Aaron Siri: Everything You Should Know About the Polio Vaccine, & Its Link to the Abortion Industry

The New York Times claims the evil Bobby Kennedy wants to ban the polio vaccine and paralyze children. That’s an absurd lie, explains his lawyer Aaron Siri.
Chapters

6 chapters in this episode
The Establishment’s Attempt to Discredit Bobby Kennedy Jr.
00:00:00
1. The Establishment’s Attempt to Discredit Bobby Kennedy Jr.
The Vaccine Religion
00:08:18
2. The Vaccine Religion
Did Anyone Protest This Polio Vaccine?
00:18:57
3. Did Anyone Protest This Polio Vaccine?
The New York Times vs. Bobby Kennedy Jr.
00:30:00
4. The New York Times vs. Bobby Kennedy Jr.
Why Is Nobody Lobbying Against This?
00:49:30
5. Why Is Nobody Lobbying Against This?
Will Bobby Kennedy Jr. Be Confirmed?
01:41:20
6. Will Bobby Kennedy Jr. Be Confirmed?
Transcript

Tucker [00:00:00] So you're Bobby Kennedy's lawyer. Bobby Kennedy has been nominated by President Trump to be the Secretary of Health and Human services at HHS. This is just my quick summary. Has a very large constituency in the United States. He's not some anonymous character. He's a guy who's been around for many, many years and has many, many fans. So it's hard for his opponents who are many in Washington, to take him on directly. And so they are trying to discredit him preemptively before the vote. This is my read and the latest way that they have done this is by accusing him and you of trying to limit access of Americans to the polio vaccine, the one vaccine that most people think is great. I think that's a fair summary.

Aaron Siri [00:00:50] I would say they accused us of trying to eliminate the polio vaccine. The New York Times headline was right. That was far to get rid of the polio vaccine for polio. That was the headline that everybody picked it up.

Tucker [00:01:25] So you are, as we say, objectively pro polio. Yeah. In the characterization of The New York Times.

Aaron Siri [00:01:31] It's a classic retort. If you question anything about the safety of these products or even their efficacy or the clinical trials or the post ledger safety. The typical retort is, so you want everybody to have polio.

Tucker [00:01:43] You desperately want kind of a life goal.

Aaron Siri [00:01:45] It's a product. We're just asking questions.

Tucker [00:01:49] Or just asking questions is not allowed. I've been penalized for just asking questions, No questions. So, okay, so that's the context for this question. What is your position on the polio vaccines? And I think as you speak, you were also suggesting what Bobby Kennedy might think. You are his lawyer, but you tell me...

Aaron Siri [00:02:08] So the what The New York Times did is they purposefully. Knowingly. Misled the entire country into believing. That a petition that I filed on behalf of a client, not my petition or my client's petition, not Mr. Kennedy. He was not the client. A petition I never spoke to him about, ever. Nor did my client. Sought to eliminate the polio vaccine. That was the headline. And therefore, because I'm Mr. Kennedy's lawyer, in some instances, my firm has almost 80 people. We have lots of clients. Including Mr. Kennedy, including many others. And because we filed a petition on behalf of a different client, nothing to do with him that questioned one polio vaccine, by the way, and its licensure and only has two children. I'll get into that somehow. He wants to get rid of the polio vaccine, and they knew it was untrue when they published it for the following simple reason, first of all. And if they didn't know this, they're not fit to be a high school newspaper. Okay. One the petition. Only sought review. And this is a petition to the FDA only sought review as to one of six licensed polio vaccines and only has two children. Why? What was the basis of the petition, which, by the way, should have been the headline? This particular polio vaccine license in 1990, not the Salk vaccine. It's not the Sabin vaccines, not the vaccine that you think of when you hear the polio vaccine. Okay. This vaccine was based on a novel technology. You need to grow a virus in some kind of cultural medium. Here they use something called vero cells. These are chromosomal modified monkey kidney cells. That are rendered immortal, just like cancer cells. They mean they'll grow forever, just like cancer cells. And they end up as an ingredient in every single vial. The clinical trial relied upon to license this brand new novel, Polio vaccine in 1990, reviewed safety for literally three days after injection. Three days. That sounds incredible. It sounds like it cannot be true, but it is on the FDA website. On behalf of my client, we followed the FDA for all the clinical trial reports, for the summary basis of approval. We tortured them for years, basically saying, come on, there's got to be more than this. You license based on three days of safety review. In the clinical trial after injection with no control group, there's no way you could know the safety of this product before you licensed it to be injected. Control group is no control group.

Tucker [00:05:03] Is there control group of requisite for a scientific experiment because you need a baseline. What you compare it to.

Aaron Siri [00:05:10] The best you could do is compare it to the background rate, which is almost impossible because then you have to figure out the background rate for that exact demographic. It essentially renders the trial useless for safety. But here's the thing. Even if they had a control group. Tucker, Even if they did. With three days to state your view, what are your viewing? It takes weeks, often for even any immune dysregulation caused by the product to appear, just like it takes at least many weeks for you to build up, let's say, antibodies to the target antigen in the vial. Exactly. If you're going to have self attacking antibodies, those take weeks as well to develop it. And oftentimes when you're giving it to a baby, this product is given out to four and six months. If they're going to have an immune dysregulation, if they're going to have a developmental issue, you're not going to know that for years. Asthma is not even diagnosed until a few years of age. Developmental issues are take years. And so, you know, a lot of the issues that we see I mentioned, you know, my firm's got about 40 people that just do vaccine work. We do other things. We just do vaccine work. And so and we don't represent pharmaceutical companies. So as far as I know, we have the biggest vaccine practice in the world that doesn't represent pharmaceutical companies. One of the practices we have as vaccine injury claims, we don't see pharmacy companies. You can't. They have immunity to liability since 1986, the only product like that. But you can't sue the federal health authorities in this little program. And so, you know, are a lot of the injuries that we see when we do that work are immune or immune mediated neurological disorders. And those things are not going to appear until typically a few days after vaccination. So this trial, going back to this polio vaccine called this, that was the subject of this petition. It was utterly useless to determine its safety.

Tucker [00:06:59] So I'm a couple quick questions, please. I've never heard of that. I've never heard of an experiment without a control group in three days is obviously inadequate to judge the the safety of or the efficacy for that matter, of a product. So how did federal health regulators sign off on that?

