normally, the monkeys they use are from India, right?
But the theory is that they, instead of shipping monkeys from India back in the late 50s, the theory is that they used monkey chimpanzee kidneys to make their oral polio vaccines because they were locally available and they were cheap.
And there's a documentary actually of some folks who said they witnessed that happening.
You can watch documentary and judge for yourself whether you believe it.
And that then they in those vials, if that's true, and they gave those chimpanzees, used the chimp viruses, the chimp version of the simian virus would have ended up in presumably the millions of doses you gave.
And do you know where the very first two cases ever documented of human HIV are?
No.
In the capital of what's then the Belgian Congo in 1959.
They're the first two documented cases.
You know what the next lab confirmed cases of HIV are?
I think they don't come up till the 70s.
So they have, because they blew, drew blood, two cases, documented cases.
One of the participants, by the way, in those clinic, in that chat trial involving, you know, millions of then colonized, you know, Congo and Belgianese, the local population who got these drops was Dr. Stanley Plockin, who's the world's leading vaccinologist, who I also had an opportunity to depose, which is, you know, legal mechanism where he sits in a room and I get to ask him questions, which I did for nine hours.
He was part of the chat trials.
He was a participant in some ways because he was part of the Winstar Institute.
And I asked him, I said, hey, are we ever going to get, are there any samples left in the world of the actual initial chat vials?
So because we could test it to see, is it Indian monkeys or is it the African monkeys that are kidney cells in them?
And basically he told me, you know, yeah, good luck.
You're never going to find any others.
Then I said to him, I said, you know, there's a whole host of documentation around those trials.
I said, I understand it's in the library in Philadelphia.
And he said, yes, it's there.
I said, oh, wonderful.
I said, that's great.
I know it's there.
I said, well, you released it.
He said, you can watch the deposition.
He says, no.
He gave the library instructions that are only to be released after his death.
Why would you do that?
So there is a library in Philadelphia right now, as you and I talk, that have his entire papers with regards to the chat trial.
And the world's not going to be able to see them until he dies.
Well, I know the library, the Westar Institute.
All right.
I don't know if he put it in the Winstar or he put it, I can't remember now.
It's been a few years since I deposed him.
Or the University of Pennsylvania's.
No, the Wistar Institute's at the University of Pennsylvania.
Oh, okay.
Never mind.
Never mind.
I sent somebody down there from my firm to try and get the documents nonetheless, and they turned them away.
So I'm going to add something to your story.
You'll see why in a second.
The hypothesis that HIV came through the growing of poliovirus in chimpanzees was of interest to W.D. Hamilton, who many people regard as the greatest evolutionary biologist since Darwin.
I was fortunate enough to know him clearly a genius and a very courageous thinker, somebody who was willing to think thoughts imagined crazy by others and then very frequently turned out to be right.
He, in, I'm thinking it was 2000, it's within the year of 2000, went to Africa to test the hypothesis that in fact HIV had come from human use of chimpanzees in the creation of the polio vaccine.
And the story goes he contracted malaria and died from severe complications.
And then in the aftermath of his death, the hypothesis that polio vaccine creation had introduced HIV to humans was put to rest, supposedly.
But in any case, I presume his death was organic and coincidental.
But nonetheless, the fact that he was interested enough in this hypothesis to go pursue it, I think he was trying to collect monkey poop in order to do some genetic testing to see whether or not the populations in question, basically phylogenetic work to see whether I guess the HIV that is in circulation is closely related to this particular population of chimpanzees.
But I would also just point out, I don't know, presumably the Indian monkeys that would have been used would have been macaques.
And there is something, I don't know whether chimpanzees were used instead for economic reasons.
That does sound rather exactly like the sorts of people who would do this work, that they would make a decision like that based on their economic interests.
But because chimpanzees are so much more closely related to humans, the chances that something that afflicts them would be able to jump to humans is that much greater because the evolutionary distance between us and chimpanzees is only, you know, it's a six million year gap rather than a, I'm going to guess off the top of my head, at least a 25 million year gap to macaques.
So the similarity is great, and therefore the insanity of using chimpanzees to grow a product that you intend to inject into people is mind-blowing.
You know, it's a terrible logical error, you know, as stupid as it is to use something like a monkey.
It's batshit crazy to use a chimp.
And anyway, do you know what the basis of the settling of this question was?
The Royal Society, which is, as you know, is prestigious scientific institute, considered one of the most prestigious worlds, my understanding.
One of the two most prestigious, for sure.
Held a series of actual, to show you how serious this was taken back then, discussions in which they convened scientists and experts and they held these hearings and published some papers on them.
And you could read them.
Now, obviously, if it were, there's a lot of vested interests around this issue in many ways.
And so there is no settling to the question.
All there is are the data points.
There is what the phylogenetics do with this.
Well, how did it evolve?
And then there's they're the two competing theories.
And I'll just put it this way.
What is more likely?
What is Occam's razor?
Okay.
Humans in track with chimps for millions of years, no HIV.
And then the very first two cases ever documented turn out to be in the capital of the Belgian Congo right after they give millions of people this experimental, experimental, it's not the saving vaccine, experimental oral polio vaccine in these chat trials developed by the Winster Institute, which never ended up in the market after they had to, you know,
and there's eyewitnesses who say that they did use chimps.
There's other evidence that say they use chimps and so forth.
It's all in the book, The River.
What's more likely?
I can't prove which one it is.
I don't, but, you know, I can't definitively prove anything, but which one is the more parsimonious explanation?
Yes.
When you put it that way, one is wildly more parsimonious, right?
And I like the way you put it.
The point is chimp-human interactions are ancient.
You know, we're talking about millions of years, like presumably since our ancestors split from the ancestors of modern chimpanzees.
So the opportunity for the virus to jump, if that was something that would happen even from, you know, exotic circumstances like the occasional attack of a person by a chimp or, you know, contacting, you know, people starve.
They hunt chimps.
They encounter freshly dead animals while they're starving and butcher them.
The opportunities for it to jump under normal circumstances have been plenty and presumably it didn't.
So the fact that it shows up in time at the point that we start tinkering in this way, frankly, it's so reminiscent of the COVID story, right?
The COVID story, which as I understand it, after lots of painful exploration, you have a collection of viruses that circulate in bats that do not have a high capacity to infect humans.
But the people who are interested in weaponizing viruses get wind that six people whose immunity was compromised by the fact that they were shoveling guano out of a cave and so they were breathing tons and tons of dust have contracted a virus in this particular subfamily.
That tells them, oh my God, we've got a virus that has the potential to be weaponized in humans.
And so they go looking for it.
Now, mind you, it never jumped from any of the people who contracted it in the cave to anyone else.
Three of them died, three of them didn't.
But the point is, it had one of the two characteristics that could make it interesting in the human context.
It could get into a human, but it couldn't jump between humans.
So they bring it into the lab, presumably in Wuhan, but who knows?
And they train it to jump between people.
And what do you know?
The next thing, by whatever mechanism, we have a global so-called pandemic in which the thing is leaping like wildfire between people.
Again, in what seems like an entirely self-inflicted wound, a virus that would not have troubled humanity, that we are apparently going to be stuck with for the rest of our lives and well beyond because somebody couldn't resist taking their, I don't know, crude scientific ideas and rolling the dice on all of our behalf.
And I would say, you know, 50 years from now, when people look back on COVID, depending on who writes the history, if those who are currently writing history about vaccines and vaccinology and COVID and polio continue to do so, we'll look back and say, you know, that it's crazy.
It's a conspiracy.
It's mad to say that COVID originated from the Wuhan lab.
Whereas right now, anybody looking at it, can I prove to you it came out of the lab?
I can't prove that.
But what I can do is use the same logic I just used for HIV.
The closest bat cave is 700 miles away.
Okay.
You've got a premier institute that studied bats.
You've seen the cages of all the bats sitting in the cages in the Wuhan Institute, right?
Specifically to study bad viruses.
Right there, I mean, what's more parsimony?
What's more likely that the penguin slept with the pengal with the, I don't know, and then jumped with a rat and they took a boat.
I don't know.
Some weird, whatever, where is it that they came out of the lab?
Most likely it came out of the lab.
Well, I mean, even worse, you know, we have a proposal that was filed to enhance coronaviruses in exactly the way that COVID turns out to be enhanced.
And worst of all, although it's the hardest one for the public to understand, the process of getting between species is evolutionarily difficult.
There would be some trail, right?
There would be another species, or at least there would be a period in which the infections in a human population somewhere were evident.
