Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 6, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:27:40

Aaron Siri REVEALS the Shocking Truth Behind Vaccine Trials – SF509

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	It's a very special show with an amazing interview.
	Let me, before I get into explaining my guest as if he could ever be explained, I'm going to tell you that for the first 15 minutes we're going to be available on YouTube.
	But then you're going to have to click the link in the description because what we're talking about is too contentious and explosive to be streamed on media outlets that are primarily about curating your appreciation of reality.
	We're going to be talking about vaccine mandates.
	We're going to be talking about the lack of clinical trials on transmission and even potentially the use of aborted fetal tissues in vaccines.
	You can see why that's the only, the kind of subject that can only be discussed safely on Rumble.
	So we'll be with you for 15 minutes.
	Then we will be exclusively available on Rumble, not on YouTube.
	You can't watch us there.
	And if you're not on Awakened Wonder yet, become an Awakened Wonder to get additional content.
	I can tell you more about that now.
	Let me introduce today's guest to you.
	Any fans of the film Erin Brockovich will know that not all lawyers are fundamentally and by their nature evil.
	Once in a while, the universe will throw out a lawyer for righteousness and for justice.
	We don't know how these people are created.
	These people who, like Saul, become Paul, who have the scales fall from their eyes and become prophets of truth and justice.
	Aaron Siri is one such man, managing partner at Siri and Glimsted LLP, specialising in complex civil litigation, most notably fighting against Supreme, all the way to the Supreme Court against mandates, ensuring that the CDC released data that they were trying ensuring that the CDC released data that they were trying to keep secret, and also ensuring that sexy babies don't need to be injected with hepatitis B, a disease that they can only catch through coitus and through shared needles, which would seem to be a pretty unnecessary
	be a disease that they can only catch through coitus and through shared needles, which would seem to be a pretty unnecessary vaccination, except for the most, well, unless those babies are finding their way into the wrong company, I would consider that to be an unnecessary inoculation.
	It's my great privilege to introduce my friend and our guest today, Aaron Siri.
	Thank you so much for joining us today, Aaron.
	It's great to be here, Ross.
	It was such a joy to spend a bit of time with you, and I'm very excited to see how the kind of high-profile cases you fought may subsequently, due to your affiliation, shall we call them, affect the way that America is governed in the next affect the way that America is governed in the next administration.
	Now, I know that you're very good, Aaron, at helping people to understand precisely what went on in the pandemic period and what was revealed to us.
	One of the things you explained to me that was beautiful is if I was always assiduous about observing the profit motive, I would understand a lot more about how the pharmaceutical industry conducts its business.
	First off, could you just tell us a little bit about some of your most famous victories?
	For example, getting the CDC to release data that they wanted to conceal.
	We've reported on your work before.
	Notably, it was you that I think brought to public attention the fact that Pfizer were granted 75 years of protections against the revelation of their clinical trial data, and also you publicly fought against mandates all the way up to the Supreme Court.
	Can you tell us a little bit, I suppose, about how you've become the Erin Brockovich of anti-Big Pharma?
	Well, that's very kind words.
	I can tell you about a few of the lawsuits that we've done.
	One of them you mentioned was fighting with the FDA to get the clinical trial documents that they relied upon to license Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
	Remember, they said they did a thorough and complete review of those documents.
	They did it in about 100 days.
	But yet when we wanted a copy of them to release them to the public so the public could take a look at them, They said they needed to reduce them at a rate of a few hundred pages a month, which would have taken at least 75 years to make public.
	Simple transparency.
	If you've got nothing to hide, why hide it?
	We've also represented like 17 members of Congress challenging mask mandates on planes.
	We represented and got injunction against the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army who tried to kick off folks who don't COVID-19 vaccine.
	We fought COVID-19 vaccine mandates across country, including California.
	We fought to release Fauci's email, some of which you saw on the news.
	You know, at the end of the day, Russell, you know, For everybody out there who might love every vaccine and you love masks, you love stay-at-home orders, that's great, right?
	You should be able to get whatever product you want, but if the day comes that you don't want one of those products, And you can't leave your home without getting one of them, and you can't get a job, and you can't go to school, and you can't participate in civil society, you will realize how critically important it is to not cede your right to decide what is injected and put on your body to the government.
	You point out that there is a requirement for virtue and for truly tethered principles.
	Even with the recent revelation that Hunter Biden will be pardoned, you start to realise that the law, far from being, in many cases, a set of objective principles that remain the same regardless of who they're being applied to, The law itself has been utilised, and it seems that that utility is granted particularly to members of the elite or elite organisations.
	Is it that groups like Pfizer, Moderna, these powerful entities and their relationships with supposed regulatory bodies have managed to somehow bypass, weaponise, if not weaponise, certainly utilise the law, Aaron?
	How are they able to do that when the law is meant to be a kind of An irrefutable object, a set of principles that remain static somehow.
	Yeah, there's two powerful forces that are in tension, okay?
	On the one hand, you have those who have incredible financial interests, and they also have the money, they have the organization, they have the long game to try and get what they want.
	For example, most agencies are, I think, created with Mel, meaning legislative members of Congress or in the United Kingdom, members of parliament.
	They mean well.
	They say, hey, you know what?
	There's a problem.
	We're going to create a government entity to do that.
	And that government entity can also make regulations.
	But who's got the time, the money, the ability to influence that body to make the regulations that they want?
	Is it you, Russell?
	Is it Everybody in the UK, is it the average citizen?
	No, they don't even know what's going on.
	It's those who have the money who are going to be affected by those regs.
	And over time, they start slowly engaging what's known as agency capture.
	Not a term I created in the political science literature.
	So on the one hand, you have that.
	You have the creeping...
	Revolving door with industry, influence of the special interest groups.
	Pharma, for example, has over 2,000 lobbyists, right?
	How many lobbyists do those who are injured by COVID-19 vaccines or vaccines have?
	In the United States, zero.
	So who's going to win out in a legislative contest over the laws?
	Who's going to influence the laws?
	So that's one side.
	The other side is that their cultural cognition, what the public actually Thinks about an issue, can't have an impact if it's widespread enough, if the public rises up enough.
	An example that I can give is gay marriage.
	So in the United States, gay marriage was never going to be found to be a constitutional right by the United States Supreme Court in the 1800s.
	Not in 1910, not in 1920, not in 1930. At some point, that changed.
	What changed?
	What changed was cultural cognition.
	What the people, what the masses viewed on that issue.
	And so, you know, those who want to take away your rights are always pushing to take them away.
	And at some point, the people really do have to rise up to fight against that.
	I mean, I'll add one more point to that, if I may, and it's this.
	When you think about the American, the UK, the experiment of the developing world in many ways.
	What was it in opposition to?
	What was the United States born in opposition to?
	It was born out of this idea that individual rights, the right for you to say what you want, assemble with who you want, practice the religion you want, those come with dangers.
	Letting people say what they want, there are dangers with that.
	Assembling, those come with dangers.
	They all come with dangers.
	But that the greater danger is ceding those rights.
	To some central authority, whether it's a king, a dictator, some committee, that that is always the greatest danger because once you see those rights, you rarely get them back.
	And that central authority always ends up abusing that power.
	History has shown that to us.
	And so, you know, all of the work that you asked about earlier, it all really comes down to that central principle.
	Often those rights are seeded in states of varying crises.
	Subsequent to 9-11, people were willing to accept a degree of intrusion into their privacy.
	And of course, during the pandemic period, When most of us believed we were in the midst of a significant health crisis, people, to an astonishing degree, were willing to cede their rights when it came to staying in their home, near mandates or actual mandates in some professions of medications that previously I reckon people might have been a little more circumspect about.
	Everywhere I went, I won't talk about the social situation in which we met in case it's not appropriate, but in that social environment, Person after person was telling me, you've got to talk to Aaron.
	This guy's amazing.
	This guy's amazing.
	He understands how this situation works.
	He understands what went on in the pandemic.
	He understands the power of Big Pharma.
	He knows how they're rigging the game.
	He understands it and he's bought receipts.
	Can you help us to understand how unique vaccines are and what happens to a product when it is granted legal indemnity?
	Yeah, the impact of giving vaccines, if we're focusing on vaccines, the impact of giving vaccines Immunity for liability for injuries, meaning the companies that sell them, those participating in injecting them, has an incredible and extraordinary effect.
	And I think it creates a market distortion that really puts vaccines in a unique box vis-a-vis any other product out there.
