Episode #67 Featuring Aaron Siri !! Author of the book "Vaccines Amen"

A short disclaimer for everyone on this episode. This is the longest episode that the Dylan Jamele podcast has ever recorded. It is a topic of discussion that is very controversial. And I was approached by the author of the book, Vaccines, Amen, Aaron Seary, with a troubling amount of information that I did want to cover here. I tried to stay extremely impartial and non-emotional throughout this interview. However, some of the things that were uncovered are quite troubling and need to be brought to everyone's attention. All of the information was vetted before this interview and is all cited within his book. So there may be some disagreement upon this, but all of this information that will be provided has been cited within his book. And I would urge you all to go check out Vaccines, Amen, the book by Aaron Seary, and you can cite and find all of the relative information in regard to the facts given within this podcast. ["Vacuuming"] All right, everybody. Welcome back to the Dylan Jamele podcast. As you can see, I have a little bit different setting here, and it is phenomenal, I must say. But I have a topic of discussion and a guest today that falls in line with what I do, because I like to tell everybody that I'm an arbiter of truth. I don't pick sides, I don't play games, I don't conspiratory type of behavior. I don't do any of that. I just give you what I see, what I find, and what I know. And what I've found is that my guest today has done some of the most honorable and I'll go out on a limb here, say, some of the most disturbing yet fascinating work I've ever seen because of what he's brought to light. And I have grown a massive interest and a deep appreciation for him and what he's done. And so while this is not a topic that I generally broach, I have a duty with my platform and what I've done and what I've been able to do by putting out the truth. And when my guest approached me, I was a little hesitant at first to take on this topic, but I'll tell you what, after talking with him and reading his book cover to cover, I have to tell you something. I have a duty here and so I'm spotlighting him today. I'm gonna give him a brief introduction. He's the managing partner of the Siri and Glimstad LLP, which is a national firm of over 100 professionals focused on civil rights, class actions, and complex litigation. And he has led high profile cases challenging medical mandates and restored exemptions. And he has a new book out that we're gonna discuss today that is going to blow the roof off, everything that's put out there. And I'm just gonna give him the opportunity to go from start to finish and give nothing but facts. No emotion, no whatever our belief system is, straight down the middle facts. His book right here, Vaccines, Amen. This is a life changing book on a variety of levels, not just for the information on here, but the lives that it can save. And that's what I'm here to do with my guest today. So my friends, Aaron Siri. Good to see you. Thanks for having me out here, man. I appreciate it. I really do. Oh, it's a pleasure. So my friend, like I said, when you contacted me, I was a little hesitant because these are touchy topics. And while I maybe have a certain set of beliefs on things too, I'm one of those people I'm very open. I like to hear all sides of things. So I look at it from all perspectives. But what you've done and the amount of time and effort you've put into this, I've got to tell you brother, I hold you in an extremely high regard for the work that you've done, for your ability to just go all out. So I ask you first and foremost, before we get into the book, anything, what's your driving force to do this? Because it is one of those things that can get you a lot of hate and it can get a lot of people coming after you. So what is it for you that makes you want to even touch this? Freedom. Everybody should have the individual and civil right to say no without any coercion to a medical product. And here's the thing about that, mandating a medical product, it doesn't hurt those who want to get it. They're going to get it anyway. So who does it hurt? It hurts the type of people that are firm deals with every day. It hurts families whose child may have been seriously injured or even died from one of these products. They then make the choice to not receive another one. And what happens to them? Do they get empathy? Do they get sympathy? No. They try to kick their kids out of school. Right. They get gaslighted at that, at doctor's offices. They get called selfish in any other horrible, in all kinds of other horrible names. Think about the way they talk about people who don't vaccinate, especially five, six years ago, free COVID, right? Think about the way those folks are treated. Imagine I told you there's a group of people that, you know, and pick a racial group, pick an ethnic group, pick a religious group, and I said, you know what we should do to that group of people? Dylan, let's throw them out of school, kick them out of their jobs. Mm-hmm. They're selfish, they're bad people. They're anti-science. They're crazy, they're radical. They and their children don't deserve the same rights as everybody else for making what? A medical decision that they, that the public, or some don't agree with. Think about that. And then think about, think about how horrible that is to be that family where your child was just seriously injured by this product. You should be have, you should have the opposite from society. You should have empathy. You should have understanding. You should have support. It's not what happens to these folks. And so, you know, it's those families and it's those rights that drive me in this space. I'm with you 100%. I'm, I struggle so much with this whole concept of this force being put on somebody and taking away rights, cancelling people, all of these things that I saw go on, that, you know, you were in a position like for me personally with what I do. I mean, you got to be careful with what you say at all times because then they come in droves to attack you. And it's like this cult of people that have this strange motive because I think I always reference this to like loony tunes, you know, with Bugs Bunny when he turned on the TV and it, it hypnotizes them. He turns into this evil bunny, you know what I mean? And then goes after everybody. And I feel like that media and marketing and the way that they push these things out, they're so good at brainwashing people into thinking one thing without looking at each opposite end of the spectrum. And it's, it's one of the most traveling things I've ever seen. I ask you this, when do you feel like this started happening? This coercion almost. And I hate to even use that word, but it's on the surface of everything that you wrote, everything that we all see. So when do you feel like this, I think it's probably gone on since the beginning of time, but when do you think it became so prevalent? Oof. Well, but truly