You wouldn't get this sudden emergence of this very well-constructed virus that leaps easily between people without some history, and that history doesn't exist.
So presumably the intermediate host is the Wuhan Institute, or maybe it's Barracks Lab in North Carolina.
But whatever it is, we're telling a story that is biologically not coherent and depending on the fact that the public can't quite detect that.
I'll add two points to that, which is, and the first one, honestly, you are very qualified to talk about.
I'm very not qualified.
I don't fully understand it, but my understanding, and I've read the studies, but genetics is not a discipline I've really had to study for my work.
But they say there are genetic, there are markers, you know, in the mRNA sequence, the RNA DNA sequence of this virus that don't make sense.
That, again, the most reasonable explanation is that it was constructed by humans in the lab, not, as you just said, some natural evolutionary process.
I'll add a second point in analysis.
I would just point out the status of that is at the point that you take what I just said, it formulates a hypothesis.
The hypothesis is this did not leap directly from bats to people, that it was tinkered in the meantime.
The discovery that there are signatures in the genome that appear to be byproducts of basically the editing of the genome is the test of that hypothesis.
And what did that test show?
That yes, it shows the signatures of being tinkered.
So does that prove anything?
No, but it makes it a successful hypothesis test is a powerful piece of evidence.
In fact, it's the whole basis of the way science works.
And then the second data point to me that really stands out, again, it's just another point, a data point, right, in the bigger picture, is that when you look at most pathogens that we have, you know, let's just focus on the ones that they say are the most scary, the most dangerous, which is why we have vaccines for them.
Measles.
Measles killed about 400 people in America a year in the years before there was the first vaccine, right?
Virtually every pathogen for which we vaccinate killed dozens or hundreds.
For the ones that came back in the 40s, maybe a thousand or two.
Polio might be like the highest with a thousand-something deaths, okay?
Okay.
Contrast in America and before there was, and that's going back before, acute care, before parts of this country were still like the developing world.
This virus, they say, killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in 2020, right?
And 2021 too and so forth.
What is the parallel to that?
We don't have many parallels to that.
The closest thing would be the, you know, the flu from the, you know, 18, 1918, so forth.
But even that, I don't think that's a different era.
That's a different time.
That's before antibiotics.
That's before acute care.
That's before sanitation.
You know, the modern era, show me an equivalent.
I'm not aware of one.
All right.
So let's talk a little bit about Spanish flu because this is, you know, I described that there are three pillars that cause us to be in thrall to the public health authorities.
One of them is polio.
The story falls apart spectacularly on proper scrutiny.
The second one is Spanish flu.
Spanish flu is where we get the idea that there is a pandemic that is going to show up out of nowhere and it's going to kill millions of people and we damn well better do something about it.
The problem is that story also falls apart under scrutiny because the deaths during Spanish flu, which were terrifying because it afflicted young, healthy people again, right?
That's the really frightening thing.
It's one thing if a virus pushes people into death a little early because they were already, you know, elderly, it's bad, but it's obviously a lot less tragic than young people wiped off the face of the planet.
But what caused Spanish flu to be so deadly was two things.
One is secondary infections with bacterial pneumonia, which could now be treated with antibiotics.
So if we re-ran the 1918 flu, it wouldn't look like it does.
But the other thing, which is again so reminiscent of what happened during COVID, is that a huge number of those deaths were the result of doctors giving doses of aspirin, the new wonder drug, that are now understood to be lethal.
We gave people aspirin in such doses that they effectively drowned in their own lymph.
So that, you know, there's a question about how many people really died from COVID.
I'm not arguing that people didn't die.
In general, the ones who died were very ill.
But what did happen was doctors were primed in advance of COVID officially arriving to think that it was this incredibly deadly disease.
And so the interventions of those doctors, things like ventilators and remdesivir, actually killed a huge number of people, which then created the impression that there was this large wave of death that justified all of these extreme measures like lockdowns and masks and a mass vaccine campaign.
So I guess the overarching message, if you understand that a lot of cases of polio have been caused by the vaccine designed to prevent polio, that a huge number of deaths during Spanish flu were a self-inflicted wound as a result of us administering overly intense doses of aspirin, that this is just,
and then, you know, we've got remdesivir and ventilators and all of that.
The point is our interventions are often lethal.
And as bad as it is, your point about small numbers of people are killed by, let's say, measles.
I've heard you say elsewhere, every death is a tragedy.
I agree with you.
But the point is you need to know what the likelihood is that not only are you going to have some significant impact on reducing the number of deaths, but you're not going to cause a much larger harm of some other kind that you're not bothering to measure, right?
So what is the net effect of the measles vaccine is the only question you should want to know the answer to when deciding whether or not to go after those 400 cases and try to prevent them.
If you're going to kill 1,000 people or you're going to maim 100,000, then it's arguably not the right thing to do.
And I will stop ranting here in a second, but biology is complex.
It is therefore fundamentally unpredictable.
That's what complex means.
We should be very cautious when we intervene because the chances of unintended consequences are through the roof when we intervene in a biological system.
And again and again, we find that our arrogance results in us inflicting harms that we didn't anticipate as we try to pursue some goal that we treated as simpler than it was.
Hasles is a great example of that, isn't it?
I mean, arrogance is, I think, the right term in terms of, well, I'll just lay out some data points, then we can overlay adjectives.
You know, with measles, there were about 400 deaths a year.
Yes, every death's a tragedy.
And, you know, this was 400 deaths at a time when pockets of America were still like a developing country.
Kids can die in any pathogen in developing countries where you have poor sanitation, you name it.
But putting that in context, we talked about this earlier between 1900 and the late 50s, early 60s, measles mortality in America declined by over 98%.
There's one thing I can definitively say did not cause that.
It's a vaccine because there was no measles vaccine, but did cause it.
I suspect you could attribute a lot of it to conduct by public health officials, better sanitation, cleaner water, better living conditions, better acute medical care, right?
A lot of that stuff goes to public health officials.
They could take credit for that.
They never do.
They always just point to the vaccine from my experience.
Let's put that aside.
I think that when you look at that decline in mortality, England and Wales, for example, which didn't introduce a measles vaccine until 1968, they had a decline in mortality by over 99%.
Okay.
So most likely, would that decline continued?
Yes.
And remember, population was increasing from 1900, mortality declining.
So we're having declining mortality into an explosion of population.
In fact, we had 4.2 million births a year in the late 50s, early 60s.
We have 3.8 million births a year today.
So we actually have less.
So, you know, okay.
So let's just assume the vaccine is the reason for 400 lives saved a year in America.
But what is the effect overall?
Well, the studies in PubMed that you look at show that those that have had measles, as well as some of these other furbrow childhood infections, have far less rates of death from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other things.
That's just what the data reflects.
They're inconvenient to the public health authority narrative, but they're there.
On the cardiovascular deaths, there's really one massive study that was done in Japan.
They followed over 100,000 Japanese for 22 years.
This is by the government of Japan, major institutions.
And what they found was that after 20 years, those that had measles and mumps had a statistically a 20%, the men, a 20% statistically significant reduction in mortality from cardiovascular disease.
The women had a 17% reduction.
And the confidence intervals were tight.
I mean, for the men, it wasn't like it was the, you know, there were tight confidence intervals.
So prospective, hard to rig, highly powered, not done by anybody you would say is, you know, not, you know, was looking to find, you know, they were probably looking to find the other, the opposite.
And so what does that mean in real world terms?
Well, 900,000 Americans die a year of cardiovascular disease today.
If eliminating measles and mumps has had a 2%, we could have declined just a 2% and forget 20% reduction in that by not eliminating measles and mumps on a life years loss, because obviously a child dying versus an adult dying, different number of life years, on a life years lost basis, you are still upside down on your public health benefit.
Now, for the cancer studies, there's lots of them that looked at those that got measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and those that didn't.
And what are the rates of cancer?
Now, unlike the Japanese study, which was large, prospective, those are all smaller retrospective studies.
You know, so they're obviously more subject to confounders.
But nonetheless, they are consistent.
And what they consistently show is those that have measles and mumps, rubella, chickenpox have less cancer of various stripes.
Children that have not had measles, for example, have a 66% increase in Hodgkin's lymphoma and 166% in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, statistically significant.
That kills 20,000 people in America a year, these two types of cancers, many of them children.
50% reduction of ovarian cancer among those who have measles versus those who don't.
So, you know, from an evolutionary biology perspective, if I can go there, you know, a lot of pathogens come and go over the decades, right?