	When you think about products on the market, whether they're planes, cars, drugs, chainsaws, knives, anything out there, how do they become safer?
	Why are they...
	Put to market.
	Why does the company care that they're safe?
	Why does the company properly test them before they go to market?
	Why is the company watching safety after market?
	Because at the end of the day, companies have an economic interest to make money.
	That is what their fiduciary duty is to their shareholders.
	When you see class action securities lawsuits and they're suing the board members and they're suing the CEO and they're suing the company, what's it about?
	It's about the fact that the company didn't take appropriate actions to protect their assets, to make appropriate profits.
	You know, they breached fiduciary duties.
	That is what will drive corporations' conduct.
	So when you take away the fundamental manner in which we assure products safety, economic interests of a company, Again, you get a very, very different result.
	And you can see that clearly, for example, with the contrast between how drugs are clinical trials versus vaccines are clinical trials.
	Drug manufacturers, they want to know before their drug goes to market whether that product is safe.
	Because if it does, and it hurts a million people, well, they're going to end up upside down very quickly on making money on that drug.
	With vaccines, They don't have to worry about it in most parts of the world, actually, and the United States in particular, because they can't be sued, for the most part, for injuries caused by vaccines.
	And I'm not just talking about co-vaccines.
	I'm talking about most vaccines, and I can explain to you how that happened, and I can even show you a chart that compares the trials between drugs and vaccines, if you'd like.
	Yes, I would like to see that, yeah.
	Okay, sure.
	Well, I'll start with I guess I'll start with, you know, where did the immunity vaccines even come from?
	This conversation is about to get very complicated and it's the sort of thing that will get censored on YouTube.
	So if you want to see the rest of the conversation where we talk about the use of aborted fetuses, where we talk about autism and vaccines, where we talk about the degree of corruption that appears to be taking place between groups like the FDA and big pharma countries.
	Countries?
	Companies.
	But, you know, sometimes I want to click the link in the description.
	Join us on Rumble for this exclusive content.
	You know, and a lot of people say to me, you know, there are conspiracies around vaccines and it's, you know, there's no, I don't think there's a, some kind of really, you don't have to go into some crazy thought patterns about vaccines to get to a dark place.
	To understand the problem of vaccines, you just have to understand basic economics, in my opinion, okay?
	So in the early 1980s in the United States and in most parts of the world, there were only three routine vaccines, DTP, MMR, and OPV. That's it.
	That's all there was.
	Seven total injections.
	That was the sum total of our childhood schedule and of the adult schedule and of the pregnancy schedule, since there were no adult routine vaccines and there were no pregnancy vaccines back then.
	And what was happening was every manufacturer of those three products either stopped making them or went out of business because of the injuries, because of the financial liability that was occurring from the injuries caused by those products.
	Now, for any other product, when it hurts people, what does a company have to do?
	Make a better, safer product.
	Your plane falls out of the sky, make a better plane.
	Your drug hurts people, make a better drug, right?
	But in this instance, Congress in its wisdom decided, United States Congress decided, instead of forcing them to do what every other company has to do, instead of letting the economic interest do what it does, make a better product, instead it said, you know what?
	You can keep selling your products that's harming kids.
	We're just going to give you immunity so nobody can sue you.
	And Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccines Act of 1986 that basically gave these manufacturers immunity, but not just for those three vaccines.
	Gave them immunity to liability for virtually, for almost any other vaccine they made thereafter, including all childhood vaccines.
	And with that, you see the explosion in the vaccine schedule.
	Now, some might say, well, maybe that's a good thing.
	But we don't want just more vaccines.
	We want safe vaccines.
	And I could show you the chart I referenced earlier.
	I think I could pull it up if you'd like.
	Yes, I'm pretty excited to see this chart now, as a matter of fact.
	I've never been more excited to see it.
	This is like the chart that Trump was about to pull up before he got shot in the ear.
	I mean, the trepidation is killing me.
	We can't make this content without the support of our partners.
	Here's a quick message from them now.
	Most coffee out there is basically the liquid equivalent of a participation trophy.
	Bland, mass-produced, utterly forgetful.
	But pea berry beans, they're not here to play nice.
	You get yourself that pea berry, you'll know you've been caffeinated.
	It's 1775, baby.
	These rare little rebels make up less than 10% of the entire coffee harvest.
	Instead of sticking to the crowd, they grow solo.
	Resulting in a denser, more intense bean that doesn't just follow the herd.
	These beans are grown at high altitudes and are hand-picked at their peak, because if you're gonna do something, do it right, yeah?
	Do them beans right!
	Thanks to their unique solo act, pea berries deliver richer flavours, a smoother finish, and a touch more caffeine to keep you sharp and focused, like the universe intended.
	This isn't your corporate coffee sludge, this is for those who see through the nonsense and demand a cup that's as real as it gets.
	Why settle for anything less than the sweetest pea berries, those rarest among beans?
	So if you're tired of sipping on mediocrity, go to 1775coffee.com.
	Use my special code BRANN to get 15% off.
	Don't just wake up, wake up properly to 1775, revolutionary coffee in the revolution against mediocrity.
	So here we go.
	So actually, this is a, I had the opportunity to testify before Congress actually on this exact topic.
	It was specifically about COVID vaccines, but in doing that, we submitted a report.
	Can you see my screen?
	Yes, sir.
	Yes, and here we go.
	Pharmaceutical companies, I think, do not like that this is on the formal U.S. Congress website, but there it is.
	And to this day, it remains uncontested.
	Never gotten anybody's challenge or say anything in this document is false.
	With that said, if you can, it's all cited to the government sources.
	Well, let's just zoom in on this one.
	If you look at this chart, I'm going to zoom right in.
	These are the top five selling drugs that Pfizer has sold as of 2019, I believe, according to Money Inc.
	I'm assuming it's correct.
	And when you look at this list of the top five selling drugs, four of them are drugs.
	One of them is a vaccine.
	And which we're looking at is a summary of the clinical trial relied upon to license each of these products before they went to market.
	So when you look at Enbrel, it had a safety follow-up in its clinical trial before it went to market for 6.6 years against a placebo-controlled group.
	Eloquit, Lipitor, Lyrica.
	Multi-year placebo-controlled trials.
	Essentially what that means is you're comparing a group that got this product when it was experimental, before it was licensed, with a group that gets a placebo.
	Over a multi-year period, and then you're comparing.
	Are there any neurological differences, immunological differences, cardiovascular issues?
	What is the difference in the safety profile between the placebo group and the vaccinated group?
	That's how you determine safety.
	And Pfizer wants to know that safety file before the products go to market because they don't want to end up upside down.
	But then look at the one vaccine on this list, Prevnar.
	Six months of safety review, far, far less.
	A product given at two, four, and six months of age, by the way, and then at 12 months.
	Now, what was the control?
	It was a different vaccine, Prevnar 7. Now, you might say, hey, hey, maybe Prevnar 7 was properly licensed in a long-term placebo-controlled trial, but that's not the case.
	It wasn't, and we'll go through that in a minute.
	But keep in mind, I'll zoom out now, and we'll take a look now at the childhood vaccines.
	And these are the vaccines given in the first six months in the United States, three times each.
	And what you're looking at now is the safety follow-up period that safety was reviewed after injection to these products in the clinical trial and the control that was used.
	Now, I... The first time I saw this, or if I saw this, I'd say no way.
	It cannot be.
	One, how could the companies do this before you're giving a product you're injecting into a baby?
	Again, each product is injected three times each in the U.S. schedule by six months of age, okay?
	So you would imagine these would be the most robustly studied products on safety you could imagine.
	Healthy babies, millions of them.
	You want to make sure you're not going to break society, right?
	But yet this is what you see.
	And you might say, well, what is driving this difference?
	Why would Pfizer or these other companies do long-term versus short-term?
	And I think I've beaten the answer to that question to death.
	It's economic interest.
	Pfizer is going to do the absolute minimum at Merck and Snofi to get their products to market so they can make money from them.
	Now, why the FDA will let them get away with this, that's a different story.
	We could talk about that later if you'd like.
	But really, does it really matter?
	That's the reality of it.
	But seeing is believing.
	Can I just contribute to this?
	So for anyone that's listening to this, it's just this audio.
	On one side, there's Pfizer's top five selling drugs of all time.
	On the other side, vaccines in the first six months of their commercial life.
	The drug side of it, the follow-up side is 6.6 years, 7.4 years, and the one vaccine is a six-month follow-up, so that starts to raise alarm bells.