prevalent, the, was around, I'd say around 2015. And that's when California, excuse me, 2000 and, yeah, 2015, and that's when California eliminated the exemption to be able to chend your child to school without a required vaccine. You know, up until that point, it was basically check the box exemption. I know everybody says, well, there have been mandates for attending school for forever, but the truth is, is that if you got a mandate, but there's a check the box exemption, it's not really a mandate. It's like a mandate, no mandate, right? When California did that and eliminated the exemption, left a narrow medical exemption, which is the state reviews and it's impossible to obtain based on how they amended it, that and impacting 40 million people, tens of thousands of people, that's California, basically like refugees. And who are these folks? These are the families I just told you about, right? These are the families, they can't get, medical exemptions and vaccination are not based on medicine. Nothing to do with medicine. They are a government policy driven approach to granting an exemption. The CDC creates something called a table of countermeasures and precautions and the state to follow it. And that's not science driven. That's based on what the CDC wants to put on the table. Doesn't even include almost a fraction of the known things that can cause injury for vaccines validated by the Institute of Medicine and others, okay? And so families that wanna protect their children or families that have one or more religious beliefs contrary to the practice of vaccination, like some folks oppose abortion. Yeah. And every single vial of an MMR vaccine or a chickenpox vaccine, there are literally billions of pieces of DNA from the cultured cell line of an abortive fetus. Really? Billions of pieces. That is, I mean, it's all in my book. I may sound unbelievable if anybody watching, but that's what the evidence reflects. There's not really a contested point. It's in fact, it is no contest that there's DNA and cellular debris from the cell line of abortive fetus in those vaccines. And the reason they're in there is because you gotta grow virus in cells. Right. So what do they grow it on? They grow on the cells from an abortive fetus. So some people have moral objections to that. They don't wanna participate. They don't wanna inject billions of pieces. From an abortive fetus, cell line into their children. But yet those folks were also kicked out. So I think 2015 really was an inflection of white. Then New York state did it, and then Connecticut and Maine also got rid of their exemptions. Up until that point, there were only two states in the country, Mississippi and West Virginia, they didn't have an exemption. But they're smaller states, not very pock-popated, and you could just live across the border or send your kids across the border, which often happened. And so, I'd say that was an inflection, but really, if I was gonna go to what led up to that, another big inflection point was 1986, in the passage of National Talented Exin-Indriact. We're gonna get into that. Yeah. I'm gonna put you on the stand real quick. Sure. We're gonna do a role reversal. So just to give a little bit of background for anybody that's questioning you. Okay, because one of the things that I have to battle, which I really don't anymore, because once people listen and see what I do and how I talk is, well, you don't got 35 letters after your name, so you can't know what you're talking about. And then I explain what's actually going on in medical school, and I say, well, we can sit down and go back and forth. I'm down if you wanna compare and see where we go. And so, what I look for in every person that I interview that's going one way or another is, what's the barriers that they have to overcome? Let's talk about it. So give them a chance to explain without somebody going crazy on you and yelling at you without giving the opportunity to talk. Sure. Go ahead and kind of get into what makes you somebody that people can listen to? Like what is it that you've done that you've experienced that qualifies you to discuss the topics and give the information that you've given? So you know people are gonna ask that and they're gonna throw that at you. I know the answer to that, but I want you to explain it to everybody else. Sure. Well, I would say my number one qualification is that I think about vaccines, I don't believe in them. I read and I think. Right. And I have no feelings about the products, they're just products. But if somebody wants experience and so forth, I mean, I'll say this, when I was at Berkeley Philo School, I never thought I'd be doing anything with vaccines. All right. And then when I clerked for the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Israel for your after law school, I didn't think I'd be doing the vaccine. And then when I worked at the, one of the five biggest, there were three biggest law firms, most prestigious firms in America for almost six years representing, massive companies and Beth, the company litigation. I didn't think I'd be doing anything with vaccines. Even when I left to start my own firm well over a decade ago, I didn't think I'd be doing that. I left and I was still doing commercial litigation, representing public traded companies, even a few hundred million dollars in dispute where I used to work before I remember from it was billions of dollars in dispute. And there was an inflection point, and the inflection point was 2015, what we just talked about, where they started excluding, they excluded those families in California. And then they started doing that in New York. And at that point, I had already learned some about vaccines, not much. I didn't know anything about the science at that point, but it struck me as just intuitively, there was something wrong about it. And so I started bringing some lawsuits in this area. And over time, this became my main focus of practice. Over the last decade, I have deposed from the world's leading vaccinologists, including the world's leading vaccinologists, I've deposed immunologists, infectious disease doctors, pediatricians. I have brought endless lawsuits against state health departments and federal and all kinds of federal agencies, CDC, FDA, NIAH, go down the list. And during that, those last 10 years of litigating pretty much anything you can litigate around vaccines, if I'm going to have to depose an expert in vaccinology, well, I've got to know everything I can. And so my office isn't filled with law books on the shelf. It's all medical textbooks around this discipline. And the disciplines I just mentioned, books on vaccinology, immunology, infectious disease, pediatrics, and more recently, some genetics as well. And so, I've had to, during that process, when I litigate around vaccines, I don't get to go into court and brandish credentials. I don't get to go in court and say, I'm an MD, PhD, MPH. So what I say, you should just listen to him. I don't get to do that. I have to prove everything I say about vaccines