Many pathogens have come and gone.
Measles hasn't.
Measles, as the, you know, you read them in a standard math types, has been around for thousands of years.
It could be, it could be.
I'm not saying it is.
I'm saying it could be based on the data I just presented that there was a survival advantage to having measles, which is why that pathogen never went away like so many others have over the eons.
So I'll add one more point on that Japanese study.
What was incredible about that study too is they, because they had so much data, they controlled for every variable you could imagine.
You know, you can go through it and see the adjusted analysis they did.
Rarely do you see a prospective study, not only is it prospective, not only is it high power, not only is it done, it actually adjusted for almost every variable you could imagine.
And I've never seen any data to the contrary.
Well, I remain to be convinced that our relationship with something like measles persists for beneficial reasons, but I'm open to the hypothesis.
I see why you would propose it.
But at the very least, if the data is accurate on circulatory disease and cancers, this is an unintended consequence, that you are increasing a vulnerability without understanding that you're doing it and without putting it on the balance sheet.
We are narrowly focused on the one thing, which is the risk from measles itself, and we are not understanding we are intervening in a complex system.
I will say, as somebody who specializes in thinking about complex systems, who has now had a very painful education, first in COVID interventions and then in the vaccine schedule, I believe, A,
the adverse events from regular old vaccines are far more common than we imagine, including things like allergies.
I believe that my allergy to wheat is likely the result of an adjuvant that caused my immune system to react to something normal in my gut in a way that I will never be free from.
My kids, one of my sons has seasonal allergies that are significant enough to get in his way.
And the other has an allergy to dairy that I think goes back to an allergy to mother's milk, which at the time I did not understand he had, but he spit up so regularly after breastfeeding, it always perplexed me.
This is a huge waste of a precious resource.
Seems like evolution screwed up.
That doesn't make sense that it would waste all of this mother's milk in this way because our ancestors were starving, right?
It's one thing if the mother has plenty to eat.
It's another thing if the mother is resource-stressed.
You wouldn't want to surrender all of that nutrient.
So what I now think is that he developed an allergy very early, probably from an adjuvant in a childhood vaccine.
But in any case, this is all a long-winded way of saying the following thing.
Given all of that education that I have now painfully received, if I had it to do all over again, I would not end up giving any vaccines to my newborn children.
I'm not saying it's impossible that any of them are more beneficial than they are harmful, but I now know that I cannot trust the safety testing.
And so even if I saw an indication that something was net beneficial, I would have to wonder what is it that I don't know.
And instead of using vaccines as the go-to intervention to prevent pathogenic disease, I would say the slam dunk winner for preventing these diseases is creating an environment for your growing children that is as immune from novel influences as you can make it.
Right.
And I don't know how far that goes.
Certainly, at the level of their food, I would be obsessive about finding food that actually was free from pesticide residues, that was free from things like industrial products like seed oils.
I would make sure that the bedding that they were on, the carpet in their room, that nothing was off-gassing, something unnatural.
I would be concerned about radiation from Wi-Fi.
I wouldn't allow routers near their room.
My sense is if you create an environment that is hospitable to the animal itself, that their own immunity is in the best possible position to take care of the pathogenic creatures that they will encounter in life.
It doesn't make them perfectly safe.
We all get sick from stuff, but it is the best bang for the buck.
And that effectively, as is reflected in the title of your book, we have fallen into effectively a religious faith that the health of children depends on radical medical intervention.
And it just isn't true.
I agree with you that that's well said and that any environmental insult can cause harm.
I mean, vaccines are not the only one.
You know, they're forever chemicals.
There's a whole long list of them.
But to your point about chronic disease, in particular, chronic diseases that have an etiology from immune system dysregulation, those have exploded since the early 80s, right?
The data, there are data that reflect that under 10% of kids in America had a chronic health issue in the early 1980s, over 40% today.
Some data reflect over 50% and often multiple and more severe.
Seasonal allergy is one of the things that has exploded in that period of time as well, as well as some of the other conditions you just described.
When you look at the conditions that have exploded, like asthma, atopic issues, allergies, even things like ADHD and some other neurological or they often have an etiology or there's a lot of science supporting there's some kind of underlying immune system dysregulation.
Well, what's caused the immune systems of our kids to dysregulate in mass since the early 80s to today?
For that, my argument is start by looking at the product that you've gone from injecting three of in the early 80s by honorable for the first bait date to 25 today, 29 if you count COVID vaccine, okay?
Because it's a three-dose series, by the way, for Pfizer's COVID vaccine to a newborn six, seven, and nine months.
I don't know if you knew that.
I would start there.
And the studies that have done that, and they're often smaller because, you know, major institutions have not typically published these studies.
I'm not saying they haven't done them.
I'm not saying the CDC hasn't done this study.
I just know they haven't published it.
That compare kids with no exposure, which is what you're supposed to do, science, unexposed to exposed, right?
Zero vaccines to one or more.
They are consistent.
They reflect the kids who are vaccinated have multiple times the rate of these very chronic health issues that have exploded over the last few decades.
And so there is serious cause of concern.
That doesn't mean unvaccinated kids can't have health issues.
Even in these studies, some of them do, but they're at far, far less rates than their vaccinated peers.
Yeah, and it reflects the question of net effect, right?
The sales pitch on these things is: look at this disease and look at our intervention.
And, you know, the overclaiming of benefits from the intervention is extreme.
And the focus on the disease itself ignores the wider context.
The only thing a parent should care about is: is my child net better off if I go with this intervention than not?
And that's a far harder question to answer than those who are pushing these things would have us understand.
You want my definition of a vaccine?
Sure.
It's not that it prevents or doesn't prevent transmission because some do, some don't.
Most vaccines don't prevent transmission.
And it's not the technology, actually.
You know, I mean, I heard, you know, you said at the beginning that you don't consider mRNA vaccines vaccines.
And I'll tell you why I do consider them vaccines because there are lots of different technologies.
You know, Hep B vaccines are a common DNA technology.
And obviously, you could argue, well, the mRNA goes in and has the body produce the, you know, the spike that then the, you know, we can go through recommended DNA technology.
We can go through the recommended DNA technology.
We can go through different ones.
There's lots of different technologies used to make different vaccines.
To me, there's only one common feature amongst the vaccines, typically.
The most common feature is that to survive on the market, because presumably of all of the harm they'll cause, they need the federal government to give them immunity for harms.
That is the most common feature among vaccines.
More common feature than whether they stop transmission, more common than what technology they use.
Well, I get your point.
I mean, obviously, the problem is that it's circular because what we've got now is an incentive to shoehorn anything and everything into the category in order to get the immunity from liability.
And while we're on that topic, let me ask you the API.
I admit it's circular, by the way, but it's the best definition I can come up with.
It's not a circular one.
It's the best one, though.
Fair enough.
So in the recent decision not to any longer recommend the Hep B vaccine on the day of birth for children, I wondered it's insane to give this vaccine to children of mothers who have tested negative for this pathogen.
That's obvious.
And the idea that we were ever doing that tells you just how crazy our system is.
On the other hand, backing the recommendation off, you know, they backed it off pretty extremely.
They said you should consult with your doctor about whether or not it makes sense at, is it two months or no earlier than two months?
So they definitely gave a push in the direction of maybe you don't need this and the earliest you could conceivably go to it would be two months.
So we're leaps and bounds better than we were.
On the other hand, that struck me as odd.
What is the advantage of giving it to anybody at two months?
I can't find one.
And presumably, if people do have a discussion with their doctors and their doctors have been liberated by this improved guidance to say, actually, I don't think you need it because there's no Hep B in your family.
The child is safe enough on their own.
I wondered if it was left there to preserve.
Well, there's a fact here we haven't introduced yet, which is, you tell me if I'm wrong, but if a vaccine is on the CDC's childhood schedule, then the vaccine has immunity from liability even when injected into adults.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Okay.
So that loophole.
As long as it's routinely recommended on the schedule.
Routinely recommend it.
So my understanding is that the HEP B vaccine, as much as almost nobody needs it, is still recommended in the sense that it now continues to have immunity from liability.
And maybe that's the reason for the whole theater surrounding pushing the recommendation back to two months is it effectively allows people to decline the thing while leaving pharma's sweet deal with immunity from liability intact.
do you know i i'm you know i'm i can't i mean i can talk to the legal point I can't talk to the backroom dealings.
I don't know.
But in terms of the legal point, the answer is yes.