	And on the side of the vaccines, there's a Hep B inoculation offered by Merck, and I don't know what many of these terms mean.
	I know that you, obviously, Aaron, know them inside out.
	IPV and a drug called Hib by Merck, a DTAP, Prevnar 13 from Pfizer.
	In each of these cases, it's a matter of days, or at most months, for the safety follow-up.
	And I suppose what you're explaining to us, Aaron, is that once the companies were disincentivised through immunity to provide products that were safe, they recognised they had a whole new market that was free from punitive consequence, so they disproportionately created products in that area because they knew their margins would grow,
	Because they had immunity, even in the event that these products were not successful, as well as near mandates for some of those products.
	Have I understood it correctly?
	You did.
	You said it very well.
	I mean, imagine it like this, Russell.
	I came to her and I said, hey, Russell, I got business ideas for you.
	And you're like, oh, really?
	And I said, look...
	I got this great idea.
	We're going to sell this injection.
	What's the injection?
	It doesn't matter.
	Don't worry.
	Well, don't have to worry about safety.
	No, the government said we can't be sued for it.
	Okay?
	You say, well, who's going to take that product?
	You say, don't worry.
	The government's going to mandate that millions of children take it every year.
	Well, but who's going to promote it?
	Don't worry.
	The government's going to take our money and promote it for you to get a guaranteed market Guaranteed immunity, government promotion, I think you just summed it up as well, which is completely pharma saw incredible opportunity.
	Your vaccine portfolio is very tight, but once it falls from multiple Portions of many of these pharma companies revenue stream and it's only growing because they understand they can sell this product risk-free with a guaranteed market and they push for mandates.
	It's the best possible.
	It's the best of all worlds for them.
	So a sensible piece of legislation might be to end that immunity.
	Yes, that would be extraordinarily sensible, which is just let these products operate in the same exact environment as every other product out there.
	In the United States, a lot of times, guns have immunity liability for injuries, but even there, it's only the commission of a crime or a wrongful act.
	You could still sue a gut manufacturer for design defect claims saying that they could have been made safer and various other claims.
	You can never do those for a vaccine.
	So yes, that would be adamantly sensible.
	And think about it like this, okay?
	Hepatitis B vaccine, the two given to babies were licensed in 1986 and 1989. It's now been, oh, I don't know, over 30 years of them telling us they're safe, assuring us they're safe.
	Promising us they're safe.
	But you're telling me 30 years later, you still can't lift the immunity liability?
	You still are concerned about lawsuits?
	If they're so safe, what are you concerned about?
	There are drugs that treat just a small few number of people, right?
	So they don't have a large market.
	They can't make a lot of money off of them, but yet those can survive in an economic environment where you can still sue the manufacturer of those drug products.
	Here, a product you give guaranteed millions of individuals every single year, you can't make a profit from unless you have immunity liability, that should be very concerning.
	So yes, it would be very sensible, and you've got to ask yourself why they won't do it, despite, by the way, bill after bill being proposed over the years to repeal that immunity.
	Yes, I mean, I suppose if the people with the most authority and power were the same people that one way or another, indirectly or directly, benefited from that immunity, then there would be no real incentive to end that immunity if their interests aligned significantly or sufficiently.
	But that would amount to a degree of corruption, Aaron, that I find difficult to even contemplate.
	Or some might view that and say, that's just good business.
	They use the tools, they use the advantages they have to make as much money as they have.
	And unfortunately, That is why the stopgap has to always be the ability for an individual to say no.
	Hey, you know what?
	I looked at the clinical trial data and I decided no.
	Hey, you know what?
	I looked at the post-licensure state data, no.
	I looked at the ingredients, no.
	You have to always say no.
	And that is, you know, what we saw so acutely, especially during the last few years, is that right come into sharp tension with what the government wanted.
	You know, Mandates, really, when you think about mandates, coercion, they're only really necessary when the government wants you to do something that is probably problematic.
	Otherwise, persuade you on the merits.
	I don't have to persuade you to, yep.
	Well, yeah, that's staggering.
	I mean, I suppose coming at this as I am from a media perspective, what I recall is that during the period where vaccinations were being encouraged, there was a near hysterical assurances that were we not to take these products, we were irresponsible socially.
	That we would be causing more vulnerable people to get ill, even if you don't want to take it for yourself, a lot of the messaging said, you should be taking it for other vulnerable people.
	That you are selfish, that if you didn't take the vaccine, you shouldn't be treated in a hospital.
	All of this seems to have been forgotten.
	And yet, when we found out, and the way I personally found out, was there was a conversation, I think, at the EU, where someone like a Dutch politician said, no, there were never any clinical trials for transmission.
	No, it was a Pfizer executive just sort of blithely announced it.
	It sort of seemed to just, I don't know, melt into the ethereal ongoing narrative that we should be incredibly forgiving when it comes to what went on in that pandemic period.
	The whole stop the spread argument, Aaron, was there any basis for it at all?
	The vaccine was never tested, clinical trial, for whether or not it stopped transmission.
	And by the way, that's true for pretty much all vaccines.
	The FDA will tell you as much.
	And most vaccines don't stop transmission.
	And the premise should have been that it doesn't stop transmission, frankly.
	Until proven otherwise.
	Because when you look at respiratory viruses and respiratory vaccines, they don't stop transmission pretty much.
	And many of them don't stop transmission.
	So when you look at some of the raw data regarding other vaccines, it shouldn't have been very surprising.
	You're trying to inject something in the arm that often will create systemic immunity, immunity in your blood, IgG antibodies.
	To try and create mucosal immunity, immunity in your lungs, IgA antibodies.
	And that crossover typically does not happen in science.
	So it should have started with, well, this is almost certainly not going to create immunity transmission.
	And I could walk through some of the other vaccines as well.
	You know, if I was one of your audience members, I might be saying, I still don't believe five days of safety review for the clinical trials.
	And, you know, if you want, I could pull up the FDA website and I could show you one or two of those just so that folks at home are watching this.
	Actually believe it, because I wouldn't believe it without seeing it personally.
	So this is the FDA's own website, their own information, in which it's made explicitly clear that the follow-up for some of these vaccines is just five days.
	So if they go and see someone, if they check in on someone five days later, and they're not coughing up blood, their project is declared a success.
	Yes, that's close.
	But the way to think about it is this.
	When you want to license a product, you have to do a clinical trial.
	And why are clinical trials so critically important?
	They're critically important because it's the only time that's considered ethical with a vaccine to give one group the vaccine and one group nothing, a placebo, and then compare them.
	Because once it's licensed, they say, oh, it's unethical to withhold the vaccine now from any child.
	so the clinical trial is critically important to show the safety because after licensure all you can really do are what's known as retrospective epidemiological study okay and they will tell you the epidemiologists and the scientific community will tell you you can't prove causation with those studies you can just show correlation not causation how do you prove causation if i come to somebody comes to our firm and says hey You know, I believe this product caused this injury and I want to show causal connection.
	I need typically clinical trial data.
	So that's why the clinical trials are so critical.
	And those safety review periods that we just looked at and the controls, okay, those are from the clinical trials.
	When you want to license a product, the company that wants to license it conducts the clinical trial, not the FDA, not any European or UK health authorities.
	The company conducts the trial.
	It then submits that data to the regulatory authority.
	They decide then whether to license it.
	What are you submitting?
	Clinical trial.
	How do you evaluate whether a clinical trial is good?
	Number one, how long did you review safety?
	If you didn't look at it long enough, you got a baby.
	You only followed in the clinical trial safety for five days.
	Most immune issues might not come up for a few years of age, like asthma.
	Developmental issues for numerous years of age.
	Even like autoimmunity, think about it like this.
	If I give you a vaccine and I say you're going to get immunity to a certain antigen in the product, that will often, they tell you, take many weeks or months.
	So if you're going to have self-attacking antibodies, that will at least take weeks or months, not five days.
	It's not going to show up in five days.
	So how long?
	That's criteria one.
	Second, what are you comparing it against?
	Because even if I review safety for a long time, but I don't have a placebo control group or another control group where I really understand the safety profile, how do I know it's safe?
	What am I comparing it against?
	The background rate?
	It's really hard to do that.
	And then finally, The third factor is you've got to have enough people in the trial.
	Okay?
	I hope I'm not boring your audience with this.
	The third criteria is you've got to have enough people to what epidemiologists call it has to be well-powered.
	Because if you don't have enough people, then you're not going to detect signals.