Aaron Siri [00:07:17] You know, that's an excellent question. Why would the FDA agree to license it? Right. It's a great question. And we could talk about regulatory capture. We could talk about the ideological beliefs that the folks who are involved in cyber and which is the biologics division of the FDA. And within that, there's an office called the IVR. That's the where the vaccines are actually licenses are reviewed. And I've met some of the folks who'd been in that department and they're very much. I don't know if the I guess ideologues, you know, they believe almost a priority priority in the safety of these products, even when they're experimental to such a degree that I guess they let products like this. And I should tell you, if you think that.

Tucker [00:08:05] Because they believe the category of products is so virtuous that the details aren't important.

Aaron Siri [00:08:11] I'm speculating. Right. The important point is they did it. Why they did it, we could speculate on, but they did it well.

Tucker [00:08:19] So I do. But I do want to ask you to pause and try to solve a mystery that I've been thinking about for a long time. And I and I don't I really don't understand it. What accounts for the religious attachment of certain people, particularly affluent, well-educated people, to vaccines as a category? I mean, there are a million medicines out there and prophylactics and all kinds of treatments for all kinds of diseases. But people take a kind of cooler, less emotional view of them and chemotherapy and saves lives. But there are downsides to chemotherapy. And most people are, you know, kind of wing it out. Is it worth taking chemo or not? Right. But vaccines quickly become religious like almost immediately. Like even the word has an emotional power that no other treatment or medicine does. And and this has been true for a long time. Why is that? What is that?

Aaron Siri [00:09:12] Well, I'm a, have you noticed this? Absolutely. There's an irony in the following way. Those who often don't want to receive vaccines, I find here are the ones not always who have taken the time to really look at the clinical trials, the post licensure safety, to understand these products more objectively. The CDC will tell you that the people have the highest rates of completely unvaccinated kids, are ones with PhDs and are highly educated, often in the sciences. So what are they learning? What are they understanding that caused them not to receive these products? And so I find the quote unquote, those who oppose vaccines, you know, whatever pejorative one wants to use about them.

Tucker [00:09:54] They're the ones who believe the science.

Aaron Siri [00:09:56] Oftentimes. And that's just not me saying it. I mean, I'm saying that they when they survey because they've try to identify who are the populations of using these products, they find it's the they're disproportionately highly educated. There are some folks who don't have access to care and they just don't get it because they don't get it right. But those who consciously choose typically very highly educated. Now, to answer your question, which is have I seen religion almost when it comes to these products? Yes, I have. But it comes from often the side of the folks who want to make you get them force people to do it. You must believe what I believe about these products. That's right. You must submit.

Tucker [00:10:36] How dare you ask questions?

Aaron Siri [00:10:38] Do not ask questions. You must just believe and you often hear it in the following. I've never heard people say I believe in statins. Well, that I believe in, right? I believe in vaccines. That's the language they use as the language of religion. Right. And you're asking me to speculate or speculate, which I prefer usually for not to do, but is for a lot of people. And I found this with a lot of the vaccinologist who, you know, who have deposed and interacted with their often a lot of them are atheists and maybe they were brought up in a certain religion, but they have now become atheists. And I think when somebody doesn't have religion in their life, any religion, they don't believe in God. Some God. Ends up with a an empty space that needs to be filled with something. They have to believe in something. How do you not believe in something in this life? You have to have meaning. It's got to be a really dark place to not believe. To believe. Everything came from nothing. And if you do, I you know, I'm speculating that vaccines start holding a place of religion, that they look to it as, see, this saved us. This is what saved humanity. And I and I think there's maybe some to a degree of that, that this notion that vaccines are especially those in the medical profession. And I'll give you an example. You know, I'll use the example of measles, like the great killer that you'll often hear. You know, they make you feel like everyone's going to die if you don't get measles vaccines. Well, here's the thing. Public health authorities. Should take credit for the decline in measles deaths in America. They should. But they should take credit in the following way. Between the year 1900, I saw on the CDC website when about you and the year 1960, 61, 62, the years before the first measles vaccine in America, 1963, the mortality rate for measles declined by over 98%. Yes. Over 90%. That is, you can just go pull up the mortality data on the CDC website. This is uncontroversial. It's just data what I just said. Some people get emotional about it, but it's just data. What I just said, how they.

Tucker [00:12:55] Get emotional.

Aaron Siri [00:12:56] For the reasons we just discussed. That decline had nothing to do with vaccines. You know how I know there was no measles vaccine? That's all I know.

Tucker [00:13:05] What caused that decline.

Aaron Siri [00:13:07] I think that in part it's the public health. Health authorities should take a lot of credit for that. Nutrition, better sanitation, clean water, getting sewage running out of the streets. Right. Right. All of these things, initiatives to make sure that there's natural light that remember all the tenement buildings. Yes. All these initiatives, even basic things like quarantine. If you're sick. Not that not the kind of forced kind of stay at home stuff that we're talking about. Just if you're sick, hey, maybe you should stay at home in bed kind of stuff. And so that decline, 98 over 90%. You know, many people died in the few years on average, a year before there was the first measles vaccine in 1963 when parts of this country were still like the developed world, around 400 Americans a year died. That's 1 in 500,000 Americans died of measles in the years before they were vaccine. Every death is a tragedy. And measles can still kill people, just like any virus can in parts of the world that are really underdeveloped. Any virus can kill children or adults. And there are still pockets of America in the early 60s that were like that. But that declining rate of mortality, it was a trajectory that was ongoing even when the measles vaccine was introduced in 63. So those 400 deaths which have now gone down, how much of that is attributable to measles vaccine? How much of it is to the continued efforts of public health agencies? Right. That could be debated forever. We don't need to. But the important point is this. Long way to answer your question is this. When you listen to public health authorities today, they will say to you, measles is what causes. Klein Measles vaccine is what caused the decline in mortality. They never talk about those other things that they did. They never talk about the increased sanitation that the better all the all the different effective measures that they took to get it down by 90% in this.