As long as the vaccine is routinely recommended on the CDC schedule, and then there's two other things that follow from that, added to the table of injuries.
And then Congress has to pass an excise tax on each dose, 75 cents.
When those three things happen, the vaccine is given immunity for live, the manufacturer, excuse me, and the doctors who administer it are given immunity for injuries that they cause of various kinds.
And so if the Hep B vaccine were removed from the schedule, or even if it remained on the schedule, but no longer routinely recommended, like COVID vaccine is now, there would be no 86 Act immunity.
That law I described earlier from 1986.
That immunity would cease to apply.
And to your point, no doubt, I don't think the vaccine makers are, from their perspective, in my mind, going from day one to two months doesn't affect their profits and doesn't affect their immunity.
So I don't think they care so much.
Okay.
You just alerted me to something I hadn't even thought to think about.
Doctors are specifically granted immunity from liability for injecting vaccines.
You also can't sue them on the basis the product could have made safer.
Oh my God.
That is such an obscene intervention in the doctor-patient relationship.
When my doctor says, I think your son ought to have this vaccine, I don't know that actually he has nothing to worry about.
And now that you say it, of course, but it just seems like your doctor should say, you should know, I have immunity from liability.
However, I do think your child should have this vaccine.
And then you would have some proper way of calibrating the recommendation.
It's like, oh.
I think your doctor should say to you, look, the bioethical literature says that if a product hasn't been properly licensed, trial before it was licensed, it's not ethical for me to recommend it to you.
And so I can't ethically even recommend that you get this HEP B vaccine because it was licensed based on a clinical trial that monitors safety for five days after injection or four days for one of the two vaccines available.
That's what they really should say.
Oh, absolutely.
A doctor should say, no, this is an insane experiment to run on children.
And, you know, health does not come from intervention.
It comes from proper developmental environments, which doesn't deny the existence of pathogens or the potential for a vaccine to have a positive effect.
But in this case, you'd be nuts to do it with your child who is otherwise in good condition.
Of course, you and I both know what would happen to any doctor who decided to do that.
Right.
And the doctor should also say, if they're really going to start saying, they say, look, and by the way, when the Institute of Medicine was commissioned by the CDC and paid by the CDC to review the, you know, over 20 of the most commonly claimed serious injuries from Hep B vaccine, the IOM said, we can't tell you what the vaccine caused because you haven't studied it.
That was the Institute of Medicine said, National Academy of Sciences.
And then he would say, hey, you know what?
But we can get a peek into what harms these vaccines cause because under federal regulations, the manufacturer does have to put on the package insert the harms they have a basis to believe are causally related, not correlation, are causally related to the product.
And so let's take a look at what that list is for Hep B vaccines for recombinant B and Andreax B.
And let me tell you, it's a very scary list.
Yeah.
All right.
I think there are a couple other topics we might want to talk before we put an end to this fascinating discussion.
One, it's obviously the place where you and I will become wild-eyed conspiracy theorists in anybody's eyes who doesn't already imagine that.
But our discussion to this point is not going to do that.
Well, I can't wait to hear what you're about to say.
Well, I want to hear what I should have known about autism back when I was a believer in the standard narrative of vaccines.
Well, it's one thing I can tell you categorically, and it's now reflected on the CDC website amazingly, which is that the claim that vaccines do not cause autism is just a religious mantra.
It's not a scientific statement.
It's not a data-driven statement.
It's not an evidence-based statement.
And I can tell you the reason I know that is because, you know, I spent a decade almost torturing the CDC for the studies to support that claim.
Just a little bit of history on that.
So when the 1986 Act was passed, there were 11 conditions listed back in 1986.
So, right, when autism wasn't even that rare, common, the Congress told HHS, that's the Department of Health and Human Services, that is the federal department in which all our health agencies are locally case, CDC, FDA, NIH, so forth.
You know this, Brett.
The Congress told HHS, hey, we need a review of whether or not pertussis vaccine can cause these conditions.
And one of them is autism.
So this is, by the way, more than a decade before MMR, Wakefield, any of that stuff, nothing to do with that.
Okay.
It's just parents saying, hey, I think my kid's autism was caused by pertussis vaccine, including a cellular as well, was part of that mandate.
HHS commissions the Institute of Medicine, which is not part of government, though it is a creation of Congress, but it sits outside of government.
And it's often, as you know, funded by government to do reviews.
So government is its client and often wants to please government.
With that said, IOM comes back in 1991 and says, can't tell you anything about pertussis and autism because you've done zero studies on this issue.
Fast forward to 2012, where again, this time it was HRSA, that's another agency in HHS that defends against vaccine injury claims because you can sue, it's not a suit.
You can bring a claim for vaccine injury.
You just don't do it against manufacturer.
You bring it against HHS and they fight you with DOJ attorneys and put your hands behind your back because you don't get any of the normal advantages you would have in a lawsuit.
So because it's not really a lawsuit.
Anyways, so obviously what they wanted is for the Institute of Medicine to find the 158 conditions they gave them are not caused by vaccines.
Anyways, when they came back, they said for over 130 of them, the most commonly claimed injuries, they said, sorry, Hursta and CDC, we can't tell you vaccines don't cause them.
You haven't done the studies, including whether Pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccine don't cause autism.
Fast forward to 2019.
On behalf of ICANN, which is the Informed Consinas Network, which is a nonprofit, a client of our firm, on which we do a lot of our vaccine policy work, we submitted a FOIA request to CDC.
We said, hey, CDC, can you please give us the studies that show that DTAP, given three times the first six months of life, don't cause autism.
HIB, HEPI, IPV, PCV, each one of those, given three times each first six months of life, don't cause autism.
We did that for two reasons.
One, you say vaccines don't cause autism.
And two, surveys of parents of kids with autism, these are published literature.
40 to 70% point to vaccines as the cause of the autism.
And what vaccines do they point to?
The ones I just listed, plus MMR, which is not given until at least the first year of life.
CDC came back and gave us nothing.
So we sued them in federal court, sued them in the southern district of New York, just to be clear.
Didn't sue them in Texas.
Went right into, you know, not friendly court system.
Okay.
Okay.
Days before we were going to have our initial conference, I finally got a list of 20 studies, right?
At that point, they're represented by the Department of Justice.
Called the DOJ attorney and I said, listen, I looked at your list.
19 of these have nothing to do with the vaccines in the first six months of life on the CDC schedule.
They're all about MMR or an ingredient, the Merisol, which is not in any of these vaccines.
One of them is the 2012 IM review I just told you about.
Okay.
And I said, it even says there are no studies that show that DTAP doesn't cause autism.
In fact, there was only one study they could find in 2012 that the IM could find.
And that study did show an association between DTAP vaccine and autism.
But the Institute of Medicine threw it out because they said there was no unvaccinated group and it was based on VARES reports.
Okay.
It's always interesting that whenever they want to throw a study out, they say, oh, there's no unvaccinated group.
But they're very fine, happy relying on studies with no unvaccinated group to say vaccines are safe.
Anyways, put that aside.
So I said, are you sure the CDC that this is the list the CDC wants to rely upon?
Because we're putting this in a stipulation.
You're signing it.
You're signing behalf of the CDC.
I'm signing it on behalf of my client.
And the judge is going to enter it as an order of the court.
Came back and said, this is the list.
I signed it on behalf of ICANN.
He signed it on behalf, the DOJ signed it on behalf of the CDC.
The judge entered as an order of the court in 2020.
So here it is.
I've got, what more can I do to get the science?
I mean, I literally sued them, chased them through federal court, and this was what they could produce.
And, you know, I've since 2020 still seen nothing.
We've even given them another chance.
You'd love this, Brad.
We sent them another FOIA request even after that.
Give you another chance.
They still have not produced any studies to support that that claim doesn't cause autism.
Forget the science that supports it does.
I'm just saying they can't say it doesn't.
Right, which is an amazing fact.
Effectively, it goes again to the title of your book.
What this says is that the idea that it doesn't cause autism is simply an article of faith, not based on scientific work at all.
Which is true of so many of the claims about vaccines.
And it's exactly why I titled my book, What I Title is After a Decade of Doing This Work.
And I can tell you, I didn't go into it thinking that, like, oh, you know, I didn't, when I started, the first data point I ever had was the 86 Act.
And it wasn't like, oh, that's it, they're horrible.
I have no idea.
I didn't know what the trials were.
But I will say, as the years went on, and the more work I did in this area, the more I've realized there's what the public health officials, health officials tell you, and there's what the actual data, primary sources show you.