	If you only have a few thousand kids, well, then you're only going to detect conditions that happen, you know, one in a thousand, one in a few hundred, meaning you're not going to catch rare things.
	And when you're injecting this into millions of kids, And it requires giving often, let's say, 8,000, 9, 20, 30,000 vaccines to prevent one case of disease.
	Well, you better be safer than that number.
	It's called the number two treat.
	So if the number two treat is 20,000 injections to stop one adverse event from the underlying disease, well, you better make sure the product's safer than one in 20,000 adverse events.
	So you got to be properly powered for that.
	Okay, with that said, what we're going to look at is what was the clinical trial What were the features of the clinical trial that the company relied upon, excuse me, that the FDA relied upon to license this product?
	What did they accept?
	And in that chart, I'll share my screen again.
	So we're back to this chart again, right?
	And that's what it means by safety follow-up.
	So let's take a look at the first one on the list, hepatitis B vaccine.
	That's the very first licensed childhood vaccine.
	And if we go to Google, And we go to FDA licensed vaccines.
	So here we are.
	We're now going to click on the first link, vaccines licensed for use in the United States.
	On this webpage is every single vaccine is licensed for use in the United States.
	These are not very dissimilar for the ones in Europe as well.
	I understand sometimes they have different brand names and so forth.
	And if we scroll down, we will find there are four hepatitis B vaccines licensed in the United States.
	Okay?
	Only two of these are licensed for babies.
	The other two are only for adults.
	The first one, Recombevax EHB, is the first, the one that was licensed.
	It was licensed actually in 1986. And when we pull up the package insert, and I don't know what it's like in the UK or in other parts of the world, but in the United States, When you get a drug, there's usually a piece of paper in the box.
	Yes.
	When you open it, it becomes very big.
	Huge, right?
	Yeah, really easy to read.
	They make it entertaining.
	There's cartoon characters.
	It's a very appealing document.
	Definitely getting different.
	It must be very different than where you are than the ones we have, but those definitely sound more exciting.
	But under federal regulations, section 6.1, I'll scroll down, require...
	That the manufacturer summarized the clinical trial relied upon to license that product vis-a-vis safety.
	Perfect.
	So there's a simple way to look at the clinical trial.
	I'm about to inject this into my baby, okay?
	Now, before I go and buy a car, I kick the tires, ask a few questions before I, you know, I do my homework, right?
	Before you buy any product, even you go to Amazon, you're going to buy, like, a camera.
	You're going to do some research.
	Before you inject something into your baby, if you want to start by looking at what was the safety?
	How did they determine safety?
	This is probably the place to start, I would say.
	Yes.
	And we'll scroll down to section 6.1.
	And right here, we will see this is all of the text of section 6.1.
	These were the reactions reported in the clinical trial.
	Section 6.2 is the post-marketing safety.
	So this sentence summarizes the clinical trial relied upon to license this product 434 doses were administered to 147 infants and children up to 10 years of age who were monitored for 5 days after each dose.
	So that The product's been issued after it's only been given to 147 kids, and they've done less than 500 doses, and their follow-up period is five days.
	That's not even really a clinical trial.
	I reckon I could get together a trial of that standard from previous partners.
	I think you're being kind.
	That's incredible.
	Now, I just want to remind everybody, we're on the FDA website.
	Last I checked, not an anti-vaxxer organization, I think.
	And this is a FDA-approved document.
	This is Merck's summation of it.
	And I will tell you, the first time I saw this, I actually said, it can't be.
	It cannot be that a product that you're going to inject into millions of babies is licensed based on five days of safety monitoring after injection, that there's got to be more.
	So we actually submitted something called a Freedom of Information Act request, a FOIA request.
	That's a law in the United States that allows us to get documents from the federal government here.
	And I asked, we asked on behalf of our client, the informed consent action network ICANN, we asked for all of the clinical trial reports that were submitted to license, thinking there's got to be more in there.
	And we got copies of all of them.
	And they're on the ICANN website.
	Anybody can go see them.
	And it's five days.
	And in fact, we then even petitioned the FDA and the formal docketing system that Merck and Pfizer and companies used to license or to modify licensures to say, hey, you know, Congress said you should only license products that are shown to be safe.
	Now, we can debate whether the safety review period, how many kids need to be, and what the control should be, right?
	We can debate those things maybe in the margins.
	Should it be 100,000 kids, 50,000 kids?
	Should it be five years, three years, but five days with 147 kids?
	And what was the control?
	Right.
	There's none listed.
	This is useless.
	It's utterly and completely used to determining safety.
	So the company, they did this and Merck got this on the market with the absolute minimal safety data that they could obtain.
	And if somebody out there will say to you, well, Maybe they already knew it was safe because, and these are the arguments I often hear in return.
	Well, they knew it was safe because there was probably other hep B vaccines.
	This is the very first recombinant DNA technology vaccine in the universe.
	Just like the very first mRNA vaccine was COVID, the very first recombinant DNA technology vaccine ever was this hepatitis B vaccine in the United States.
	And there was, at that point, There had been a prior hep B vaccine made actually with literally human blood.
	Nobody wanted to take it.
	So that went away.
	So there's no precedent, safety profile.
	The other argument I often hear is, yeah, well, but they probably really tested it in adults well.
	Well, let's just scroll down just right to this sentence and we could see how they tested it in adults.
	1,200 people, so better a little bit, but still completely underpowered.
	And again, only five things monitoring.
	And again, you can see the clinical trial reports.
	So, you know, I've deposed vaccinologists, immunologists, pediatricians, and, you know, I've asked about this a million times.
	I've waited for, there is no response to this.
	There's no good response to this.
	If you're looking, if you think there's something else, send it to me.
	I'd love to see it because that's what there is in terms of what was lied upon to license this product.
	Aaron, these trials are so sort of negligibly small that it can hardly really be referred to as science.
	It's almost like a bureaucratic exercise in order to achieve license.
	I remember reading during the pandemic period that booster shots were being recommended after they'd been trialed on like five mice.
	And I think what What concerns me most of all is when my intuitive sense turns out to be correct.
	For example, at the beginning of the pandemic, I remember thinking, how can these products have been effectively trialed?
	Because there hasn't been a trial period sufficient to know how these are going to impact people in a year or in five years.
	And also, what Pregnant women are going to put themselves forward for clinical trials and what parents are going to allow their children to be clinically trialled.
	These were the kind of things that just occurred to me.
	So to see it backed up and to see it having been sieved through your legal mind as scrutiny and that my general ruminations were somewhat correct suggests that there's such a degree of institutional corruption that the science that they always use to verify their mandates, their actions, their policies, their profits is actually a subset of commercial imperatives and incentives that are themselves so corrupt
	it might as well be a religion and at that a fallen and broken religion rather than science as we sort of conversationally understand it empiricism, clinical trial, fact The claims made about vaccines often are dogma, religious beliefs I mean, the idea that vaccines are the most robustly trialed products on the market is just simply false.
	And again, don't take my word for it.
	Go to the FDA website.
	We just did it for the hepatitis B vaccine.
	Pull it up for every single other childhood vaccine.
	Look at section 6.1.
	They also have the underlying clinical trial reports for a lot of them.
	Take a look at it.
	I will tell you, I can't claim to have any genius superpowers as a person or a lawyer to have done this.
	I literally just went to Google, and I searched FDA licensed vaccines, and you can pull them up.
	And it's right there for the taking, but it's true.
	Most people will just...
	It's almost like an incantation.
	Safe and effective.
	Safe and effective.
	The most robustly studied products in the market.
	The most safely studied.
	They're safety reviewed for years.
	And the crazy part is this.
	We just looked at the clinical trials, right?
	And so when I do this, and we could go through all the vaccines just like this, and it probably gets worse and worse.
	You remember that Prevnar vaccine we looked at that had six months of safety review?
	So you're like, hey, all right, at least we got six months.
	So what would that show?
	You want to take a look at that one?
	It's pretty interesting if you want me to open it up a second.
	Here, I'll share my screen one more time, and I'll pop it up on the screen, and we can take a look at it.
	I think it's very telling.
	Here is Prevnar 13, okay?
	This is the package insert, all right?
	And we are now in section 6.1.
	And here you have the section about serious adverse events.
	So this is what you really want to focus on, right?
	Because serious adverse events means something very serious.
	It's a defined term by the FDA. We can even go to the FDA website again, you know, and we can do serious adverse events, FDA. And right here, you could see it means death, life-threatening, hospitalization, disability, congenital abnormality, required interventions to prevent permanent impairment, and then other serious, which effectively has to have one or the other.