with evidence, data, not credentials. Not only that, so I have to carefully look at it and present it. And if you go to look at most of my court, my court papers, I'm not citing to stuff that anybody would say, that's not credible, it's most of CDC data. It's FDA clinical trial reports. It's in student medicine reports. It's the stuff that they tell you should rely upon, right? They just don't, I don't even know if they really look at it. And then, separately, in those litigations, not only do I have to carefully evaluate the evidence and present it properly to be able to win my cases, I also have to learn the underlying substance. I also get to hold them to their proof. If you make a claim, if they make a claim that vaccines X, I get to go in discovery, get to subpoena you or give you a doctor's request and say, give me the evidence. Give me the support for that claim, right? And then I get to put you in a room and depose you for nine hours and say, all right, what's the proof? What's the support? And then we can go to trial and I can put you on the scan and cross-examine you. That kind of process, everybody says, oh, well, we've got to have this public debate on vaccines, right? I have them all the time. Yeah. I have exactly the debate in those depositions, in those court cases. So over that decade of experience, I've got to see firsthand and had to critically and carefully evaluate the evidence and the data about these products. So over that period of time, there is what public health authorities say about vaccines. There's also, by the way, what you'll randomly see on the internet about vaccines. There's all kinds of stuff said about vaccines. And then there's what the data, the evidence actually shows. And so I've relied on the primary sources. And then that's what I lay out in my book. Yeah. You know what? It's always so telling to me when these people that have the credentials, but then they sit across from you and they've got to really be put on the spot with no screens around them to answer for them. Nobody influence in what they can say. They're on the spot. They're directly in front of your face and have nothing to rely on but themselves. And what I find so often is that a lot of these people, they don't know a fraction of what they come across to know or try to dance, to dance around, which I'm sure you see it all the time. And I have learned so much over time having direct one-on-one conversation. And I try to be versatile and well-rounded in what I do. To what you said, you're already kind of handcuffed because you're not the expert. So you have to go and spend all your time researching and be ready for everything. Right? And that's what I do with my podcast guests, that I research everything. So when we get in here, I can go back and forth with you. And I know what I'm talking about. So you put in extra work. And I'm telling you with what I read and what I've seen over time, these people, they hide behind a lot of stuff. They really do. And we're going to get into that. But I think that when you're in the position that you're in that makes you so credible is you get in these one-on-one conversations and you really pull that out and you really get to see, man, they're lying. They're lying. Or they're leading. Or they're answering, dancing like a politician. Well, you can't answer simple questions and you got to go off on a separate tangent because you don't know the answer or B. It's like, I can't answer this. And so I'm assuming that you probably over time experience that over and over and over and were like, wait a minute, this just doesn't add up. This just doesn't make sense. And I'm sure that's probably part of the reason why you dug so deep and did this. I mean, it honestly didn't take that long. Within a year or two, it became pretty apparent, especially after I deposed Dr. Samplak and who's the world's leading vaccinologist, it really brought that position particularly just really brought it home for me because up until that point, I was looking at all the primary sources. For example, you can't sue manufacturers. I know you want to get into that at some point, but you can't sue vaccine manufacturers for vaccine injury in America because they have immunity for the most part. But you can bring a claim in a specialized government program. And when you do, you have to prove causation. OK, so I need to prove the vaccine cause injury. So where do I start? I want to start with the clinical trials. That's how you can prove causation. They're prospective. So they say, oh, you can prove causation. So I started looking at all the clinical trials for all the vaccines. That is along with a nonprofit that are represented called ICANN, the information action network. They wanted to look at vaccine safety carefully. So I started looking at all the clinical trials. And this is very early on. And I'm like, what? You licensed the vaccines for babies on clinical trials with days or weeks of safety of you after injection or even only a few months with no placebo control and any routine injector to have the vaccine. We can get into that. Yeah. I know that they fact-checked that claim a lot, but it's categorically true that what I just said. And you don't have enough kids in the trial. In contrast, most drugs robustly trial before licensure. And I say, how can this be? And I thought, for example, when I deposed Dr. Plotkin, he would show he proved me wrong. He'd show me, no, you're wrong. Mr. Siri, you are wrong. And here's a mountain of evidence. You didn't have that. And we even subpoenaed him after that deposition. And instead of producing documents to support what he said supports their safety, he got a lawyer and moved to Quasit. Then we said, OK, maybe the FDA has stuff we don't know about. So when we FOIA, that's the Freedom of Information Act, submit the FOIA request to the FDA, say give us the clinical trial reports. Maybe there's something in there we didn't know. That's not on your already publicly available data. Still, again, they're vacuous. And so at every iteration of trying to find this supposed mountain of safety studies and data and trials, they're really, for the most part, nowhere to be found. And let me tell you, we want that data. We want that evidence, one for the clients we represent, where we have to prove causation. We need that data. And then separately for lots of other types of lawsuits that we do have vaccines. Any of that? You know, I come from the supplement industry. I started studying peptides way before anybody heard about them, more of an underground market and things like that. And when you're in the supplement industry and doing things like that, the number one kickback that you get is, well, there's not 20 or 30 years of data on this. So how do I know this is safe? That's the consumer kickback when I'm trying to come up with formulas or products or promote back then. And that was my number one thing. And I've never been a guy that studied vaccines, anything like that at all. I've just kind of done what you mentioned in the