And those things are often not only at odds, they're just contradictory.
Well, what I've learned, and I think you're reflecting it admirably here, is that there is a basic and completely unjustified assumption that these interventions carry no risk.
And given that assumption, many of us parents look at them and think, well, this is all benefit.
You know, the worst it could be is ineffective.
And if there's no risk and the worst I'm risking is that it doesn't work, then it was still worth doing.
And when you understand, actually, no, there's profound risk, and the impression that there's no risk is largely from the avoidance of the evidence and that the manufacturers have an incentive not to look for evidence because they don't want to be caught knowing about it, then the whole thing falls into place.
Which raises one last question.
It's a little, I'm just going to put it out there.
Sure.
The more I learn about the relationship that these manufacturers and their captive regulators have with these what I now understand to be radical interventions, the more I'm convinced that they can't really be giving them to their own kids.
Now, I know there are lots of people in the regulatory apparatus who are actually true believers of this church and presumably do vaccinate their kids and presumably suffer the same rates of harm.
But do the manufacturers who clearly demonstrate an awareness that they are avoiding information, do you think that they give them to their own kids?
I could say this: that the CDC's own data and the studies that review who is the population in America that chooses to not vaccinate, right?
Not because of access, not because of, but they've made the affirmative choice to give zero vaccines.
They are often highly educated, often with PhDs, often with advanced degrees, and often, you're going to love this in the sciences, they're very scientifically literate.
Why would that be?
And if that, if that data is pretty consistent, the CDC laments it, by the way, in some of their writings, then it would stand to reason that, yes, there are those in our health agencies and in pharmaceutical companies who don't vaccinate their children.
I can tell, so that's point one.
Two, I will say that I am directly aware of individuals who are in these agencies, as well as in pharmaceutical companies who don't vaccinate for one reason, either because we interact with them or we represent them or for some other reason.
And, you know, on the so, you know, how many of them, I can't tell you, but certainly there are.
The number of children who are actually vaccinated in America is, according to the CDC, they say that around 2% of kids, depending on what data you look at, at two years of age, there are zero vaccines.
I will tell you separately that I'm, you know, that in states across, there are lots of places, Cali, New York, where you can't get an exemption of any kind.
And so, you know, a lot of kids there seem like they're vaccinated when they're not.
What is the actual number?
I think it's pretty significant.
And on the point of risks, since you brought up risks as part of that, you know, the way I think about risks, risk is this: let's use HEP vaccine.
So if you're a non-HEP B vaccine positive mother, what is the number needed to inject or number needed to treat to prevent one case of chronic HEP B?
That's your benefit.
What is that number?
Is that number one in five kids?
So you better make sure it doesn't harm more than one in five, less than one in five.
Is it one in 10?
The data appear to reflect is something like it depends on whose dad you're looking at.
I think you might have heard one of the current ACE medica said it's one in a few hundred thousand kids you need to inject.
Let's be conservative.
Some data reflect this one in 60, 70,000.
Okay.
Okay.
That means you better make sure that you're not harming more than one in 60 or 70,000 kids.
That's the kind of risk numbers we're talking about.
To your point, they often inflate the benefit of these products as if every injection is saving a child.
It's not.
You've got to really look at this objectively.
How many needles you need to stick and how many kids before you get one benefit?
Then you got to look at the risk.
And I will tell you, like on that HEP B example, just based on the HEP work that our firm does representing people injured by that product, either representing them in that federal program I told you about or from other data or from case reports out there.
You've got 3.8 million babies born a year right now.
If one in 80, 70,000, I think you're upside down on your risk benefit.
I mean, you look at that data, just, and that's the way to do it.
Most kids who get HEP B vaccine at least appear in the moment to be okay.
I mean, not the, there's a child, there was an infant, a newborn who died on the first day of life from a Hep B vaccine, adjudicated as such in this program, where it's really almost impossible to get compensated for a dead baby because it's a policy program.
They really don't want to do it.
Adjudicated.
You know what I've never, you know what a baby has never died from on the first day of life?
Hep B.
They died from a vaccine.
So, you know, it's, it's, if the, if, if vaccines are causing the chronic health conditions that these series of studies all seem to show, wow, then, you know, and even double, like if it's 50% of the increase, childhood vaccines are causing an incredible amount of harm across America.
Okay.
But even putting that aside, just looking at the more acute issues that are not contested that vaccines can cause, and you look at it really carefully from a number needed to treat and the number, it doesn't look that good.
Well, I don't resent many things.
I try to avoid it, but I resent that I was not educated on number needed to treat the difference between absolute and relative risk, things like that.
Turns out we have tools to very precisely describe the cost-benefit analysis that you need to do in order to justify any of these shots.
And if you understand how the benefits are inflated and how the risks are downplayed and what you're really saying, what are the chances, Doc, that this shot helps my child?
Oh, one in 100,000, 1 in 70,000.
Did I say that correctly?
That this shot helps my child?
Yeah.
Yeah.
If you knew that those were the kinds of numbers you're talking about, then you can put it against, well, what don't we know about this shot?
What do we know about what this does to this child in adulthood, right?
Having gotten this early in life.
You could at least begin to make an informed choice, but we simply don't educate people, which makes us vulnerable to the sales pitch, which is really what it is, which often comes from your doctor who you're not in a good position to question.
And, you know, the whole thing is a kind of theater designed to sell a product.
Yeah, I'll give you an example of the truly religious conviction that these, you know, those push these vaccines have.
So we represent, along with Co-Council, the Amish community in New York, okay, a number of years back, they went in and they've levied ruinous fines on these Amish schools and hence communities for their kids going to these one, you know, 20 kids in a room, no air conditioning, no electricity, you know, one teacher teaching them.
And they basically wanted, you know, an Amish land and Amish schools.
They don't take government money.
You know, they're living by themselves.
They just want to be left alone, live how they've lived for 200 years here.
But these public health officials basically want to either force them to violate their religious beliefs or kick them out of New York, right?
If these Amish won't do what?
Adopt the public health authority's religious beliefs, because that's what they are.
And I'll show you why.
First of all, the Amish, part of the reason they don't want to give these vaccines is, for example, one is they have a way of life and they want to live that their traditional way of life.
Two, they find abortion abhorrent.
And in every single vial of MMR vaccine, every single one that you inject, there are billions of pieces of human DNA from the cultured cell line of abortive fetus in every single dose, as well as cellular debris.
They don't want to participate in that.
So they have their religious reasons.
They have their way of life.
And here's another fact.
The three schools that they tried to shut down to then start going after others, the parents of those children, amongst them, have 168 kids.
Amongst those 168 kids, you know how many cases of asthma there are?
Zero.
You know how many cases of all of the different chronic health conditions plaguing American children are?
None.
They don't have any.
There should be like 12 cases of asthma.
There should be a whole host.
And we set this out in our court papers in a sworn declaration from a doctor who went and reviewed all of this.
And we set it out.
We said, look, kids are healthy.
They are healthier than the kids around you.
What do you want?
You're so upset that they're so healthy that you want to make sure they're just as healthy as the kids in the surrounding community.
Not to be sure.
There are other confounders.
They drink raw milk, though I know a lot of Americans that drink raw milk.
Raw milk, which presumably the state of New York is also not keen on.
Yeah, but they can.
And then obviously there are other lifestyle factors.
Obviously, vaccines are not the only one.
But again, to my point about what's causing immune system dysregulation, I would start there.
But, you know, the zeal, like the zeal, this is a 20,000-person community altogether, right?
You just want to, they only go to school till eighth grade.
You just want to basically force them to break their way of life because the schooling that they do is part and parcel of their religious upbringing there, right?
This is how this is how the level of zealotry amongst those with these products, the idea of looking even at number needed to treat versus harm is they're not doing that.
No, they don't, they won't even, you can't even engage with them in that way without them getting upset.
Well, I think you're misunderstanding them.
Oh, please tell me.
The zeal is because you have to get rid of that control group.
Otherwise, the scam will be revealed.
You can't have the Amish as the demonstration.
If they're not going to run placebo-controlled trials because they do not want the actual danger of their products revealed, the Amish are the loophole, right?
The Amish tell the tale.
And so their zeal reveals that they're actually willing to maim Amish children in order to protect their racket.
And, you know, I wish the reality weren't that stark.
I'm sure lots of the people involved in the tyranny in New York don't know what they're party to, but the people driving it surely do.
And the point is, it's not like they can't even allow the exception of the Amish.
The answer is, oh, of all things, they can't allow the exception of the Amish because they're the control for the rest of us.