	So serious adverse event is a very serious condition.
	So let's go back to Prevnar 13. Now, in this clinical trial, this is one of the top five selling Pfizer products, right?
	You've got six months of safety review, finally.
	So maybe we'll see what that shows.
	And here, I'm going to highlight this sentence.
	And here's what they found.
	And remember, the kids in this trial, the babies and infants and toddlers, were healthy.
	They don't let really sick kids in.
	So you have completely, typically healthy children.
	Healthy?
	Get the product trapped for six months.
	And here's what they found.
	Serious adverse events reported following vaccination in infants and toddlers occurred in 8.2%, that's in a six-month period, among Prevnar 13 recipients, and 7.2% among Prevnar, that's Prevnar 7 recipients.
	Now, from the perspective of just safety, if I'm a parent, I might go, oh my goodness, that is highly concerning.
	But from the perspective of the FDA, as long as the experimental group and the control group have a similar rate, That's deemed safe because they're comparing it to quote-unquote the standard of care, right?
	So you might say, well, maybe this is just a fluke, this super high rate of adverse events in totally healthy infants and toddlers, right?
	Maybe we know for sure Prevnar 7 is safe because that had a long-term placebo-controlled trial, right?
	And before we flip there, let's just read this one sentence.
	It's one of my favorite sentences.
	It says, the longer reporting period, meaning six months, which I normally never do vaccine trials, may have resulted in serious adverse events being reported in a higher percentage of subjects than for other vaccines.
	Oh, wait a second.
	We finally looked for six months instead of a few days and a few weeks, and we found a super high rate.
	So what's our excuse for the high rate?
	Oh, my God.
	You can't make stuff up.
	And here's another piece I can never make up.
	And honestly, if I'd have thought of the most nefarious things I could say about vaccines, I would never say it had to use license on five days because I thought it was totally nuts.
	And I'm going to show you another thing that I think is totally nuts.
	I'm going to open up the package insert for Prevnar 7. Remember this product that had the 7.2% adverse event rate?
	Yes.
	So you might hope that here's the package insert for that product.
	So safety was reviewed in this one, depending on what they looked at for days or maybe weeks.
	So they didn't have six months.
	And they were comparing Prevnar with a control.
	Well, you hope the control would be what?
	Because there's no other product on the market that's a seven-valent meningococcal vaccine in the U.S. So you should have compared against placebo.
	But you see the little cross right there?
	Yes.
	Let's go down right here and let's see what the control was.
	Can you see that?
	Yes.
	Would you like to do the honor, sir?
	Investigational, mening...
	I can't read that word.
	Mening...
	Meningococcal.
	Group C conjugate vaccine, MNCC. What does that mean?
	Do you know what investigational means?
	It means unlicensed.
	Oh.
	That was the control.
	The control was another unlicensed product.
	So they had a clinical trial for this, for Prevnar 7, That wasn't six months.
	It was far shorter.
	And they didn't compare it against a placebo, even though there was no 7-valium angiococcal vaccine that I'm aware of that was on the market license in the US. So there's no standard of care.
	They should use a placebo.
	What do they use?
	Another unlicensed vaccine!
	Again, I'm laughing, but it's definitely serious too.
	And I say it because It really goes back to your point about religion, and it's a long way to answer your question, I know, but yes, there is what is said about these products, what believed about these products, and then there's this reality.
	Again, all on the FDA website.
	You can look at it yourself.
	I'm not trying to pick on these products.
	That's just the reality about the clinical trials, and we've just talked about Pre-licensure safety, right?
	By the way, there's even worse examples than this that we could go through, but I'll leave it alone on that.
	And then there's the claim about post-licensure safety, how there's this massive body of science that assures it's safe.
	And I could tell you that we have 40 people in my law firm that do almost exclusively vaccine work.
	We have, I think, the largest vaccine practice in the world that doesn't represent pharmaceutical companies.
	And you can bring a claim for vaccine injury in America and in other countries, but you can't sue the manufacturer.
	In America, you sue the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
	You sue the federal health authorities that tell you it's safe.
	There's no right to get...
	You can't subpoena documents.
	You can't depose the companies.
	This program won't let you do it.
	But you can bring a claim.
	And so we get calls all the time.
	From parents who want to, you know, say, hey, my child had this reaction or that reaction to a vaccine, you know, went in totally healthy, started seizing, had a grand mal seizure within 10 minutes, mostly emergency room, ended up with all this sequel.
	And so when we go in, I don't have a PhD after my name.
	I don't have an MD. I don't have any fancy medical title.
	So when I go to court or any of the attorneys in my firm go to court, We have to prove it with evidence.
	We don't get to say, trust me, I'm a doctor.
	Trust me, I'm a PhD.
	We actually have to prove the claims.
	So we want good clinical trial data, and we want good post-licensure safety data.
	And so we are very familiar with the post-licensure safety studies, safety systems, and the notion that there's some robust body of Of studies out there, just go to, like Hep B, is...
	Is, and I'll be kind, nonsensical.
	And all one needs to do is go to pubmed.gov, search for hep B vaccine.
	Just go read all the studies.
	It won't take you long about hep B vaccine safety.
	And also, you can go to ICANN's website, and you can see that we had an exchange with HHS about when we went back and forth about the safety of all these vaccines.
	And you could see what they had in response to all of this.
	It's fabulous.
	They are, as you said, religious beliefs.
	It's staggering.
	Long answer, sorry.
	No, it's beautiful.
	It's beautiful.
	We can't bring you this content without the support of our partners.
	Here's a message from them now.
	Rumble make these snacks, you see.
	This is a brand called Positive.
	It's a pet food brand that Rumble have.
	But also they have a pet insurance that is an affiliate to it.
	You know, like dogs can go from very high energy to being sick in an instant.
	And you know, it's like if you have to call a vet, like, when they're out of hours.
	It's a terrible way to manage your dog's health, not to mention it can be very stressful for you.
	So there's this emergency pet kit that you can get from Positive Health, which contains critical medications and supplies that can keep you out of vets and maybe even save your dog's life.
	So if you want to use it, go to Positive, that's spelt like P-A-W, positive.com slash brand.
	That's Positive, P-A-W-S-H. Positive.com slash brand and get your pet emergency kit that's got critical meds in it like activated charcoal and styptic powder and you can get 15% off using the code brand today.
	Go to positive.com slash brand and use the code brand to get 15% off.
	I like these Rumble connected organizations because they've been so supportive.
	Good boy.
	So supportive to our channel.
	It's great to give a little bit back.
	There it is.
	It's staggering that they were allowed to use as a control group another unlicensed drug.
	If you were looking for a babysitter for your preteen son, you wouldn't accept, well, we compared him to when Jeffrey Dahmer looked after some teenagers and they were about level.
	That would not be a good endorsement.
	And to see that what we're presented with, as you say, is this is a robust body of evidence, shows you that it's kind of gangsterism.
	But the NIH should be setting up trials a little better, like the conditions for trials aren't good enough.
	The grant in these firms immunity is creating, as you said at the very beginning, a warped marketplace with economic incentives that don't even make sense within the context of free market capitalism, which is what we are led to believe is providing the safety checks.
	i.e.
	if the product is not successful, the marketplace will select against products that kill or injure their children, particularly when you showed us what is meant by, you know, severe adverse injuries, death, congenital defects, some of the most You know, we're being light about it because that's the way we're communicating, but at the end of each one of these tendrils is devastation across families.
	It makes me wonder, Aaron, even if something like the oft-repeated mantra, a near taboo, of saying that autism may be connected to vaccines, which people, we're told the same thing.
	There is no scientific evidence to suggest that That there is any connection between autism or the increase in kids with autism, Asperger's, ADHD, OCD, ADHD, all of these things, and vaccines.
	Is it true, even with that sacred cow of the religion of vaccines, that there is no scientific evidence, or perhaps I should put it this way, is there scientific evidence to suggest that there is no causal link?
	I think the claim that vaccines do not cause autism, which is a claim that you will hear health authorities repeat over and over again, again like a mantra, is a great litmus test.
	Or whether they've really studied all the other claimed injuries, right?
	There's probably over a hundred serious adverse events from vaccines that parents routinely claim.
	Many of them are immune or immune-mediated neurological disorders, meaning your immune system's gone, something's gone wrong, or it has attacked your nervous system.