Tucker [00:15:03] And suddenly they-

Aaron Siri [00:15:03] Talk about that last 1%, but they make it seem like the vaccine which caused that last 1% of decline from 1900 or some actually even say they caused it. You could argue it's up to one point something percent for the measles vaccine. You can't argue it's more than that and the decline is possible. But they ignore that. And the only thing they'll point to is a measles. Excuse me. Measles vaccine is what saved us. And that's true of most of the vaccines, actually, when you look at the number of people that died in the year before the vaccine, typically the mortality had precipitously decline for diptheria, for tetanus, for almost every disease decline 80 or 80, 90% before the introduction from the year 1900 introduction of the first vaccine. And often times in the year before, you were down to a dozen or two months, a dozen or two dozen deaths, you know, for most of these things. So, you know. That when you talk about religious beliefs. But yet. Many in the medical community. They'll say, Wow, how could you not take a vaccine? Millions in America would die. And that's an incredible statistic to think millions in America would die a year if you don't get vaccinated. Because if you just add up the number of deaths in the year before, every vaccine that is that is now on the schedule, putting aside Covid vaccine, because there were hundreds of thousands of deaths and before the vaccine. Right. They say. And you can argue whether the vaccine. Reduced mortality, though there was increased all cause mortality afterwards. Putting aside the flu shot, which the science is clear, doesn't reduce mortality based on numerous reviews like cork and crab bullet collaboration, which I understand now is owned by the Gates Foundation. So maybe those studies will change soon. You. You're at thousands of deaths, thousands total. And. And many of those were occurring in years, long before the, you know, the current acute care that we provide, the current increases in all the other factors that cause a reduction in mortality to begin with. So. But nonetheless, this is the only thing they want to point to is, is vaccines. You know, so I, I think that that's maybe what it is. There's just it fills a space of they have to believe in something and these products fill that space for them. Because I find a lot of times you can't really have an objective converse, a non-emotional, objective conversation with with with some people about these products and they are just products.

Tucker [00:17:47] Was this review the polio the one of six licensed polio vaccines in question you said received its license in 1990. That was 35 years ago. Did anyone over the course of 35 years say, wait a second, you know, the process used to evaluate its the safety of this product was like a joke. Woefully insufficient. They would say anything about it for all those years up until recently.

Aaron Siri [00:18:11] Well, my client, a Fox and Action Network Icahn, has been beating on their drum now for, you know, a good eight, almost eight years with the FDA, starting with an extensive letter about all of these shortcomings in 2017. I can was from the end of 2016. And you might say well. The vaccine had been licensed for decades at that point. You know what? Why now? Well, first I cam was just form then to really to really start looking at these things. And also, you know, in 1986, there was something called the National Tal, the Vaccine Injury Act that was passed. I familiar with that. And basically leading up to 1986, there were only three routine vaccines. The United States. That's it. A child in the first year of life received three injections, according to the CDC schedule. Okay. Problem is, is that. And what?

Tucker [00:19:09] What were they?

Aaron Siri [00:19:10] DTP, OPV and MMR.

Tucker [00:19:13] For the layman. What are those?

Aaron Siri [00:19:14] So one is DTP with tetanus. Pertussis. So that's one vaccine OPV, which is oral polio vaccine. And then MMR is museum measles, mumps, rubella vaccine. So each of those are counted three three different vaccines on the market, the three separate products.

Tucker [00:19:30] So that was the state of play as of 1986.

Aaron Siri [00:19:33] That was the state of play. That's it. And they were causing so much financial losses to the manufacturers of those three products. And there were many companies that made those products that all of them went out of business or stopped making them, except there was one company remaining for each of them and they were threatening to go out of business, too. Now. Congress, in its wisdom, should have let them do what every other manufacturer does for every other product. You make a plane that falls out of the sky, make a better plane. You make you make a car. That gas tank blows up, make a better car. You make a drug that's causing people to have all kinds of complications. Make a better drug. Instead, Congress said, you know what, actually. We'll just make it so nobody can sue you for the injuries that.

Tucker [00:20:23] These companies have out of business because of lawsuits from people who were injured.

Aaron Siri [00:20:27] That's right. They were going to go there. That's right. They were coming to incredible financial losses because of the injuries these products are causing. And so, you know, when you think about it, drugs don't have this immunity. But Congress passed a National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, and that gave them immunity for any injuries from those products. But not only those three products, any other vaccine, childhood routine, childhood vaccine that came on the market thereafter. And so we have gone. From three injections in the first year of life on the CDC schedule, the ones we just talked about. Two If you look at the CDC schedule today, you get 29 injections in the first year of life. If you if your child gets all of the vaccines that is currently on the CDC's just in the first year of life schedule, I'm not even counting the four shots that you're supposed to get in pregnancy now, which didn't exist back in 86. And that assumes you don't get any combination vaccines. That's what you would get. That's the differential between then and now. And in that same time period, we have gone from under 13% of kids in America have a chronic health issue. In the early eighty's to well over 50% of kids today have a chronic health issue. And many of those issues that have exploded are from.

Tucker [00:21:46] 86.