So the Amish, as well as just the kids that are unvaccinated in this country.
I mean, after in 2019, New York State eliminated the only non-medical exemption.
So if you want to go to school in New York, you have to get vaccines because they won't give you medical exemptions.
It's not based on clinical judgments, based on this ridiculous list from the CDC.
So there's one county in New York where they gathered all of the forms that they need to submit to school.
So these are New York state-created forms that list pretty much every health condition a kid could have, filled out by mainstream pediatricians.
And what they did is they gathered that form for every unvaccinated kid in that county.
Okay.
And they provided it to our firm.
They also had a doctor interview every one of these families to confirm that indeed there were no chronic health issues.
Or if there were, it's a document.
And there were a few, there were a few.
And what we did is we took that data.
Now we're not a scientific organization.
We're just a law firm.
Well, we just did a basic comparison.
We said, hey, amongst these unvaccinated kids, this percent had this condition.
This is the background rate nationally or New York based on the data available.
And you can look at those two columns and man, they are stark.
They are really stark.
The unvaccinated kids.
Now, could this be a, you know, it was, the letters are linked in my book and I go through it.
But maybe the most damning part is how the New York State Health Department responded to our letter.
They didn't respond to it in substance in any way.
They're just like vaccines are safe and effective.
It was just a slogan of mantras without really engaging in a real world example.
They should have been rushing into that county to see why is this?
They should be, but they don't want to engage in it.
And look, it's not you and me, Brett, who are saying they should do this comparison.
As you might know, this in 2013, right, the Institute of Medicine was commissioned by HHS to look at the safety of the entire child immunization schedule.
They were commissioned before that.
Sorry.
They published a report in 2013.
And what they said is, we can't find any studies that compare vaccinated with unvaccinated kids, which is what we would need to look at whether the childhood schedule is safe.
So they said, we can't, but we haven't found evidence that it's not safe.
Of course, that's not very comforting.
But they did say you can do a vaccine vax study using historical data, including the CDC's vaccine safety data link.
The CDC, which has 10 million individuals in it, I would estimate over 20,000 completely unvaccinated kids in it.
The CDC went and then commissioned a white paper for hundreds of thousands of dollars on how to do this comparison.
They could have given me $0.
I could have told them it's super simple.
Just compare all ICD-910 codes from kids whose daddy you have longitudinally from birth onward, but okay, fine.
They published this white paper in 2015.
They still haven't done, okay, sorry.
They still haven't published that study.
Do you think they haven't done it?
Or do you think they haven't, you know, it seems unlikely.
I think that the most likely explanation they've done it.
They just can't get the results to show what they want.
So they just never published it.
All right, which brings me to what will be the final question for you.
Sure.
Immunity from liability is the root of much evil, let us say.
The immunity from liability only stands.
You tell me if I've got this wrong, but it only stands assuming that they have not committed fraud.
The immunity remains even if they commit fraud, but you can sue them for fraud.
Fraud is one thing you can sue for.
Let me put this, though, in perspective.
To bring a lawsuit for fraud, you can't just allege the fraud.
I can sue somebody for a negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, you name it.
I can sue for almost anything.
And I don't need to do, I don't need to plead with particularity.
That's what the federal rules require.
Meaning, if I'm going to sue you for fraud, I need to have specificity with regards to the allegations that underlie the fraud.
I can't just plead them in general, which I could do for other types of claims.
So if I sued for failure to warn or if I sued for design defect, you could have made the product safer.
I could just say, you could have made that product safe through my allegations and put some allegations in.
So there's a very high bar that I need to hit to file a complaint and survive a motion to dismiss.
And I need to have basically that kind of insider information to substantiate the fraud.
There is one example I can give you where a pharmaceutical company was sued around fraud, and that's Gardasil vaccine, because there were allegations, just enough allegations of fraud that are really damning.
My goodness, they're damning.
That survive a motion to dismiss, and that lawsuit was able to continue.
To be clear, most all the claims were dismissed other than fraud, meaning the immunity stuck, but the fraud claim could remain.
Most of what's wrong with vaccines has nothing to do with fraud in the sense of, you know, to prove fraud, you have to show that you intended to deceive, the person relied on it to their judgment.
I mean, there are elements to fraud.
The problem with vaccines are ones that you could have made them safer.
You did it.
That's not fraud.
They're just doing what the system allows.
So scientific fraud and legal fraud are distinct concepts, but there's a lot of scientific fraud in the pretense of safety of these things, which I would point out.
So we're in a sort of adjacent area with respect to the science and the fraud conducted there.
We're also in an adjacent area when we talk about the right to informed consent, which derives from Nuremberg.
And the point is the fraud in the science area is a conspiracy to deny informed consent to the patient.
And those things don't interface well, it sounds like, with the legal landscape where fraud has this narrow definition and requirements.
But in terms of the intent of Nuremberg and the importance of science in the question of becoming informed in order that you can consent or not, these things are vital.
And so I guess I'm wondering if there's not some reckoning to be had where we upgrade the quality of the law so that those who use fraudulent science to deny you informed consent are properly dealt with.
So let's put that in a context of something concrete so we can clearly delineate between the scientific fraud you're talking about and the legal fraud.
So the RecombaVax HB, the very first recommended DNA technology vaccine ever in history licensed in the United States, just like the mRNA vaccine was the first one ever.
It's revolutionary to its time in 1986, was licensed for children based in a clinical trial with 147 kids, five days of safety monitoring, and no control group.
Okay.
You might call that fraud, right?
Scientific fraud or scientific misconduct or it's unethical.
Maybe you would call it that.
But from a legal perspective, did they hide that from the public?
It's right there in the package insert.
It's right there in the publicly available clinical trial documents.
Yeah, I wouldn't call that fraud, but I would call some other things.
You know, when you hide deaths, right?
Or when you evict people from the treatment group so that their pathology doesn't show up in the final report, these things are fraud.
If it doesn't follow the, so for example, I think you're talking about COVID-19 vaccines.
So for all the COVID-19 vaccines, the main ones in the U.S., the clinical trial protocols, which by the way is not often typically not released, we've gotten them for other vaccines because we have to FOIA them.
They released, they were like this, like a book, the protocol that they were going to, for the clinical trials for Pfizer, Moderna, and so forth.
So what you just described, if it fit within those protocols, which if you read them, I've read some of them, you know, were very loose, which gave them incredible discretion in many ways.
They told you they were going to do it.
They released the report.
It has to actually, let me give you the example of one that is more for, like in Gardasil, for example.
Gardasil being the HPV vaccine.
HPV vaccine.
So in the Gardasil trial, there were instances of It's what you just described, which, in my view, did violate the protocol, where they did brush under the rug harms reported by young women in that trial that were very concerning, including various forms of dysautonomia.
In fact, some of these young girls, women and girls, were told, well, that's not kind of harm.
This is incredible.
that we would see from this vaccine.
How did the researchers know that?
What is dysautonomia?
Dysautonomia is so your autonomic nervous system.
That's the nervous system.
I mean, you know this, but for the audience, that's the nervous system that your body has where you're, I don't have to think about it.
You know, your heart's beating, your lungs are going.
My hands, my moving my hands is not part of my autonomic nervous system because I'm controlling that.
The parts of my nervous system that I don't think about, like my balance, my sense of balance, that happens automatically, where you know you are in space.
I know where I am.
I know that's your autonomic nervous system.
And when your autonomic nervous system has an issue, it's called dysautonomia.
And they knew somehow because the Oracle on the mountain told them that this vaccine did not cause that weird problem.
You know who broke that story incredibly?
I believe it was Slate magazine, which one of the few publications you think would do this.
And what Slate did, to their credit, to their incredible credit, they went and they matched up clinical trial participants with the clinical trial reports.
And then they met and interviewed some of them.
And then they said, okay, this is what the company submitted to the FDA and said, but this is what the individual actually said they told the clinical investigators.
And they found those disconnects.
And those disconnects then became part of the overall allegations that permitted, that allowed that suit to just squeak by and get past a motion to dismiss, amongst other things, which you often normally don't have.
It's hard.
That is hard, long work.
I'm amazed they pumped the resources in to do that.
All right.
So one thing I wanted to say to you about the issue of fraud, scientific versus legal, is it sounds to me like they've got you convinced that as long as they carve themselves enough leeway in their description of their scientific method, that it isn't fraud in the scientific context.
And this is just not right.
There are certain things you have to do in order for the conclusions that you reach to be justified by the evidence you've collected.