	There are, for example, many accepted issues from vaccines like transverse myelitis, Gambray syndrome, which are immune system attacking your nerves, but there in your extremities, you can physically see the outcome.
	You can end up being paralyzed.
	No reason that vaccines can't also attack your nerves in your brain and other parts of your body.
	And if you look at the package inserts, you look at the actual data, they often report encephalopathy and encephalitis.
	I'm getting ahead of myself.
	The point is this, is that if they say vaccines do not cause autism, and it's really true that they haven't really studied it, then imagine the state of the science.
	For all the other hundred serious issues.
	And, you know, and I can tell you that I have been, our firm, and including on behalf of our client ICANN, we have been beating at public health authorities for seven years now, demanding the studies that show that the vaccines given in the first six months of life do not cause autism.
	Why are we doing that?
	We're doing that because when you look at parental surveys of parents who have kids with autism, That's something in the order of 40 to 70% of them, despite the fact that they're constantly being gaslit by health authorities.
	Vaccines do not cause their child's autism.
	They did not, did not, did not.
	They still say that vaccines cause their child's autism, still to this day.
	And what vaccines do they point to?
	They typically point to the vaccines that we just actually looked at in that chart, right?
	The 15 injections in the first six months of life.
	And they will often sometimes point to also the MMR vaccine, which is not given any earlier than one year of life, okay?
	And so you would imagine, given that autism can be diagnosed before one year of age, before MMR vaccine is even given, the parents are saying that these are the vaccines that are causing their autism, the Hep B vaccine, the meningococcal vaccine, and so forth.
	That they would have study after study after study showing that those vaccines do not cause autism, right?
	And I could tell you that those studies really don't exist.
	And if I could, I'll lay the groundwork on this in the following way.
	And it's not because nobody's asked the question for a very long time.
	And by the way, it had nothing to do with Wakefield in the late 90s.
	In 1986, When the National Childhood Injury Act was passed, Vaccine Injury Act was passed, it listed the most commonly claimed injuries, presumably, from vaccination at that time.
	And it asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services, our federal authorities here, to study all the existing literature on whether or not the pertussis vaccine, and then it was DTP, and it was MMR, the two primary vaccines, caused those conditions.
	And one of those conditions it asked was whether the pertussis vaccine causes autism.
	So as early as 1986, parents were claiming that vaccines were causing autism at such a rate that they had it in the law.
	I can even pull up the statute if you'd like to see it.
	And, you know, we can look at it.
	Yeah, I like this device.
	I like it.
	It's good when you pull that stuff up.
	Remember to come back to your face though, Aaron, because we need that too.
	Yes, sir.
	So, actually, you know, there's also this great montage that shows them all claiming that vaccines don't cause autism.
	You want to play that while I look for the law one second?
	Yeah, yeah, that's fantastic.
	Let's have a look at a montage where various people claim that there is no causal link between autism and vaccines.
	A reassuring montage.
	We're not sure as a scientific community what causes autism, but we know that vaccines do not.
	Vaccines are really the one thing we have looked at as causing autism.
	We know that vaccines don't cause autism.
	The science is clear.
	Vaccines don't cause autism.
	I do not deny in any way that we need to do more about autism, but it has nothing to do with vaccines.
	Let me be clear, vaccines do not cause autism.
	Vaccines don't cause autism.
	Absolutely sure.
	Absolutely sure.
	Russell, repeat after me.
	Vaccines do not cause autism.
	There's no way they can.
	I've just seen people in so many different outfits.
	I saw a general.
	I saw a doctor in scrubs.
	I've seen people of every pigment saying that vaccines don't cause autism.
	I'm convinced.
	And we saw the CDC webpage that literally says vaccines do not cause autism.
	Well here we are.
	This is the 1986 act.
	This is the law passed in the U.S. that gave the pharma companies immunity.
	And we can see right here in this section called Review of Pertussis Vaccines and Related Illnesses and Conditions.
	And it says, no later than three years after the effective date of this title, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should complete a review of all relevant medical and scientific information, including a whole long list of stuff, on the nature, circumstance, and extent of the relationship, if any, between vaccines containing Pertussis and the following illnesses and conditions.
	And it lists...
	Autism.
	1986. Parents claim to test this vaccine caused autism.
	So you would think that they would then study it.
	Well, here is the Institute of Medicine.
	I'll pull it right up on my screen.
	Okay?
	This is the HHS. Our federal authorities commissioned what was then known as the Institute of Medicine, what is now known as the National Academy of Medicine in America.
	Supposed to be a prestigious group of scientists.
	And look at this question.
	Well, take a look at what they found.
	I'll scroll down.
	This is a chart.
	And in this chart, okay, this is the report from 1991 that the Institute of Medicine issued looking at the question of pertussis vaccine and autism.
	And you can see on the autism row that there's no checks.
	There's no X's, excuse me, meaning they couldn't find any category of evidence to answer the question.
	There were no human experiments.
	There were no animal experiments.
	There were no case control studies.
	There was nothing.
	So here we are in 1991, and they say, well, we don't have any evidence.
	This is their summary table.
	And for autism, they said there's no evidence bearing on a causal relationship.
	There's no studies.
	They don't know.
	Fine.
	Early days, Russell.
	It's only 1991. Give them a break.
	Let's not give them too hard of a time yet, okay?
	It's 1991. Fine.
	They haven't done it yet.
	Crazy days.
	Crazy days.
	Give them a chance.
	It's the 90s.
	Friends has just come out.
	We've got a lot to think about.
	You know, they did find evidence that showed that, for example, some vaccines can cause acute arthritis or chronic arthritis.
	They said the evidence shows it can't cause these, but for autism, we have no idea.
	All right.
	Well, let's fast forward then to 2012, 2012, 20 years later, okay, HHS and CDC, excuse me, the CDC, And the agency in our federal government that administers the vaccine program commissioned the Institute of Medicine to again look at what they said were the 158 most commonly claimed injuries from vaccines.
	And one of the injuries they asked them to look at was again whether autism is caused by Pertussis vaccine and this time also diphtheria and tetanus vaccine.
	So it's been 20 years!
	20 years later, okay?
	It's still one of the most widely claimed injuries from vaccines.
	Not according to me.
	According to the CDC in the United States of America.
	They paid the Institute of Medicine a boatload of money to look at this.
	And you know why they did this, by the way?
	They wanted to use this report to claim that vaccines don't cause all these various issues.
	Okay?
	Well, the Institute of Medicine convened a panel of 20-something specialists in every discipline.
	And here's what they found.
	They reviewed all the epidemiological evidence.
	You know what they found?
	One study, Geyer and Geyer.
	You know what that study showed?
	It showed an actual correlation between DTaP vaccine and autism.
	But the Institute of Medicine threw it out because they said, oh, that's based on VAERS data.
	That's not reliable.
	Garbage.
	Fine.
	What other study did they find?
	Zero.
	Then they looked at the mechanistic evidence.
	Did they find any?
	No.
	So what did they conclude?
	The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject.
	Or reject.
	It calls a relation between diphtherotoxic, hypnistoxic, and they tell you what pertussis can do with any vaccines and autism.
	Okay?
	So here we are 20 years later.
	Now you can get upset a little bit.
	So we're 20 years later, and they still haven't done the study.
	They still haven't looked at whether pertussis vaccine causes autism, despite the fact it's the most commonly claimed.
	Now, I know somebody out there is going to say, but you can't prove a negative.
	Well, in the same report, they looked at whether MMR vaccine causes autism.
	And they threw out all the studies except for, and despite the fact that those studies are not really useful because they compare getting like 16 vaccines with 17 vaccines, it's like if I shoot you 16 times and I shoot you 17 times and I say, hey, look, no difference.
	You died both times.
	You know, it's not really meaningful.
	It did conclude MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism.
	Fine.
	It shows you can conclude it.
	You can do studies, right?
	They didn't do it for pertussis.
	And so we said, fine.
	Maybe the Institute of Medicine doesn't have the study.
	So I then had an opportunity to depose the world's leading vaccinologist, Stanley Blockett, in 2018. And I asked him about this exact finding.
	Do you want to see it?
	Yeah.
	One minute.
	Yeah, let's see it, man.
	All right.
	Let's see it.
	Okay.
	I've never had a guest that's before talked me through the issues, showed me studies, showed me the FDA's own website, showed me CDC information, clinical trials, inserts from packs of medications, depositions, because I suppose the whole argument that we, the public, and I include myself in that demographic...