book, which we're going to get into is about you just kind of, it's just kind of the rush. That's just what you're told. So when COVID hit and I started seeing this, well, you have to take this. You have to do this. And there's literally no data on anything. That's when I told my wife, I said, we got a problem here. Like, what is this? Because I've lived in studies, but it's more for different supplements, different steroids, different peptides. And going back to the 80s, 70s, and having all this data, but it's still not enough, not enough to put in our bodies. We need more. We need more. So this stuff happens. And I'm going, what? And then the force and caking things from people and making them feel on top of the possible financial strain and stress, the mental stress that they were putting on people. I mean, this is ruining people in all facets, because mentally and physically, both of those can be so harmful that can ruin your quality of life, which is kind of what I talk about now. So not only are they trying to take away people's livelihoods, but they're probably taking away their life. You want to hear the irony of COVID-19 vaccine? Please. Well, if you're going to take a vaccine based on how robust this clinical trial was, then amongst all the routine injected childhood vaccines, you should take COVID-19 vaccine. Because compared to all the other ones, the COVID-19 vaccine has, in my opinion, the most robust clinical trial. You had a placebo control group, which doesn't exist for any other routine injected childhood vaccine. And when I say that, by the way, I don't just mean the current ones. I mean, even if the current routine injected childhood vaccine used another vaccine as a control, excuse me, instead of a placebo, well, then go look at the clinical trial for that vaccine. That was not a placebo control group. And you go down the chain, it doesn't exist. I lay it all out in chapter 10 of the book. So going back to COVID vaccine, it had a placebo control group that lasted on average two months before they quote unquote crossed over. And they vaccinated all of them. They had about 30,000 to 42,000 people in the trial, which, depending on the Moderna or Pfizer trial, where many of the clinical trials for kids have hundreds only, thousands of kids only. Not that 30 or 42 is, by the way, sufficient. And they reviewed safety for six months. Now, that's not sufficient still, but at least six months. Better than the literal days sometimes or weeks, they review safety after injection on a lot of the toddler vaccines. So for COVID vaccine, ironically, and some people will say, well, it was rushed. I mean, look, technology that underlines different vaccines takes often years, decades to develop. The COVID-19 vaccine, the mRNA technology, has been in development for two decades. The recombinant DNA technology used for happy vaccines was in awesome development for decades, for, you know, toxoid vaccines, subunit vaccines. There's so many different types of vaccines, OK? mRNA is just one type. Now, you know when the technology started for all those vaccines? When they invented the wheel, OK? The point is that it doesn't matter how long it takes to develop it. What matters is how robust was the trial that assessed its safety and efficacy in human beings. That's what matters. To me, it doesn't matter how long it took you to develop technology. And that technology for the mRNA was actually really far long because they were trying to develop in NIA, Fauci's Institute at NIH, in their vaccine group, a mRNA vaccine for SARS-CoV-1. So that was actually, it was kind of all there, you know? So when they say rushed, I mean, you know, how robust was the clinical trial? And that was rushed. Now, the other part where people will say a lot of times, they'll say, well, it wasn't around long enough, right? OK, well, that's a fair point. It had only been around for so long. But once it's released on the market, the only reason it being around a long time matters is if you actually are properly assessing safety afterwards. If you're not, who cares if it's in the market 10 years, 20, 30 years, right? And so true, mRNA vaccines weren't around as long, but they're post-licensure safety. If you take all the post-licensure safety for mRNA vaccines, I would, I'm going to speculate that it's probably more pages than all the, you know, vaccine safety studies published for all the childhood vaccines combined. I mean, for most of them, it's pretty vacuous. COVID vaccine was actually, after licensure, there was a lot of studies, incredible amounts. I've never seen that for any other vaccine. So, you know, that is the contrast between those two. And on the coercion point, you know, I mean, when do governments need to coerce you? They don't need to coerce you to do things that aren't problematic, right? The heavy hand of government is needed only when they can't persuade general merits. That's when they need to do it, right? And it starts off bit by bit, right? This country is founded on individual civil rights. It's a rebellion against the idea of centralized governments, a king, a dictator, a central authority. And we decided that we have an alien of rights, and we're going to respect those individual rights, whether freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and all those freedoms come with dangers, letting people say what they want, yeah, assemble with who they want, practice what religion they want, right? But we decided as a nation that the greater danger is always ceding those rights to the government, letting the government decide as much as possible. Yeah, right. We limit that. And what is the Bill of Rights, the freedom of speech? What is it? It's a limitation on government. Right. People don't think about it that way, but your freedom of speech, yes, that constitutional right is really limiting government. That's the point of it. And so when it comes to these mandated measures, the reason the coercion is so bad is the government told you you should get it, which the government should never be involved with, in my opinion, as you know, if you're reading my book. And once they've made that policy and said, Dylan, you have to take this. And you say no. Government does what government does, which is, OK, I'm going to coerce you. First, I'm going to just put a little pressure on you. Then you don't listen. I'm going to say your job might be on the line. And then we don't listen. I'm going to say, you know, lose your job. I'm three kids out of school. And you still not listen. Oh, you're even hosting online against what I'm saying is about. Now I'm going to censor you. All of the things that we're trying to avoid. And so that coercion got worse and worse and worse until, luckily, it broke and so forth. But anyway. Yeah, I mean, foundationally, everything we were built on kind of got thrown out the window, didn't it? I mean. Or at least attempted to. It was an attempt to do it. And thank goodness. I, man, I so remember that when they ordered those lockdowns. Right. I remember