Scientific fraud involves you behaving in a way to get to a result, even though the evidence you've collected does not support it.
And so there are lots of ways that this is accomplished.
But the idea that they can get out of jail free by writing a very broad leeway for them to pull hijinks within their study is not sufficient to avoid the conclusion that it's scientific fraud.
How that interacts with legal fraud, I don't know, but I would somebody needs to police the question of, did they knowingly run an experiment that would not reveal the harm?
If they did that, that's scientific fraud if they then go on to claim the harm isn't there.
Well, I mean, I think every single vaccine clinical trial is designed specifically to avoid finding Harm or harm in a manner that would avoid licensure.
Exactly.
So, but the FDA blesses it.
Yep.
The documents, the fraud is, so to speak, in the open.
Yep.
They're not, you know, when you, when they, they, they licensed Prevnar 7 against another experimental vaccine, it's outrageous, but they didn't hide it.
If it was hidden and they claimed it was a placebo, that's fraud.
Well, it's hidden by a complexity threshold.
They know full well that the public and even most doctors aren't going to pursue the matter far enough to find the fraud.
The tiny percentage of people who, for whatever reason, are driven to go look and think carefully about what it is on the package insert in the method section of the study.
Those tiny number of people look at it and they say, wait a minute, what the hell happened here?
And then they get demonized as anti-vaxxers and the rest of the public goes on unawares.
But the point is, yes, that system is built to support certain kinds of fraud.
And those frauds are sophisticated enough that they do not have to be hidden.
They are just simply a little boring.
You know, it takes a lot of hours of sorting through these things to find exactly how they worked.
And almost nobody's going to do the work.
Somehow, the press is MIA, the regulators are captured, and the public is not well equipped to do the work.
And so the system marches on.
So, look, I completely agree.
We got to hold them accountable.
Trust me.
And every tool available, I would love to deploy them.
I'll give you an example where I think it's pretty close to what you're describing, where there is some legal action going on around the country.
And that's from the COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine trial, where so the FDA licensed Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine after reviewing the data for effectively a good number of weeks.
Then, when we FOIA to get the underlying documents, they reviewed in weeks to say this is safe and effective.
They wanted to produce it at a rate of 500 pages a month, which back then, first it meant 55 years because they first said there were 350,000 pages, then it was 75 years because it 450,000 pages.
Turns out, by the way, it was 1.8 million pages, really means they wanted to wait hundreds of years to give all the documents.
And as you know, until you have all the data sets, you can't really do an analysis properly.
Anyways, luckily, we prevailed in the suit and the judge ordered that it all be produced.
And the idea at the time when the judge issued that order, he thought it would all be produced within a year because the judge thought, as we did, it was 450,000 pages.
The FDA, knowing full well, by the way, right around that time, it was 1.8 million pages because from a different FOIA request that we got almost a year later, where they issued the request for bids to review the pages, they said it was 1.8 million pages.
They knew.
Let's just put that aside, that they deceived us, deceived the court.
When we finally got, we have all the documents over time.
Folks like Dr. Peter Doshi reviewed them and so forth and others.
And what they uncovered, and it's actually, it's in a BMJ article, is that They announced that the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective.
What they were basing it on was around eight cases, symptomatic cases of, I'll call it sniffles in the vaccinated group and around 160 cases that tested positive for COVID, excuse me, and about 160 cases of effectively, mostly sniffles, that tested positive for COVID.
So you're like, oh, 95% effective.
But what the underlying documents show is that there were thousands and thousands of other folks who are symptomatic who were not part of this calculation.
This is at a time when, if you recall, in 2020, they told everybody to test daily.
But yet in this trial, they didn't do that.
They didn't even test everybody weekly.
They didn't even test anybody on any regular interval.
How and who did they choose to test to this day is mercurial to me.
So if you were going to look under the hood, you should have looked under the hood of that 95% number.
Separately, there is something that doesn't have any gamesmanship behind it, and that's deaths, because death is binary, typically, either dead or alive, typically.
Okay.
And there were 21 deaths in the vaccinated group and 17 in the placebo group during the period there was a placebo group.
They're obviously after they did the crossover and the placebo group were vaccinated.
There were more deaths in the vaccinated group.
Not counting those.
I'm saying during the period, apples to apples, 21 deaths to 17.
There, did they do a statistical comparison like with the 95?
No.
Because from my perspective, that doesn't fit the belief.
So they let Pfizer explain each death away, even though, by the way, if you look at the underlying cause of each death, there was almost twice as many deaths from cardiovascular issues in the vaccine group.
Let's just put that aside.
So that all got explained away.
So these types of approach that were FDA continenced are the subject to various degrees of complaints brought against Pfizer by attorney generals around the country,
because unlike private attorneys, civil litigants, like that I can bring, the tools that I have, they have broader criminal and criminal/slash civil type claims they can bring that do not have immunity under the 1986 Act.
So they're able to get at them in different ways.
And those suits were filed and are, you know, are being litigated.
That's good news.
You know, obviously the picture you're painting suggests, you know, I really do like the title of your book quite a bit because what you're describing is foregone conclusions, right?
They make a product.
It is presumed safe and effective.
And then scientific work is done to justify those presumptions.
These things are not tested.
Deaths are explained away.
Efficacy is created by the scheme in which you decide who to test and who not to.
It's obvious scientific fraud.
But superficially, what you find is work that looks scientific, that spits out conclusions that, if you don't know how they were generated, seem to justify these things.
So that's going to be a hard swamp to drain.
It will.
And it's going to be a hard swap to drain because there's no money to interest on the side of getting to the truth.
All the money to interest is on one side of this issue.
And until recently, until Secretary Kennedy and the current administration, you know, you had the entire federal and state health system apparatus marching to the same beat and drum.
And, you know, I know Bobby's, he's trying, but he's got the 65,000 careers below him to fight with and others around him too.
So, yeah, it is going to be a very tough swamp to drain, which is why, you know, my focus for my work is, you know, I don't know how to lobby Congress to get rid of the 86 Act.
They got a pharma's 1,000 lobbyists and there's, you know, I don't know of any vaccine safety lobbyists.
And I don't know how to get pharma companies to do proper clinical trials or, you know, or get the FDA to stop being a pom-pom cheerleader for these products.
To this day, FDA website promotes vaccines.
They're a regulator.
They're supposed to be there to assure they're safe and effective objectively.
How can you do that when you're literally pom-pom cheerleading these products on your own website?
Okay.
And look, CDC, you know, it's the same thing.
And so fixing these agencies is tough.
Getting the companies to work against their financial interest is tough.
Getting Congress to do its right is tough.
So what is the last stop in this whole train of horribles, in my view?
The last stop is your ability to say no, which is why this is a civil and individual rights issue.
And that's what I focus on, which is, and most of the work that we do, which is trying to assure that at the end of the day, every parent in this country has the right to say no without any penalty to the Nuremberg Code you described earlier.
Because if you inform me and then I say no, but you say, okay, fine, you can say no, but now you can't go to school, you can't get a job, you can't participate in society.
What good is my no?
I don't really have them.
That's not consent.
That's not consent.
That's coercion.
Or even worse, depending, right?
Especially when you're involved in injecting something into the body.
You can call that assault, you call it battery, you call it all kinds of things.
And when they say to deep, you know, we shouldn't politicize vaccines, that that's what I'm doing, politicizing vaccines.
I agree we should depoliticize vaccines.
And the only way you do that is to get them out of politics, which means get rid of mandates, persuade people on the merits about these products.
So the point is that I don't know how to fix the swamp, but people should be able to say no at the end of the line.
And to me, that's the last line.
That's the last safeguard at the end of the train of issues.
Well, I think there is, you know, you've pointed to the important leverage points.
And I agree at the end of the day, it comes down to informed consent.
They should have one tool at their disposal.
They can try to persuade us that a product is net beneficial.
We have their absolute right to say no.
But the way to get the swamp drained is for President Trump to use the bully pulpit to get the liability protection removed.
Then we will find out how many of these products their manufacturers actually believe in.
That will wake people up to the fact that they need to scrutinize each one of these.
And, you know, that isn't very many steps.
And frankly, I think what I understand from behind the scenes is that President Trump does deeply care about the welfare of children, that he is concerned about harms done to them by the childhood vaccine schedule, that he has empowered Bobby Kennedy, Jay Bhattacharia for a reason,
which is that he wants the chronic health epidemic addressed.
And so this would be a great place for him to score a major win with the public when he needs it most.