	Generally, we're kind of trying to argue back with anecdotes and intuition and feelings.
	Oh, my kid was never the same.
	It doesn't seem right giving a baby all these injections.
	How have you clinically trialled it?
	You've not had enough time.
	But you walk us through it, making it clear that the word science is being used like a weapon instead of what it is, a kind of conduit for truth.
	So this is a video of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who is literally the world's leading vaccinologist.
	The medical text on vaccines is called Plotkin's Vaccines, and this is me asking him about that 2012 IMM report with regards to autism and pertussis vaccine.
	This is an excerpt from the IOM's report, right?
	Yes.
	Can you read the causality conclusion with regard to whether DTaP and TDaP cause autism?
	The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or acellular pertussis containing vaccine and autism.
	If you don't know whether DTaP or TDaP cause autism, Shouldn't you wait until you do know, until you have the science to support it, to then say that vaccines do not cause autism?
	Do I wait?
	No, I do not wait, because I have to take into account the health of the child.
	And so for that reason, you're okay with telling the parent that DTAP, TDAP does not cause autism, even though the science isn't there yet to support that claim.
	Absolutely.
	So there you have it.
	From the mouth of the world's leading vaccinologist, He's going to tell you vaccines don't cause autism, even without the science.
	And if you watch that deposition, which went for eight hours, where I deposed him on all these issues, what you'll see is that, and this is one of the lures of vaccinology, is that as long as they don't study it, as long as there's no study that shows it does or doesn't, like they just don't look at it, they'll say the vaccines don't cause it, even without any data.
	And that is true.
	Remember that Institute of Medicine report I told you, they looked at 158 conditions.
	Well, for over 130 of them, they said, you guys haven't done the science, so we can't give you a causality conclusion.
	But when you ask vaccinologists about those 130, they'll tell you, oh, vaccines don't cause them, even though there's no study science to support it doesn't.
	And that's true here with autism.
	Fine.
	Okay.
	2018, Dr. Stanley Plotkin in this deposition, again confirming There's no studies, right?
	He's got none.
	He's okay with, basically, I mean, my kids might call that lying.
	I don't want to use such a strong term, but let's just say he's not being forthright with these parents if they ask him.
	We then submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC. We said, well, maybe the CDC has studies, even though the medicine couldn't find them.
	Maybe the CDC has these studies.
	So what we did is we submitted a request.
	And what we said is, can you give us the studies that show that DTaP vaccines don't cause autism?
	The studies that show that hep B vaccines don't cause autism, that IPV. We did it for all of the five vaccines given three times in the first six months of life.
	And we asked for the studies that show cumulatively that they don't cause autism.
	They should have these available.
	The website for the CDC says vaccines don't cause autism.
	They didn't give them.
	We finally had to sue them.
	I sued them in federal court on behalf of our clients.
	And after, you know, going back and forth with the Department of Justice, which represents the CDC, they finally capitulated, and they finally agreed to provide a list of studies.
	And I'll pull it up on my screen.
	I'll show you the court order that has it.
	I'll do this again.
	And here it is.
	So here are the, here's, this is a federal court order in the United States, okay?
	United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
	Lawsuit was brought by the Institute for Autism Science and Informative Action Network against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, okay?
	It's a federal lawsuit.
	And you could see in the, and this is basically the quote-unquote, you could call it a settlement, but it's signed by the judge, so it's an order of the court.
	And in it, it summarizes the FOIA requests that were at issue in the lawsuits, because here's what I asked for, what I just described to you, right?
	All the studies that show that DTAP does not cause autism and so forth, right?
	You can see them right on the screen.
	And here it is.
	The CDC lists 20 studies.
	These are the 20 studies they say they rely upon.
	Okay?
	It took forever to litigate.
	And then at the bottom, before we go to those studies, you can see I signed it on behalf of my client.
	The Department of Justice signs it on behalf of the CDC and it was signed by a federal judge.
	Okay?
	Yes.
	2020. Here's the thing about these 20 studies.
	Maybe the CDC thought we don't know how to read or we won't read them, but we did.
	We read them.
	And 19 of them have nothing to do with any of the vaccines we asked about.
	They all are about MMR or Fimerosal, an ingredient that is not in any of the vaccines we asked about.
	It was taken out decades ago.
	There was only one study that involved any of the vaccines we asked about, and it was DTaP vaccine.
	You know what study they listed?
	That same 2012 IOM report we just looked at and said we can't find any studies.
	So literally the only freaking study out of these 20 that in any way studied whether vaccines cause autism vis-a-vis the vaccines given in the first six months of life was the 2012 IOM report and it couldn't find a study.
	Fine.
	I'm going to give you one last bit on this and then I'm going to stop.
	And I'm doing this because I just, you know, I said nakedly, I said nakedly, and I mean, I support with the fact that we need that science at my firm, that the post-licension literature is anemic at best.
	They don't do it.
	They say they do it, but they don't do it.
	And I'm using autism as the way to show you, I'm not trying to save vaccines and cause, I'm not even saying vaccines cause autism.
	I don't need to prove vaccines are safe.
	You gotta prove, they have to prove it to you, right?
	That's how informed consent works.
	I don't have to prove to you.
	In any event, they're claiming to you it doesn't cause autism.
	One final, I'll show you one final three-minute video and then I'll stop on this piece.
	And it's this.
	There was actually a lawsuit that involved vaccines and autism.
	And do you remember the medical textbook on vaccines you saw on the screen earlier, Plotkin's Vaccines?
	Dr. Catherine Edwards was one of the four listening authors.
	She's one of the world's leading vaccinologists in the world coming into a deposition with me Knowing about the claim vaccines cause autism.
	That was the central issue in the case.
	And so she knows I'm going to ask her about it.
	So presumably she comes prepared.
	She's coming prepared for my questions about vaccines and autism and all the vaccines, because all the vaccines were at issue.
	All the vaccines given in the first six months of life were at issue in that case too.
	So let's see what Dr. Edwards has to say with regards to the state of the science with vaccines and autism.
	Literally out of math, from the world's, you know, leading vaccinologist.
	Conducting clinical trials.
	Okay.
	According to your profile, you have done most of the preventable trials relied upon to license many of the vaccines, correct, on the market?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	So you're highly experienced at conducting clinical trials, correct?
	I'm highly experienced conducting clinical trials.
	Okay.
	And you're familiar with many of the clinical trials that relied upon to license many of the vaccines currently on the market, correct?
	I am.
	In your opinion, did the clinical trials relied upon to license the vaccines that Yates received, many of which are still on the market today?
	Were they designed to rule out that the vaccine No.
	You've badgered me into answering the question the way you want me to, but I think that that's probably the answer.
	Is that your accurate and truthful testimony?
	Yes.
	In the expert disclosures for this case, it asserts that, among other things, you will testify that, quote, the issue of whether vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly researched and rejected, end quote.
	It's your testimony that MMR vaccine cannot cause autism?
	That's correct.
	It's your testimony that Head B vaccine cannot cause autism?
	That's correct.
	It's your testimony that IPOL cannot cause autism?
	Yes.
	It's your testimony that Hib vaccine cannot cause autism?
	Yes.
	Your testimony that varicella vaccine cannot cause autism?
	Yes.
	It's your testimony that Fevnar vaccine cannot cause autism?
	Yes.
	And it's your testimony that DTaP vaccine cannot cause autism?
	Yes.
	And do you have a study that supports that DTaP doesn't cause autism?
	I have.
	I do not have a study that DTaP causes autism.
	So I don't have either.
	Do you have any study, one way or another, of whether IPOL causes autism?
	No, I do not, sir.
	Do you have any study, one way or another, of whether Endrex B causes autism?
	I do not have any evidence that it causes autism, nor that it does not.
	And what about hip titers?
	Vaccine.
	Any evidence one way or another whether it causes autism?
	What about Prevnar vaccine?
	Any evidence one way or another?
	No, sir.
	And how about varicella vaccine?
	Let me just finish.
	Are there any studies one way or another that support whether it does or doesn't cause autism?
	Part of MMR, but not as varicella by itself.
	No, sir.
	No studies that say it does or no studies that say it doesn't.
	All right.
	There have been studies that have found an association between hepatitis E that's seen in autism, correct?
	Not studies that I feel are credible.
	Okay, which study are you referring to when you say that?
	Well, why don't you show me the study and then I'll see whether I agree with that.
	That's amazing.
	That's amazing.