Aaron Siri [00:21:46] To 86 to present. Yes, And many of those chronic health issues amongst children that have exploded are immune mediated or immune mediated conditions. Okay. So something is gone wrong with the immune system of our children. Not saying vaccines cause that or are all of that rise, but what I am saying is that we do know that vaccines can cause a number of immune and immune mediated neurological conditions, including some of the conditions that we have seen explode since the early 80s. It's obviously not the only environmental change. I because something in the environment had to change between the early eighty's and today to cause this dysregulation in our children's immune system to cause all this chronic disease. Was it vaccines? Was it pesticides? Is it the all the new chemicals that are kind of on food? There's a whole host of factors to look at. But when you're talking about immune system dysregulation, looking at the products that came online between 1986 and today, it's pretty critical. And so to answer your question now, you said, well, has anybody asked a question about this clinical trial for this polio vaccine? So when my client, Icahn, started really looking at this issue. It said, well, you know, we we, you know, is is are the vaccines a contributor? Because given a lot of vaccines in the first year of life is that's what's causing these immune system issues. Well, the place that you go to assess whether a product is safe is its clinical trial. Why? It's the one time you can determine causation really, between a product and a claimed injury. You need a prospective double blind, placebo controlled trial, typically or well-controlled trial. It's okay to use non placebo if you have an existing standard of care that has already been established. A safe in a double vaccine trial. Right. Okay. And so that process began by looking at. The package inserts and the FDA documents. Well, let's look at what the clinical trial data says for each of these products, not only because I can wanted to look at that investigation, but also when our clients call our firm and they say, hey, my kid went in totally healthy. You know, Baby Apgar score perfect goals and ten minutes after getting a shot or these shots has a grand mal seizure bubble, you know, as a cascade of issues. When we go to vaccine court. The program I told you about because you can't see the manufacturer. You sue the secretary of Health Services. And if. Mr. Kennedy becomes, for example, the secretary of HHS, we'd actually be suing him. Ironically, you see the secretary of HHS, and in a program where almost every claim you have to prove causation, you have to prove it came from an M.D., Ph.D. I'm not I'm I'm a lawyer. So when I go to court about vaccines, I have to prove things with real evidence. I need good evidence. I don't get to just say stuff. I don't get to appeal to my credentials. Okay. How do I prove it? Start your clinical trial data. Because everything after licensure is almost all retrospective. Epidemiological studies and those, they say, can never show causation. You roll into court with those are like, what? That's that's just correlation. You can't prove anything with that. And by the way, it's not even like there's a mountain of that stuff. There's if you go to PubMed and you want to research the safety of any particular child, the vaccine, you're not going to find a lot of studies in this most robustly studied products. But there's there's what they say and there's a reality to to the state of the science. So bringing this all the way back and.

Tucker [00:25:31] The reality is that they're just not studied very closely.

Aaron Siri [00:25:35] And and this polio vaccine is a great example. And as well as the other two petitions they took issue with in the news recently. So in this one petition. Here we are. Right. A 2 or 20 something years later, we've got this explosion of chronic health in our children and the manufacture of this product. This was a novel product at the time, the manufacturers product. 20 something years later, still needs immunity, liability. You still don't know it's safe enough to live that really it's been how many years? All right. So merits really looking into who look at the clinical trial. Like I said, on behalf of Icahn, we followed the FDA for all the clinical trial reports. We sent them letters. We did everything we can to give them an opportunity to show us it's more than three days with no control because that is not believable. Meaning if you had said to me, he said, Aaron, come up with the most nefarious thing you come up with about vaccines, like just go crazy. I wouldn't even dream of saying that to you because nobody would believe it. It's it sounds crazy, but it's right there. It is the reality. And so we filed a petition that I think of anybody in America read if you read the headline of The New York Times, but instead read the actual petition, you'd be like, that's very reasonable. So you license a completely novel. Yes. Polio vaccine based on essentially cancerous monkey kidney cells that end up as an ingredient. And you're mutated for three days after injection with no control. So the petition said, Hey, FDA. Excuse me. Can you require a proper clinical trial of this product, please, before its license? And it was only asked the children that's that the request was in this petition filed on behalf of I can. Okay. So let me address two things.

Tucker [00:27:27] Which are that was the ask just for a clinical trial.

Aaron Siri [00:27:30] Before it's licensed for children. Yes. And so what we're asking now, just just to understand, it's not even like I can wanted to withdraw the licensure of this one product. It's not the point. The clinical trials are done by the manufacturer. They're not done by the FDA, okay? They're done by the manufacturer. So how do we get the manufacturer to do another clinical trial that's appropriate? Well, you have to when you file a request with the FDA on their formal docket, like when Pfizer files a request on this formal docket that we use, have their heads that we use it because it's only pharma companies typically use it. So like, we'd like to license this product. We would like to change the licensure. We would like to change that company's licensure because of this, right? So we use the same document on behalf of Icahn, and we filed on it and we said, Hey, we want you to take this action, but we have to ask them to change some action the FDA took or the only action they took was to license it. So the valve to ask them to get them to require a new trial is to say. Pause or pull the license for for this one product until there's a proper trial. Okay. It was it was the legal mechanism to get the another trial. It wasn't the purpose wasn't to get rid of the vaccine. The purpose was to get them to do a proper trial. And in no universe to be clear, did we ever think, my client ever think and I ever think that the FDA would actually pull the licensure. We just hoped thought they'd say, hey, go do a proper clinical trial. They're on to us. It's now been that petition was filed in 2022. It's been years they haven't done it. And I like to make this point very clear, just super clear. I really got to set this record straight. So important. Even if this petition was granted. There is not a single child or adult in America that would not have had access to a polio vaccine. Not one. That is what makes The New York Times headlines absolutely false. They knew it was false. They intended for the country to be seen because they're trying desperately to derail Mr. Kennedy's nomination. And I just.

Tucker [00:29:42] I know you don't like to speculate as to motive, but it does raise this. Confusing question. Why would The New York Times, A be so opposed to Bobby Kennedy? A It's a liberal newspaper. He's a lifelong liberal. Was Kennedy was. Yeah. Right.

Aaron Siri [00:30:01] And they're right in their minds. Yeah, he is. He's a classical.

Tucker [00:30:03] Liberal. I, I couldn't agree more. And I would say it's compliment believes in civil liberties. We all should. But why would The New York Times be willing to lie in order to keep him from getting confirmed? Why is it so important?

Aaron Siri [00:30:25] I think it's probably a mix. Like many things in life of a number of factors. Sure. I think that it matters whether you're looking at the level of the two reporters that wrote this piece. At the level of The New York Times as an organization, at the various people between the two reporters and New York Times, an organization that had some hand in that piece before it came out. I think it's probably a blend of ranging from ideology. You know, I will tell you these to authors of this article. I mean, they are in the category of what I would call vaccine zealots. I mean, they, I think, are incapable of objectively thinking. And look, you.

Tucker [00:31:00] Remember the names.

Aaron Siri [00:31:04] That their names are Cheryl and Christina and I, I could pull it up if you'd like.

Tucker [00:31:11] I'm just. If people are interested, the first names are great. People can find.