So I hope he will do it.
Yeah, we're the land of the free, right?
So let's just be as free as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, most provinces in Australia, Canada that have no mandates.
So I completely agree.
And I think President Trump, you saw his tweet or whatever on a truth social that he put out the other day.
where he gave a mandate to Bobby to look at all the other country schedules and see what is the best thing to do.
You know, when you look at Denmark, Denmark's schedule has nine less, forget doses.
I'm talking about how many shots.
I'm talking about vaccines.
Nine less vaccines on its schedule.
They're just not even there.
They don't have a Hep B shot.
They don't have an RV rotavirus shot.
They don't have an RSV shot.
They don't have a flu shot.
They don't have a COVID shot.
They're no D-TAP, no mingoca.
I mean, it's, I mean, that alone.
And it's not, by the way, it's not that it's just not on the schedule.
They don't give these shots to kids.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Yeah.
You know what their Hep B rate vaccination rate is in Denmark for kids?
Is it zero?
It's like 0.01% because they only give it to HEPI positive mothers.
I don't even think my understanding from talking to a Danish researcher the other day, you can't even get a Hep B shot for your kid in Denmark, even if you want it, unless they're born to a Hepi positive mother or they're at high risk.
You know what their hepatitis B rate amongst children is?
Not statistically significantly different than America.
Well, there you go.
That tells you something.
Tells you a lot.
So I guess I would say, yes, I saw President Trump's mandate to Kennedy.
I think we need another one on vaccine manufacturer liability.
It's time for that to go.
Well, if Trump's directive is followed and the U.S. adopted, let's say, one of these schedules.
So in the case of the Danish schedule, for example, that would mean nine vaccines would lose their immunity.
You don't need to repeal the 86 Act because once they're no longer routinely recommended on the PC schedule, now I get it.
It'll be time limited until the next administration, but it would be for some period of time.
Yeah, it'd be good.
But my feeling is I don't want this game anymore.
As we said at the top, you create the niche, the monsters are going to evolve to fill it.
As long as there's a target where they can escape the courts, then we're going to be stuck with these dangerous products.
I want that exception removed.
And you nailed it at the beginning.
You said, look, this is the only product that has this immunity from liability.
That's obviously not necessary if they truly are safe.
They aren't.
So let's allow the market and the courts to do what the market and the courts do well, right?
They can render these things safe if we can liberate people to sue those who harm them.
I'll add, I'll make it even worse.
Think about drugs that are only given to limited populations that we know cause a lot of harm, have a lot of adverse reactions.
They can be sold profitably.
Vaccines given to millions surely can as well, because what do they do with those drugs?
Number one, they make them as safe as technologically feasible.
So you can't sue them for design defect claims.
And they disclose the actual risks of the product.
So you can't sue them for failure to warn.
Those are the two primary ways you hold a pharma company accountable for one of their medical products for a drug.
Why don't they just do that with vaccines?
Why don't they just make them as safe as technologically feasible and disclose, actually disclose all the risks, right?
If they did those two things, they would generally be protected as well.
You got to really ask yourself why they won't just do that.
And why 40 years after a HEP's vaccine has been on the market, we still don't know it's safe enough to lift the immunity.
I would hate to be on the other side of this argument, you know, to try and defend why they still need the immunity 40 years later, that we still don't know it's safe enough.
Right.
And, you know, if the immunity from liability disappeared, the number of vaccines that would be quickly pulled from the market would shock people because what that says is they actually know which ones are safe and which ones aren't.
And there are a lot that aren't.
I should add, I don't know if they'll be pulled so quickly.
I'll tell you why.
Okay.
Okay.
And this from, so when you look at drug products, like look at GLP1s, right?
Look at Ozempic and so forth.
There are a lot of drug products that cause harm, but they make a lot of money.
And so it's not like this, the second the company identifies the harm, they just pull the product.
What happens is that the plaintiff's firms around the country, like my firm, for example, or other firms, we start accumulating cases, right?
We get calls.
You want to know what harms a drug causes?
Call a plaintiff's firm.
That's how you're going to know who's calling them for what harms, right?
People don't call a law firm for fun and then just say, oh, this vaccine caused this or this drug caused this.
They don't do that, right?
They're calling you because I got a serious issue after the product.
Now, as those cases get accumulated, lawsuits start getting filed.
Eventually, those lawsuits get compiled.
Solidarity is going to be called a multi-district litigation where they all get consolidated before one judge for thousands and tens of thousands.
The process, that process often takes seven years to a decade.
During that period of time, the company is gauging what's going on, and they're often creating a kitty.
So they're doing the math.
They're going to sell 60 billion.
They're setting aside 20, and they'll pay that 20 out at the end of the road.
They'll still have made 40.
And that's good.
That still works, including the time value of money, that works out fine.
And you'll see that repeated over and over.
Drug products go off the market all the time.
That's often the process to what I just described to you.
So I don't know if the vaccines will go off immediately.
They make a lot of money.
I mean, you're talking $50 billion, $60 billion.
That's a lot of money to pay out in damages.
So it depends on the product.
I think, you know, how quickly and when they go.
But I think it's probably will just be that normal course that I just described.
Because remember, when they lift the immunity, it's most likely not going to be retroactive.
It's not like anybody was harmed.
It's only going to be from that moment typically going forward.
It depends how Congress does it going forward.
If they make it non-routine, presumably it would be the same thing.
So I mean, my experience around, you know, because it would put it in a drug category, would be that's how it would typically get most likely get rolled out, which is why I guess to your point that if they go to the approach of making it non-routine, it would need to stay that way for long enough for that for that to happen, which, you know, that process to occur.
All right.
Well, I prefer my prediction to yours, but yours sounds like it might be born of a lot of experience.
I hope you're right.
Yeah.
Well, fair enough.
Okay.
Anything else you want to say before we wrap this up?
Oh, I feel like I said a lot already.
Yeah, I'll just add this.
I'll say, look, you know, because I think you've got a diverse audience.
And obviously a lot of folks watch because they've got issues with vaccines or some maybe not.
And I think at the end of the day, and I think this is really important, is that, you know, we don't have to think vaccines are good or they're bad or we're anti or we're pro.
They're just products.
I don't think that this cup is good or bad or I'm anti-approved.
I just think it's a cup.
It could be good.
It could be bad.
It matters what you make it with.
It could harm me.
It might not.
And I think when people start thinking about vaccines as products again, it's just stop believing in them.
When there's a critical mass in this country that does that, I do think, Brad, that we will see that kind of change that could happen in the legislature and in the court system.
We've seen it happen.
I've seen it happen over the last decade alone.
As more and more judges are willing to think of them as products and address with the evidence, and as legislatures are, you're seeing better outcomes in the courts.
You're seeing better outcomes in the legislative house, but that's also a reflection of the cultural cognition.
And so more folks who take the moment to actually educate themselves about these products.
And I know people say all the time, well, you know, I don't have time to do that.
I don't have time to research like every product I engage with.
And my response is this.
You don't need to worry that much about most products.
You should worry because over time, the market will correct.
There's self-correction that happens.
It takes time, like I just said on the drugs, but there is self-correction.
There will never be self-correction, at least if things continue as they are with vaccines.
And for something you give a baby, you should do some homework.
I think everybody should do some homework.
And I read what the CDC says.
You should.
Read what the FDA documents say.
Please, you should read what's on the FDA website, vaccines.
And, you know, I also have stuff in my book.
There's also other resources out there.
ICAN's website's amazing too.
But once you get educated, you'll stop believing in them.
You start thinking about them.
And however you come out on them, whether you want to give them or not, that alone, if enough people do that, it will turn the tide and help good outcomes in the legislature and the court system.
All right.
And I would just add to that that one level up from what you should think about individual vaccines you might be giving, there's the question of we in civilization should fix the niche.
If what you did was you had a niche in which companies that sold products that actually enhanced your health thrived and companies that sold dangerous products and pretended they were safe perished, the problem would be solved.
That's a matter of restoring the rules in which markets do what they do and courts do what they do properly, which is not what we have.
Amen.
Nice.
All right.
So, Aaron Siri, your new book is Vaccines.
Amen.
Where should people find you online?
AaronSiriofficial.com is where you can find all the different Twitter and Instagram and so forth handles.
And my book's on Amazon.
And my law firm is SiriLp.com.
Wonderful.
All right.
Well, it's been a real pleasure talking to you, and I wish you luck in your noble work.
Oh, thank you.
And thank you for everything you do to spread the truth.