	Because what I feel when I'm watching that, what I feel like is they have no studies and they have defaulted to recommendation and this sort of certain and aggressive position that vaccines do not cause autism.
	So, even if we defaulted to, and I know that this is not your, that this certainly is not a claim you're making, but if I were to default to vaccines do cause autism, I can refer to the exact same number of studies that they can, with the exact same certainty and expertise that they can, because the studies don't exist either way.
	And it starts to make you think, which is another thing I've intuitively felt, only the studies and trials that are profitable are the studies and trials that are taking place.
	No one's conducting studies and trials that are going to negatively impact the bottom line of Merck, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson& Johnson, because who's going to fund that study and for what reason?
	And the whole legitimacy that Fauci et al marched into the pandemic arena with was Based on the idea of empiricism and evidence and truth and justice and honesty and transparency.
	And none of that was verifiable or justifiable.
	Man, it excites me, the idea that...
	Watching this, and I don't know how explicit I can be about, like, your relationship with people that are in positions of authority with matters of health and regulation now.
	But if they're going to have to have conversations like that with you, they're in a lot of trouble.
	I would imagine, on the basis of what's happened in the last few years.
	I'm just asking for questions.
	I'm just asking for the studies that they say are, you know, you heard that montage.
	We don't know what causes autism, but we're certain that vaccines do not.
	We have studied it.
	We have thoroughly reviewed it.
	We have thoroughly debunked it.
	Even she, even Dr. Edwards, okay, one of the world's leading vaccinologists, you know, says, thoroughly debunked.
	Do you have any studies?
	Uh, no.
	So, you know, MMR, they have a few, but the other ones they don't.
	And by the way, to your initial point, there are studies that show that hep B vaccine.
	There's one study that showed a three times risk amongst babies that got the hep B versus not of autism.
	There are studies on the, you know, with Guyer and Guyer you saw in the DTaP.
	The studies that did look at those childhood vaccines for six months, most of them do show a correlation, not saying causation, because you need a clinical trial for that.
	They show correlation, right?
	Meriting further study between those products and autism.
	Now, and again, it just exists.
	I'm just repeating what's there.
	Again, I draw no conclusion.
	I'm just telling you what the state of the science out there is.
	So if you were going to look at it based on the studies that are out there, actually, it's the other way.
	Ironically, and that's the incredible irony.
	You know, a lot of people look at this and they go down this rabbit hole and they see, they're like, oh my goodness, really?
	You're telling me when they say vaccines are because of autism?
	They're just saying that with any real proof.
	They're just saying that based on a few MMR studies that are basically, they have something called healthy user bias.
	If you have a child that's injured in the first six months of vaccine, what's the parent going to do?
	Are they going to get the MMR vaccine?
	No.
	They're not going to get the MMR vaccine.
	It's called healthy user bias.
	It's a CDC term.
	It's not even my term.
	The CDC identified this as a problem in vaccine studies, but then they forgot about it.
	It's in their old literature.
	And so if you're going to compare kids that got MMR vaccine to kids who don't get MMR vaccine, you have to control for that.
	You have to control for the fact that some of the kids that don't get MMR might have become autistic, maybe, or, you know, from the prior vaccines, in which case It fudges up your entire results.
	Which is why I was saying, comparing kids who got 16 shots with 17, meaning they got everything but no MMR, and they got everything plus an MMR, is a useful study.
	You have to compare exposed to unexposed.
	That's the way science is done all the time.
	So, you know, and you know there's there's uh and it's a serious matter you know there's uh there's a there's a story there's a you know couple out there who have triplets and um that Prevnar vaccine remember the 7.2 and 8.2 percent they have triplets and after giving their triplets meningococcal vaccine that that shot All three of them, within 24 hours, totally shut down.
	And, you know, you watch the video of these two, and she's an audiologist, you know, so she understands, you know, the reflexes and so forth, and she, like, did all of the reflexes.
	And those kids, you know, and the dad, you know, the mom tells the story in this video, and then the dad does, and, you know, he ends it by saying, he goes, you know, You know, years later, they're still not potty trained.
	So in the middle of the night, you get up.
	There's poop all over the kids.
	Soon there's poop all over them.
	There's poop everywhere.
	You know, he starts yelling.
	She starts yelling.
	Everybody's yelling at the kids.
	The kids are getting upset.
	Everybody's yelling.
	And he said, the only person that's sound asleep in their bed absent is the guy who told you those shots are safe.
	And it's, you know, and it's a very powerful video and you watch it because, you know, he's He's just going through life.
	He's in real estate and he just wants to have the best future first kids.
	And there's no study that can tell him that that vaccine doesn't cause autism because it doesn't exist.
	But he's got his own study at home and he'll tell you the vaccine caused autism.
	And that's who scientists should be listening to.
	Parents like that.
	That's what we used to do.
	When 40 to 70% of parents say, I believe those products cause my kids devastating issue.
	You should study it.
	But they don't because The pharma companies have zero interest in doing it.
	They're never going to do it.
	And our federal health authorities are totally and utterly conflicted.
	Because they want to promote these products.
	They have competing duties of promoting these products and assuring safety.
	The Department of Energy promotes nuclear power plants.
	They're not responsible for safety.
	It's hard to tell industry, make more.
	Make more nuclear power plants and then slap them When they don't assure safety, so they separated that into a completely independent agency.
	Same thing with transportation.
	In America, the Department of Transportation promotes more airplanes and the NTSB is responsible for safety.
	To separate those functions, it's hard to shake hands with industry and slap them at the same time.
	With vaccines, there's no separation.
	In the US, and I'm not aware of it in almost any other country.
	And even worse, Not only are they conflicted in that way, our regulators are conflicted in the U.S. and other places by the fact that they literally are who you sue for a vaccine injury, and they literally have to defend against any claim that the vaccine causes injury.
	So if they do any studies that shows it causes injury, it's called an admission against interest.
	Lawyers will use it against the federal health agencies.
	Regulators are very weak.
	It's a very weak way to make products safe.
	I mean, just look at the old Soviet Union.
	Look at other countries that didn't have free market economics, economic interest in companies.
	Do you think they did a good job of assuring product safety?
	No.
	Regulators are not what makes products safe.
	It's economic interest.
	But they play a role.
	But when it comes to vaccines, the economic interests are gone, and the regulators are totally conflicted.
	So who's left to assure the safety of these products?
	Again, like I said, no conspiracy.
	And COVID vaccines fell right into that paradigm.
	Everybody was shocked about how COVID vaccines were trialed, right?
	The clinical trials, oh my God, that's not good enough.
	What are you talking about?
	Compared to most vaccines, they're amazing.
	Six months of safety review, you had an average two months of placebo control, 30 to 42,000 people.
	You're going to take a vaccine based on the clinical trial.
	If that's the metric, well, then COVID vaccines, I think, have pretty much the best clinical trials out there.
	If you're going to look at post-licensure safety studies, COVID vaccines have more post-licensure safety than I've seen almost any vaccines.
	And when people go, how can the health authorities do this?
	Well, because from their perspective, those trials were amazingly robust.
	From their perspective, what they did post licensure was amazingly robust.
	From the perspective of your average thinking, breathing, normal human being who's like, I want to protect myself, my family, my kids.
	And you look at this stuff, you're like, that's crazy.
	But that's the state of affairs for vaccines.
	Aaron, that's amazing work.
	I feel like it's been an incredible journey with you.
	I feel like, firstly, you should have your own show, but I know you're a pretty busy guy.
	It's incredible to be shown the building blocks of your arguments, the maintenance of an objective purview wherever possible, and a kind of a faith and trust in truth and integrity, that ultimately if you follow the line, you don't need to that ultimately if you follow the line, you don't need to take care of truth and It will be taken care of if it is well-stewarded and it's being incredibly well-stewarded by you and by your brilliance in your profession.
	Thank you so much for communicating that with us and sharing that with us.
	I just pray that your engagement and involvement with the health of the very well-funded American health agencies, certainly well-funded when compared to the GDP of Great Britain, for example, is significantly and sufficiently guarded and guided by your expertise and by your processes.
	Thank you very much for your time today and for your expertise up until now.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate it.
	Thank you for the time.
	Thank you for having me.
	Well, I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Aaron Siri.
	You've got to follow him on X. His work is extraordinary.
	I've just made a video about it, more specifically delving into the use of fetal material in vaccines.
	You'll be able to see that up on Rumble in the next 24 hours.
	We will be back tomorrow, not with more of the same, but with more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.

▲