Aaron Siri [00:31:15] Yeah, they're right there on the article. You can. But from, you know, over the years and Cheryl, you know, it's reached out and, you know, you never have a conversation with somebody and you're like, hey, look, look at this fact right here. And they just instead of responding to it, they just immediately go to something else. Right. Because they can't deal with that fact. So they just bring up something else. I feel like that's a sign to me of a lack of being able to really objectively evaluate the evidence in front of you. And I feel like that, you know, there's there's an issue there. So there's ideology. And then there's also you have to look out always got to look at somebody's financial interests, always. Right. Because it conforms their conduct, whether in one way or another, as objective as we all think we would like to believe we are. And we should all strive for it. Financial interests affect us. They do. Yes, they do. And so where does New York Times get some of its financing? Does is there any dollars that flow to their advertising coffers from those who want informed consent, medical freedom? Or is there more dollars a flow for pharmaceutical companies? And so, you know, that's maybe a consideration as well.

Tucker [00:32:23] What's the answer to that question?

Aaron Siri [00:32:25] It's obviously more from the medical pharmaceutical industry flows than The York Times. I don't believe that there are many medical freedom information organizations with a lot of money. There's not. So I don't think that's there.

Tucker [00:32:39] But it's from a big advertiser.

Aaron Siri [00:32:42] I don't know the percentage, but I know I mean, I've seen ads, so I have not dug into it. I have not engaged in trying to answer the question you just asked me. So you, as you asked me to speculate, have speculated. You know, I mean, again, whatever their motives are, they did it. And the reason and just, you know, I'll wrap up the point of why they knew it was false and why it was false is that the petition only asked for the reevaluation as to children, which are meant even if the petition was granted, it would have made available for all adults in America licensed, which would have meant it would have remained off label use for all children rights and nobody would have been deprived in America for even that one vaccine we asked about. But putting that aside, there are five other licensed vaccines for children. Polio on the CDC schedule is given a two for six months of age and four years of age. And there are five other shots you can get at those intervals because they're given with other vaccines that those at those time periods. So so it would have taken them two seconds of thinking to know their guideline of the polio vaccine is going to be eliminated was absolutely a lie. Why do you I mean I mean, why do you think they did it?

Tucker [00:34:00] Because I think. Bobby Kennedy. Well, because some of them are vaccine zealots. I think that's right. I've certainly seen a lot of that. But I also think there's something about the way he assesses facts and history that's terrifying to a certain sort of person who's very vested in the current system, who's a rigid, dogmatic thinker. A lot of them are. A lot of the dumber people are rigid, dogmatic, in case you haven't noticed. It's it's a it's a sign of mediocrity, in my opinion. But it's very common in our professional class. And Bobby, like Trump, is the kind of person who assesses things on the basis of what he sees and doesn't necessarily genuflect before, you know, the pieties that all of us have to we're required to or, you know, we're supposed to say he doesn't necessarily go along with that. And that temperament is incredibly threatening. Once you start asking questions, you know, are these products safe? You might wind up asking other questions like why do we have Naito? Or is it like, how was John F Kennedy murdered? Like, what was that? I mean, there's people who asked uncomfortable questions in one area are likely to ask uncomfortable questions in other areas. And if your entire system is built on wise. That's, you know, a huge threat. Well, that's my personal view.

Aaron Siri [00:35:32] I'll build on that then, which is. When you look at the last 40 years. Who has been one of the big supporters in many ways of the of what's occurred. All right. You don't often a lot of times you'll see The New York Times supportive of what the HHS administration has been doing over the last 40 years. And where's that gotten us over the last 40 years? Let's think about this for a second. So under the under the under the a current approach that's been going on, which Bobbie stands in opposition to in many ways. Right. And I'm not talking about vaccines. I'm talking about the way business is done across health. Exactly right. I'm not talking about just vaccines right now. When you look over the last four years, we've gone we've already talked about child crunk health gone, exploding. All right. Which is, you know, suffering on a micro scale. You know, each one of these families that has a kid with chronic health issues devastating. And we have families with a vaccine injured kid. It's it's a devastating event. But then there's also the macro issue, too, which is we've got $35 trillion in debt. We have almost 2 trillion a year of that we can't cover of what we spend in this country. We're bringing in four point something trillion in revenue and and just one agency, CMS, that does Medicare. Medicaid is almost $1.7 trillion of our $6 trillion budget. And when you look at the growth curve of that agency alone, it's just skyrocketing. We are you know, if a few countries stop using our dollars are national reserve currency. We could be in a death spiral. I mean, this is how empires fail. And and what is driving a massive component. Of our national debt. It's health care spending and it's going to rise and it's going to increase. And really, Congress, unfortunately, has in many ways rigged the rules for Medicaid and Medicaid. So it's really hard to reduce the total spend. Other than getting people healthier. And that is what Bobby wants. That's all he's focused on. He has no interests that, you know, that extend. You know, my experience with him. Beyond that, he is genuinely committed to helping people and saving people. And I think you're right. He stands against what what has brought us to this place. And in many ways, I guess, you know, you're right in that. If he's right. If if there are a whole host of things that our health agencies have been doing or ignoring or not properly studying, and I'm talking about everything right now, it would show that The New York Times and all of these papers have not been doing their job.

Tucker [00:38:14] So just just to kind of Tebow in The New York Times story element of this conversation, they made the claim that you or you were Bobby Kennedy or a pro polio. One of their claims they make.