thinking that's it. People are going to take you to the street and protest. You want to tell me to stay at home? You want to recommend it? Great. And I'll do it if I want to. But if I want to go if my 80 year old father in law wants to go get his latte, this is America. That's freedom. You should be able to do it. And if the seven, 18 year old kid who's totally healthy with no comorbidities wants to live in his basement, he should be able to do that too. Right. Let him make that choice and go wear a mask, get a shot every day and live in his basement. Let him do that. But what's this idea of you can't leave your home? That's that's called prison. That's incarceration. I don't remember there being a trial. I didn't hear a judge issue a ruling that you did something wrong and you've got to stay in your house now. That was unbelievable. And the scariest part for me, I'll be honest, was how many people not only went along with it. Yeah, but clamored for it. I know. That was very scary to me. Again, I'm not saying you can't stay at home. Stay at home if you want. But don't coerce people to do that. I told my wife, this is, this is, this is the logic. We were on vacation in Florida around this time. It was like probably a year after it happened. And you know, you go to the restaurant and miraculously COVID doesn't, doesn't transmit if you're eating, but if you get up and go walk, man, that stuff is lethal. But it's okay as long as you're sitting there, right? It's fine. Just like on the airplane, the airplane one kills me. It's good if you're eating no problem. But man, as soon as you stop eating that thing, that thing will spread like wildfire. It was the same thing. I'd say everything's closing at eight o'clock because of COVID or nine. Why does it all of a sudden get more lethal at nine o'clock at night? I mean, the logic that was being passed around and the people that bought it, I was sitting there going like I often do. What just happened? Like I woke up and what happened to everybody's common sense, power of persuasion, right? Power of words and verbs and everything else that's used that people just fall in line and believe whatever that they hear. And I'm not saying be rebellious. I'm not saying be an anarchist. I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying, use common sense. Yeah. I mean, I don't, I mean, listen, for most folks, and this is how you have to get through your day, right? You have to use cultural cognition. Right. I mean, it's not everybody can research every single thing before they make a decision. But that one, right, is not just like buying a TV. Right. The government's telling you to stay at home six feet. Do this, do that. You know, but I think people, to the credit of the wisdom of the majority, right? To the credit of the wisdom of the collective, I should say, not the majority. A lot of people do wake up and they woke up relatively quickly. To your point about these rules that just made no sense. First of all, I had a lot of fun in court with those arguments. You know, we represented, for example, 17 members of Congress to challenge the mass made it on planes. And you can imagine the type of arguments we got to making that kid, right? Or when they required companies with over 100 employees to require masking or getting a COVID vaccine. Remember that one? Yes. We represented a car dealership in a major city, happened to have over 100 employees. Almost all the other car dealerships did not. So it was like the only one affected on this long strip of car dealerships. You know, you get into this like nonsense, you know, situation and, you know, put aside the fact that vaccine doesn't stop transmission. Which is true of most vaccines. Again, for look, most people, they view CDC as a medical organization. They think that they're making science based decisions. They just don't think about the fact that the CDC is a government organization, not a medical organization. They make policy and they drive their policy. Whether that's based on science or not, that's a whole different question. That's what I wanted you to just for people that when you say terms like CDC, like we know what that is, but a lot of people don't. What just tell everybody what that is and what they do. Okay. Sure. The United States Centers for Disease Control Prevention, CDC, that is a government agency. It's part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, which I'll call HHS. So Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and I was the secretary of HHS. Okay. Right. HHS is the federal department in which all our federal health agencies are located. So the CDC, the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration that's headed by Marty McCarrie right now, the National Institute of Health that's headed by Jay Buccharia and a whole slew of other agencies, HRQ and I'm going to go through them all. And so when I refer to CDC, that's what I'm referring to. And so people get on TV and watch the TV and there's an incredible amount of fear mongering, just like they fear monger about any other disease pathogen for which there are vaccines, they go and they fear monger far out of proportion and what the reality is. It's amazing when there's no money to be made, there's no fear mongering that is there. Always follow the money and it always leads to the answer that you want. I mean, seriously, if you are at a loss, follow the money. I mean, it's sad but true. Often, yeah, often that's the case. So I want to go down the hierarchy. So, you know, and I commented to you before, I'm a very, and everybody knows I'm a extremely spiritual guy and I operate God first and that's what drives me to even do any of this work. And so your chapter names and titles and everything are just, they fall perfectly into the story. And so we start off with part one here and it's called the clergy and we start with the high priest himself. And I, I don't, I shouldn't say this, but as soon as I read that name, cause I had no clue who this guy is, I was like, man, he just sounds like a bad guy, like a Marvel comic that would be an evil guy. Like it's just the name. I don't know why. And then I start reading and I go, okay, it makes sense. Fall in line. So why don't you tell me who is this guy, Stanley Plotkin? Why is he at the top of your hierarchy here as the godfather of, what is it, vaccinology? Yeah. Yeah. The godfather of vaccines, which is what he's often dubbed. He is the world's leading vaccinologist. Now, when I say vaccinologist or vaccinology, that is, that is a discipline, right? So if you have a heart condition, you'll go to cardiologists, right? And if you want to go to the folks who study, develop so forth vaccines, you go to a vaccinologist, right? Those are the folks. People think of like pediatricians as the vaccine experts, but they don't know anything about vaccines. You know, my typical deposition of a pediatrician is I have to go pretty light. I mean, they don't know anything about the products really. They give them a lot. Sure. But, you know, you