Aaron Siri [00:38:29] Are they also said we were trying to get rid of happy vaccines. And then they pointed to a yet another petition that I could talk about because, again, a petition that we filed with regard to happy vaccines and again, only with regard to two of them, there are others. Okay. So there were not about all happy vaccines. Again, it was filed on behalf of our client. I can not on behalf of Mr. Kennedy. He knew nothing about it. He had nothing to do with it. Right. So the association with him is totally false. And it would have lot of left Americans without access to happy vaccine. So that was false. To what did the petition actually ask for? Well, let me tell you, because that's what should have been the headline. The headline should have been the following in The New York Times. FDA Licenses Happy Vaccines for Infants and Toddlers based on clinical trial with five days or less of safety monitoring after injection and no control group. That should have been the headline. That is patently insufficient to determine safety. And I think anybody that reads the petition that was filed with the FDA would find it eminently reasonable because it doesn't just say you did this, it starts with in 2017, we said to you, how could you do this? You didn't really do this. Give us documents. And then they gave us an answer and they didn't provide anything of substance. Then we did it again on behalf of Icahn and we fired them. Then we sued them and we won't have I can we did this for years. And then we finally brought the petition again saying, come on, you got to require proper a clinical trial. Again, this is yet these were two vaccines that also came online during that period between 1986 and now. They were part of the explosion of chronic health condition. Let's make sure they're really safe. And the way to do that as a clinical trial. The New York Times also accused us of wanting to get rid of a bunch of other vaccines because there was a third petition that was filed, the FDA, again, after a lot of back and forth. And that petition, I think, most people, again, would find eminently reasonable. That petition was based on a peer reviewed study that came out by the world's leading aluminum expert and four of his colleagues. And what did this paper find in this peer reviewed journal? It found that amongst ten childhood vaccines, there was far more aluminum adjuvant in the vial. Or far less in the vial than what was on the FDA label for those vaccines. So you got a label, the FDA approved label. It says it's got point five, let's say micrograms. But there the finding was that it had double maybe inside of it. That's a serious concern. Aluminum adjuvants are neuro and cytotoxic. They're what you use to induce autoimmunity in lab animals. Okay. They're not they're not like candy. You know, if I just injected you with just dead pieces of proteins, right, from a pertussis bacteria, your body would probably be macrophages in the drug sales of products. Gobble it up and throw it away as garbage. Because to have a real immune reaction, you have to have cellular death. You have to have cellular. And how do bacteria accelerated death for replicating and killing cells? Viruses are taking over cells, but if you have just dead pieces of protein in the vial, it's not going to do much. So they include aluminum adjuvants. Aluminum is bound to silica acid in the ground. Humans not come into contact ever with aluminum throughout all human history, for the most part. And so not long ago, in the scale of human history, we started. Or mining it and separating for silica acid. Most metals that you come into contact with the environment have a human function like iron, right? Magnesium. Your body has some mechanism. It uses a for aluminum, has no biological function. Your body zero. That's why when you have an aluminum can, you know how can like survive forever and bacteria and virus don't grow because it's toxic to life. Okay? People think of aluminum like as if it's ubiquitous because it's now ubiquitous in our you know but but the. So aluminum and having too much or too little is problematic and the aluminum that you ingest is usually an ionic form. You know, like in the periodic table of elements, it's like tiny, tiny, tiny piece of aluminum. So if this cup was an iron of aluminum that you ingested, which, you know, wouldn't cross the blood brain barrier, which your body could, you know, use its pathways to get rid of a piece of aluminum adjuvant would be like the sides of this whole city were sitting in Kate on the microscale. It's massive. So it gets injected into your arm. With the vaccine in it's in the vial to cause cellular death at the injection site. Okay. So that your your blood neutrophils come pouring out and you have that information that you see when you have an infection gets red. And that's your immune system working and IgG. And those are those aluminum agents are bound to the antigens. So when you're macrophages and jerks, all those immune system cells take them and go to your lymph nodes to create antibodies, adaptive immunity. Right after they're done doing that. Where does the aluminum adjuvant go? Well, let me tell you, the CDC and others have done studies where they inject long term adjuvant into animals and then they sacrifice them. You know, they market them adjuvant with like a fluorescence so they can see where is it afterwards and they can, you know, shine it on the animal. It ends up in all their organs, their brain, their lungs, their heart everywhere. So that's not good. You know, having a that kind of material deposited is not good. So you don't want too much of it in a vial. Okay. I'm not saying what kind of harm. I'm just saying you don't want to you don't want too little because that presents efficacy issues and even safety issues. So the petition, all it asks for and I those might have been too much detail about aluminum but but the the petition all it asks for is says said hey. FDA. And if you read it, the ask was this. Please confirm, please provide documents that confirm that the amount of aluminum adjuvant in the vial of these ten child vaccines matches. What's on the product label. And if you can't and you don't have that documentation and you can't show, then pause distribution until you do, because that's a serious safety issue and efficacy issue. You're giving kids vaccines that may have safety concerns like a shot in the dark in many ways and also may not even be efficacious, may not even produce the immunity you're looking for. That petition was filed years and years and years ago, and still they have not confirmed it one way or another. Again. Up to the point of these petitions was not to actually stop the distribution of these vaccines. I can didn't want to do that. It just wanted them to do proper safety studies. That's really it. The legal mechanism was to say pause it so that they then would require the science. Otherwise, there's no legal mechanism to get the FDA to do the things it should have been doing. And I would like to think we could all agree that, you know, when you go to the store and you get a box of Captain Crunch cereal and you read the ingredients, what's on the ingredients should match what's in the box.

Tucker [00:45:42] Right? And in the case of the third petition, it wasn't just that you showed the safety testing was inadequate. You there was evidence of an actual problem. The ingredients didn't match the label.

Aaron Siri [00:45:51] Absolutely right. By the world's leading aluminum scientists. That's right. So but the headline wasn't FDA shirks its duties to assure product safety FDA. No it was you know, by implication Mr. Kennedy wants to ban vaccines, which is complete and utter nonsense.

Tucker [00:46:12] So the purpose of this piece was obviously not to report the news or tell the truth or, you know, get the heart of anything. It was to stop Bobby Kennedy's nomination at the confirmation stage. What has it been effective?

Aaron Siri [00:46:26] Well, that is why I'm you know, I'm on your show to to make sure everybody understands that The New York Times deceived this entire country about what's in the petitions. It deceived the country about their connection to Mr. Kennedy. It's nothing to do with him. And I do not think I do not think thank. Thankfully, because of our folks who are willing to actually cover the truth, and thank goodness there is media that's willing to cover the truth about this. I don't think it will hurt him. But if we were 15 years ago and there was no alternative media recall.

Tucker [00:47:03] That's right.

Aaron Siri [00:47:03] And The New York Times ran the story and everybody else picked it up. Who would I talk to? To tell the truth? Who could I go on? Who would I speaking with? I'd be I'd be in my office just talking to the wall. So, you know, it's a very thankful that there is there are those you know, and I'm thankful to the to the alternative media that hosted me as well as others, you know, who have hosted me. You know you know, Fox put me on to talk about this. Chris Cuomo had me on, to his credit, to talk about Foreign News Nation. And The Wall Street Journal just published an op-ed to their credit their rivals, The New York Times. I don't know. So maybe that helped as my understanding. So, you know, and it was an op ed, it wasn't a piece, but fine. So I hope is that no, I don't think it's going to hurt him because I like to hope and think the senators will look at the actual facts the end of the day on this and they'll realize this this it just wasn't true. What was in this article? There's you know, there's just no truth. There's just no truth to the claim that he wants to go to vaccines. He just wants transparency. And he wants good science and we should all want that.