know, it's like you go to a surgeon who uses one of these, you know, robotics to do surgery, but they don't know anything about how that's made, what it is, you know, and so forth. But let's leave that aside. So, you know, in the medical profession, most people think of doctors and the doctors are knowledgeable about vaccines. But the reality is that most doctors are nothing about vaccines. The ones that people would, you know, might suspect know stuff about vaccines would be pediatricians, immunologists, and infectious disease doctors. They think, oh, well, those folks know stuff about vaccines. They don't know nothing about almost anything about vaccines either about the products themselves. That really leads to vaccinologists. The vaccinologists are the ones who write the, do the peer reviewed studies on vaccines. They do the clinical trials on vaccines, they write the medical textbooks on vaccines. Right. And that creates the science around vaccines, the clinical trials, the peer reviewed literature, the medical textbooks. And then that science is what then filters down and is relied upon and used by the rest of the medical profession, by the CDC, by the federal agencies to set policy and so forth. So what the vaccinologists do and the way they approach vaccines is really important to understand. Right. Please. Right. Because think about it like this. The vaccinologists, the way they think will impact how a clinical trial is done. That clinical trial then gets done is then relied upon the FDA or the license vaccine. The FDA wants licenses goes to the CDC to decide whether recommended nationally. The CDC recommends it and puts it on their list. Then the states may go and mandate it. Once they've mandated the pediatricians, then I'll start injecting it. Then they tell you, oh, the CDC said it's safe and effective. Everybody in the country is now getting this product. It's being promoted as safe and effective. It becomes part of this entire, I mean, there's a giant economic underbelly to this too. Right. And when you trace that all back, where does it end up? Ends up right back in the hands of the vaccinologists and what they did. So understanding what the vaccinologists are thinking and doing affects it. It's the same way, you know, when it comes to, it doesn't have impact people in the same way, but you think of like heart medicines, right? Where does that start? But I don't want to go down that analogy. It might get too complicated. So vaccinologists are very important. And at the top of that heat is Dr. Stanley Plotkin. He is the world's lean vaccinologist. The medical textbook on vaccines. Right there. Look at that. Right there. There it is. It's called Plotkin's Vaccines. And it is the, like a lean back. There you see it. That is the standard textbook, medical textbook on vaccines. Okay. He is also developed many of the vaccines, the Ravella vaccine, Rotavirus vaccines, numerous others, been part of the chickenpox vaccine, the polio vaccine. Go down the list. He's probably published more articles and so forth than anybody in the field of vaccinology. And as Dr. Paul Offit, you may have heard of him. He might be the most famous vaccinologist and has said that Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who is Dr. Paul Offit's mentor, has trained a whole generation of vaccinologists to think the way Dr. Stanley Plotkin thinks. So the way that that gentleman thinks is critical to understand because he then taught the rest of the vaccinologists who then, like I said, really govern this discipline. And so, you know, it's like people look at Fauci and they thought, oh, Fauci, he knows. The reality is, in my view, Fauci is just relying on what the vaccinologists are saying. I don't think Fauci really knows much about vaccines. You know, that's why Fauci probably, maybe he was even surprised that if you inject the vaccine in the arm, right, for COVID, that, you know, let me put it this way. Do you remember how they were all surprised? Michelle Lolinski, they then had the CDC, they were like, really? Oh my God. We just figured out the co-vaccine doesn't stop transmission. Um, okay. So let's get this straight. You're going to inject this vaccine in the arm and you're where, you know, well, it might generate IgG antibodies in your bloodstream, but you expected it to create IgA mucosal immunity in your mucosal surfaces in your respiratory tract. Really? What vaccine does that? Let's go through them. Does the Brutusis vaccine do that? Do some of the other non-live, non-live vaccines that we inject create immunity in the respiratory tract on your mucosal surfaces? Right? Meaning they don't think, I don't, watching these folks on TV, it was like, for me, it was like watching, you know, it was like, it was like a comedy. There was a little bit of a joke because they're, they're not even, they were not even thinking through the most basic principles of axonology. Now in this field, Dr. Stanley Plotkin's views, you know, really, um, have permeated. So, um, as you know, you read the book, I had an opportunity to depose them in 2018 and go through so much, a lot of the, uh, a lot of areas of vaccines and particular vaccine safety. And so I start the book by laying out lots of sections in that deposition, not even to get into the substance of vaccines, but rather to show you the way vaccinologists approach vaccines, approach clinical trials, approach vaccine safety. Yeah. You know, and reading this, and when you read something, you can't hear tone, but you can, you can look at this and see and make your own assessment on the tone based upon the question that you're asking him. And I just got a lot of this brass, I know everything. You don't know anything type of response and just take my word for it type of thing with a lot of lack of real substance on the things that you were digging at. And you, and I read the way that you asked the questions. I mean, it was fair. It was straight down the middle. I couldn't look at what you said, because I was looking at what you said to be like, ah, well, he's kind of being funky about the way he's asking her to be tricky or slick. And, and there was nothing, I couldn't find anything that you did that wasn't like the most basic of basic questions. It should have a fairly simple answer. And that's what, that's when I started to like get a little bothered where I'm like, but unfortunately, as much as I hate politics, I have taken time as I've gotten older with the understanding some of this stuff is important. And most people just don't watch and they don't know what's going on. So I'll watch some things so I can see how things are done and how questions are asked and I'll watch some of these things in one. And again, I hate to say things negative about people, but the intelligent level on a lot of these people that are talking is so poor. It's astounding how they ever got into these seats, but two, the way they never actually answer a question. And so this guy is supposed to be the, the vaccine guy, which you would assume means this guy's