Tucker [00:48:10] I want to ask a specific question that's bothered me for a long time. So 1986 Congress grants blanket immunity to the vaccine manufacturers that cannot be sued. You know, those are not the only products people sue over. Of course, the trial bar, which was, you know, famously the most powerful along with teachers unions, the most powerful single constituency in the Democratic Party, because it gave the most money. You know, they've lobbied to make it easy to sue over anything. You know, big chains go out of business because, you know, they get sued. Why haven't they complained about this?

Aaron Siri [00:48:46] It's a great question. I mean, that I, I just think that there's. It's. There aren't many plaintiffs firms that have made a line of business in it. So it's not like they had this line of cases and business suing on vaccine injuries. And now you've taken it away. I mean, there were a few doing it, obviously back in the early 80s. But I think you're talking about like in the decades since. Why hasn't the trial bar done this? You know, maybe it's a blend of ideology. And it's also none of the big plaintiffs side firms have a vaccine injury practice. And the ones that do have gotten used to maybe the existing system.

Tucker [00:49:31] But it's just weird. I mean, sue over talcum powder. Asbestos is tobacco slip and falls. I mean, you name it, playground equipment manufacturers, the rest of the medical establishment get sued constantly, but nobody thinks, well, wait, everyone knows there are a lot of vaccine injuries. That's not a controversial point. It's known. And no one, no lawyer thought, well, wait a second, you know, we need to lobby to change this law because we could save people and make a ton of money. I just think it's very strange.

Aaron Siri [00:50:06] Well, I you asked me a lot of questions that are complex and require speculation. But, you know, maybe part of it is that you said the trial bar has a lot of lobbyists. Right. And influence. But yeah, they do. But but pharma and health, the health care industry has my understanding, over 2000 lobbyists. I understand they have the most lobbyists of any industry out there, double as my understanding in terms of dollars, if I'm don't quote me on this one because. But you should look it up. I think the last I heard and this should be verified, double the next in line, which I thought was like oil and gas industry. So I don't know where trial lawyers stand in that in that thing, but I suspect those who would benefit from keeping that immunity probably have far more influence, and that's probably why it stays in place.

Tucker [00:50:56] It's just very strange because, you know, all of us well, thanks to propaganda from organized labor lobbies, have been told from birth that, you know, the civil law keeps us safe. You know, if you make a crappy product, if again, if you're, as you said, if your gas tank blows up, some lawyers going to sue the car manufacturer and you'll get a safer car.

Aaron Siri [00:51:18] That is that is how product safety works. When you look at countries that don't have, you know, basically market based systems, how do their products get safer? They didn't go look back at other countries in that way. The way that products get safer is the companies in economic interest, which is a good thing, meaning their economic interests aligns with safety. I make a car, I make a drug. I want to make sure that it's as safe as I can make it so that I can still make money when I sell it and not space exposure downstream that will make me with end up with a loss. Well, I'm.

Tucker [00:51:51] Glad you said drug to because it this immunity applies only to vaccines for lots of drugs. That's right. Some of them have, you know, all of them have side effects. Some of the side effects are scary as hell, but they're still in the market.

Aaron Siri [00:52:05] And they're given to only very small groups of people. So you have drugs given to small groups of people like you said, and cost and they can survive. But a product that you give to millions, often by coercion, by school mandates every single year promoted by the federal government, you can't make a profit on. You don't have to pay marketing budget because the government does it for you. You don't have to worry about selling it, promoting it because they're mandating it to go to school. Millions have to take it. You're raking in billions a year and you still can't turn a profit without the immunity. I mean, it is it's a very troubling reality. It's part of the reason I drove that petition. I will give you I will put this into I'm unprofitable.

Tucker [00:52:45] Just to prove something. You said, how profitable are vaccines?

Aaron Siri [00:52:47] But the vaccine industry profits to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

Tucker [00:52:53] So it is a legitimate profit center for the Farmaco.

Aaron Siri [00:52:56] Absolutely. My goodness. And since the early 80s, it is becoming an increasingly large percentage of their portfolio, in particular for Sanofi, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. Those four in particular are making most of the childhood vaccines and vaccines in America. And their portfolio, their percentage of portfolio has been increasing because imagine I came to you and I said, Hey, Tucker, I got a business idea for you. Okay, you ready? You want to hear it? Listen, what we're going to do, we're going to put out this product, okay? Like, what is it? Don't worry about it. But we inject in people. Well, why would people take it? Well, the government going to mandate it. Okay, great. Well, is it safe? Don't worry about it, because they're going to give us immunity. Well, I mean, what are people like start attacking us, the media. Don't worry. Our government is also going to promote it for us, as well as all 50 health agencies, if you like. Well, let me get this straight. Guaranteed market immunity to liability. It's a no brainer. So obviously, yes, vaccines. But why have increased?

Tucker [00:53:53] Why did the 86 law passed as a public service in the name of public health? Why did it allow vaccine manufacturers to profit? So right. You will you get an immunity shield, but you're not allowed to get rich off it. That seems.