brilliant. I mean, if I'm looking at it from the surface, I would think that the person that is known for vaccines, which is probably one of the most intricately done types of medicines or compounds that you could ever look at, you would think this would be like an Einstein genius. And I'm not getting that from your questioning here on his answers. Well, I, I think he's intelligent. I do think Dr. St. Plotkin is very intelligent. I just think that he went, he has gone 50 years in his career being showered with accolades, being the darling of the vaccinology world. And who's challenged him? When did this, when did he ever have to actually face real scrutiny? By who? By his own profession? No. By the pharma companies that, you know, uh, uh, you know, had supported him, gave him incredible amounts of support, right? Paid him millions of dollars? No. Uh, by the federal health agencies that literally the CDC, the vaccine committee, the gavel that's used at the CDC's vaccine committee is called Plotkin's gavel. You think those folks gave him pushback? Who gave him pushback? Right. Nobody. So he's gone his whole career without ever getting pushed back. And so, you know, all nine hours of this deposition are available on the internet. You can watch it. Yeah. You can go to thehighwire.com and just search Plotkin. You can watch all nine hours are right there. I remember when this video first came out. Yeah. The, the, the, the mother represented. She, she had given it to a bunch of outlets and it ended up on YouTube and it had millions of views. And as you could see, this is the world's leading vaccinologists. Just answering questions. Like they're just questions and he's giving the answers after millions and millions of views, YouTube took it down. Yep. And then, uh, I've never, I never put it up there. People just kept putting it up and it would then go up again and we take it down. I mean, I would say to this day, I get, I get emails, messages all the time. I've watched all nine hours and blah, blah, blah. So, um, you know, anybody who wants can watch all nine hours, but I highly recommend it. I would say that's often been the, the entry point of a lot of people to, to get in, cause if you want to, what better way to see the, the, I guess, the truth, the facts in it than in an adversarial context. Right. Right. Where the world's leading vaccine expert is being asked questions and you get to hear the answers, right? So, um, but yeah, I don't, I don't, you know, he's to his credit, to his credit. He, he, he tried really hard to maneuver the answers as best he could, but I don't, but he, you know, for the most part did not just outright lie. Yeah. Right. He tried. He was trying to be, you know, he's trying the best he could. Well, and when you don't get challenged and it's so easy for you over time, then you're not prepared for that either. So he probably wasn't thoroughly prepared for what was coming. Oh, I, hey, look, if somebody, let me put it this way. When I get asked to, let's say, test five before a, you know, a state, uh, I've testified for a lot of state health committees. I like to go to the ones where there's lots of folks who don't agree with me. I want, cause it makes it interesting. Yeah. Those are the best exchanges. I want to be challenged. Yeah. And I'm ready to do that. I don't prepare for it. I just have my base of knowledge. Okay. He's had 50 years. He's the world's leading vaccinologist. If you can't answer these basic questions, that's not something you need to prepare for. Like if somebody wants to debate right now, call off it or stay at your stand plugin or any vaccinologist tomorrow, literally tomorrow, once you get on a stage, we each get 10 minutes back and forth. I just want to project you to present evidence. Let's do it. Right. I don't need to prepare for that. Right. Let's do it. That's he, the, the, and it's not like I went and ambushed him at his house. Yeah. He volunteered to be an expert witness in a case about vaccines. We had, I think it was months before, you know, he volunteered and where he showed up there. So you had a lot of time to prepare. He knew he was going to be questioned. So anyway, well, but some of these people, they're very cocky when they're above like that and they've been on a pedestal for so long and they just think whatever I say is going to be gospel and, you know, you know, what a lot of the awards in the world of X knowledge have in their name, flocking the flocking award on vaccine, the flocking that, you know, the best part of many of those awards, he's one of his own awards. How does that even happen? Well, he gets the first one. So they name it, you know, and like, you know, the infectious disease society. And they, they've been the first one. I've been awarded my own name. I got, ah, listen, I want to, I just, a couple of these, I want sites. Sure. So that I found troubling right off the bat where I, I was like three minutes in and I was like, what was going on here? So here, right here question. You consulted for the big four vaccine manufacturers, correct? Plotkin. Yes. You're in the corporate advisory board of numerous vaccine developers, correct? Plotkin. Yes. You've received royalties from the sale of one or more vaccines. Correct. Plotkin. Yes. I mean, I don't even need to expound any further. Does that not just scream bad? Well, I'll cabinet in this way. Being a consultant for a vaccine company, fine. Right. Working for a vaccine company, fine. Taking millions of dollars with them, fine. It's America. It's capitalism. Great. Fine. You want to do that stuff. The problem I have with it, with him is not that he accepted all that money. So, okay, that's fine. That's your, it's that he is conceived as an impartial scientist by the medical community, by the health authorities, by the health agencies. That is the problem. Meaning those conflicts, those deep, really concerning conflicts, they're just not viewed as conflicts. Imagine this. Imagine I went to trial and this happens to me all the time, vaccine cases. And I came to trial about a car for Goodyear tires that were blown up and I put my expert witness, I'm Goodyear, I'm representing Goodyear. I'm representing Goodyear. Right. I get my expert on the stand to tell you that Goodyear tires are really good. So I put my expert on the stand and the other side gets up and says, okay, so you're an impartial expert. Absolutely. You are the world's leading, impartial expert on tires. Yes. Okay. Um, have you ever taken money from Goodyear? Uh, yeah. How much? Millions. Ever a consultant for them? Yes. Ever take roles for them? Yes. You're like, this guy's on it. That's, you'd be, you'd be laughing. You would be like, this is a joke. That's what I thought. Who would do that? Yeah. I get this all the time in vaccine. All right, everybody, welcome back to the Dylan Jamele podcast. As you can see, I have a little bit different setting here and it is phenomenal, I must say. But, uh, I have a topic of discussion and a guest today that is falls in line with what I do