Aaron Siri [00:54:09] Fair. Well, what they did was, is that they left the financial incentive to make more vaccines, but they didn't leave the financial incentive that makes them make more vaccines that are safe. Exactly. So what they did is they took away the one true way you were. Sure. Product safety. And to be clear, there is no other product on the market that's like this. And let me draw this into sharp contrast for you. Okay. Pfizer, according to money in its top five selling drugs. Okay. When you look at that list, four of them are drugs ones, vaccine, not including Covid vaccine, Enbrel, our quest and so forth. If you go to the FDA website, everybody should do this. And I actually have a chart on this on my Twitter feed. Okay. And you can see what was the clinical trial relied upon to license those four drugs. Right. The top five selling Pfizer products. Most of those clinical trials relied upon. The licensed products were multi year placebo controlled trials. Why would Pfizer do that? Why would Pfizer do that with those products? But when you look at vaccine products and again, you know, this is going to sound crazy, but I'm telling you, it's right there on the FDA website. Most childhood vaccines are licensed based on days or weeks of safety review after injection. Virtually never. A placebo control group ever, or sometimes no control or control that makes no sense and often underpowered, meaning you don't have enough kids in it to really assess if there's even an issue. So why would Pfizer have multi year placebo controlled trial for drugs? But all these vaccines are put out with just ridiculous, like this polio vaccine we talked about. It's because Pfizer wants to know whether or not those drugs are going to cause harm after they're licensed, because if it does, they're on the hook. They don't want to end up upside down financially. They don't want to lose money on those drugs. So before it goes on the market, they make sure they want those trials. Forget you asked me before about the FDA. Forget the FDA. That's what economic interest does. It kind of forms the conduct of the company to assure safety. And that's a great thing. That's part of why our market system works well with regards to product safety. People talk about the lawsuits. Yeah, the lawsuits are there, but it's not the lawsuits that make them safe. It's the fact that they want to make money. And most of safety happens before the lawsuit. It happens before the product even goes to market. The company cares. They test that. They evaluate. They don't want to face the liability and be upside down. But when it comes to vaccines, they don't have that interest. When you look at most lawsuits that big companies face, the board members face the officers face, oftentimes because they cause a financial loss. Right. You ever hear of a lawsuit, a securities class action, because a company was immoral or was unethical? No, it's because they lost money. It's because they didn't do things to maximize money in many ways. And so that's what conformance that's what drives corporate conduct, drives the companies to make decisions about what they're going to do. And you have a company that's making a product when they make the drug. Their fiduciary duty to their shareholders is to make sure they test that properly. But their fiduciary duty to their shareholders and comes to the vaccines is to test them as little as possible. Because if they do test them and they find a problem, then they can make money from it. They might not get to market. They would actually be kind of in some ways forget ethics and morality. They would in many ways violate their their fiduciary duty to their shareholders to to test the vaccine trial too much. If they knew too much, then it won't get licensed. It's a perversion of it. And then after not only they gut, not only did they gut the economic interests, there is one of the way you assure a product safety. It's a far weaker way. It's not very good, but it's there. And that's regulators and they have a role to play. They have a role to play. But the regulators here are completely conflicted because HHS, the Department of Health Human Services, is the Department of the Federal government, in which you have the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, all of the health agencies. Okay. And it's it is responsible for promoting vaccines. So it's responsible for the safety of vaccines and promoting vaccines. Those are in conflict. For example, you think, for example, the Department of the Department of Transportation is responsible promoting transportation. So they go to the airlines and they say, hey, make more planes, get more planes in the sky, have more airports, you know, and so forth. But who's responsible for safety if there's a crash? The NTSB, a completely different agency. You separate them. It's hard for me to shake your hand with industry and the government and say, hey, make more planes and at the same time slap you and say, hey, you're out. It's hard to do the same roles you separate. Or the Department of Energy is responsible for promoting nuclear power in America. But there's an atomic energy. The nuclear regulatory age. Excuse me. Yeah. Thank you. Is responsible for the safety of nuclear power plants. They completely separate function with vaccines. They're not separated. And additionally, not only do they not separate those absolutely diametrically opposed duties, you cannot have the same department responsible. Both. One will win out more than that. Remember what I told you earlier? The 1986 act that I reference did create a very narrow path for some compensation for vaccine injury. But you sue the Department of Health and Human Services, the secretary, you are suing the very same federal health department that is responsible for safety. So if and the represent by the law firm call the Department of Justice, you matter to them. So you're fighting against the Department of Justice in this program where there's no discovery. Let's put that aside. The important point is this. It is the only product that I know of where the government. Defends the product and the industry and the companies. Against the consumer and the citizens. And that creates an incredible conflict. So if they do any study, Tucker, think about it. If they do a study that shows this vaccine causes asthma or causes an increase in some serious issue, what are the the few lawyers that engage vaccine genes program to do as an admission against interest? They're going to use those studies the science to get liability against to the federal government for those acts and injuries. It's an incredible conflict.

Tucker [01:00:25] So if I bring suit against the secretary of HHS on behalf of someone who's actually injured and I win. Where does the money come from?

Aaron Siri [01:00:37] So there is a tax. $0.75 is paid for every vaccine dose, and that goes into a fund. That fund has about $3 billion right now. It's paid out, you know, I think over 4 billion to date with a cap of 250,000 and pain and suffering and a cap of 280,000 for death claims. And so it comes out of that. It's called the vaccine injury issue.

Tucker [01:01:02] So the manufacturers are not.

Aaron Siri [01:01:04] They still are not on the hook for it now.

Tucker [01:01:05] So so the system's even more grotesque than you describe. There's a product made by a publicly traded company, a private company. You know, non-government. The government requires its citizens to buy the product. The manufacturer cannot be sued if the product is faulty. And if someone's injured, they have to fight the government to get paid. And when they do get paid, the manufacturer doesn't have to pay.

Aaron Siri [01:01:36] Right. Well, and I'll add to it in that this when you sue the government, it's not like you get an Article three judge, you know, Article one, two and three of the Constitution. Article three created the judiciary. There are judges that are, you know, that are nominated and confirmed by the Senate. You don't get an Article three judge. You get something called the special master in this program, which is, I will submit, is in many ways policy driven. So there are things that compensate. There are things they want. They don't want to compensate their babies as basically almost on a policy basis. They there are things. Well, that would people won't vaccinate.

Tucker [01:02:13] Come on.

Aaron Siri [01:02:15] I mean, ideology around these products is very strong. I'm not I don't joke about I mean, people are very ideological around this product. They believe with our vaccines, everyone will die. I mean, that's the typical retort. You want a proper clinical trial? Everyone will. Dying of polio. You you filed the petition on a novel polio vaccine from 1990. And that would have left nobody without a polio vaccine. You even have. Granted, they'd just ask for a proper clinical trial. You want everyone to get polio and die? I mean, this is. You just saw it happen. But your own eyes for vaccines.

Tucker [01:02:49] I'm not sure I am, but you could be. Many people are. I always have been and