because I like to tell everybody that I'm an arbiter of truth. I don't pick sides. I don't play games. I don't conspiratory type of behavior. I don't do any of that. I just give you what I see, what I find and what I know. And what I've found is that my guest today has done some of the most honorable and I'll go out on limb here, say some of the most disturbing yet fascinating work I've ever seen because of what he's brought to light. And I have grown a massive interest and a deep appreciation for him and what he's done and so while this is not a topic that I generally broach, I have a duty with my platform and what I've done and what I've been able to do by putting out the truth. And, uh, when my guest approached me, I was a little hesitant at first to take on this topic. But I'll tell you what, after talking with him and reading his book cover to cover, I have to tell you something. I have a duty here and so I'm spotlighting him today. I'm going to give him a brief introduction. He's the managing partner of the Siri and Glimstad LLP, which is a national firm of over 100 professionals focused on civil rights, class actions and complex litigation. And he has led high profile cases, challenging medical mandates and restored exemptions. And he has a new book out that we're going to discuss today that is going to blow the roof off everything that's put out there. And I'm just going to give him the opportunity to go from start to finish and give nothing but facts. No emotion, no whatever our belief system is straight down the middle facts. His book right here, Vaccines, Amen. This is a life changing book on a variety of levels. Not just for the information on here, but the lives that it can say. And that's what I'm here to do with my guests today. So my friends, Aaron Siri. Good to see you. Thanks for having me out here, man. I appreciate it. I really do. Oh, it's a pleasure. So my friend, like I said, when you contacted me, I was a little hesitant because these are touchy topics. And while I may be have a certain set of beliefs on things too, I'm one of those people. I'm very open. I like to hear all sides of things. So I look at it from all perspectives. But what you've done and the amount of time and effort you put into this, I've got to tell you, brother, I hold you in an extremely high regard for the work that you've done for your ability to just go all out. So I ask you first and foremost, before we get into the book, anything, what's your driving force to do this? Because it is one of those things that can get you a lot of hate and they can get a lot of people coming after you. So what is it for you that makes you want to even touch this? Freedom. Everybody should have the individual and civil right to say no without any coercion to a medical product. And here's the thing about that. Mandating a medical product, it doesn't hurt those who want to get it. They're going to get it anyway. So who does it hurt? It hurts the type of people that are firm deals with every day. It hurts families whose child may have been seriously injured or even died from one of these products. They then make the choice to not receive another one. And what happens to them? Do they get empathy? Do they get sympathy? No. They try to kick their kids out of school. Right. They get gaslighted at doctors offices. They get called selfish in any other horrible and all kinds of other horrible names. Think about the way they talk about people who don't vaccinate, especially five, six years ago, pre-COVID. Right. Think about the way those folks are treated. Imagine I told you there's a group of people that, you know, and pick a racial group, pick an ethnic group, pick a religious group. And I said, you know what we should do to that group of people? Dylan, let's throw them out of school, kick them out of their jobs. They're selfish. They're bad people. They're anti-science. They're crazy. They're radical. They and their children don't deserve to save rights as everybody else. For making what? A medical decision that they, that the public or some don't agree with. Think about that. And then think about, think about how, how horrible that is to be that family where your child was just seriously injured by this product. You should be have, you should have the opposite from society. You should have empathy. You should have understanding. You should have support. It's not what happens to these folks. And so, you know, it's those families and it's those rights that drive me in this space. I'm with you 100%. I'm, I struggle so much with this whole concept of this force being put on somebody and taking away rights, canceling people, all of these things that I saw go on that, you know, you were in a position like for me personally, with what I do. I mean, what, you got to be careful with what you say at all times, because then they come and droves to attack you. And it's like this cult of people that have this strange motive, because I think I always reference this to like loony tunes, you know, with Bugs Bunny when he turned on the TV and it, it hypnotizes them. He turns into this evil bunny, you know what I mean? And then goes after everybody. And I feel like that media and marketing and the way that they push these things out, they're so good at brainwashing people into thinking one thing without looking at each opposite end of the spectrum. And it's, it's one of the most traveling things I've ever seen. I ask you this, when do you feel like this started happening? This coercion almost. And I hate to even use that word, but it's, it's on the surface of everything that you wrote, everything that we all see. So when do you feel like this, I think it's probably gone on since the beginning of time, but when do you think it became so prevalent? Well, but truly prevalent. The was around, I'd say around 2015. And that's when California, excuse me, 2000 and yeah, 2015. And that's when California eliminated the exemption to be able to chend your child to school without required vaccine. You know, up until that point, it was basically a check the box exemption. I know everybody says, well, there have been mandates for attending school for forever. But the truth is, is that if you got a mandate, but there's a check the box exemption, it's not really mandate. It's like a mandate, no mandate. Right. When California did that and eliminated the exemption, left a narrow medical exemption, which is the state of use and it's impossible to obtain based on how they amended it. That and an impact in 40 million people, tens of thousands of people, let's California basically like refugees. And who are these folks? These are the families I just told you about, right? These are the families, they can't get medical exemptions and vaccination are not based on medicine. Nothing to do with medicine. They are a government policy driven approach to granting an exemption. The CDC creates something called a table of countermeasures and precautions and the state to follow it. And that's not science driven. That's based on what the CDC wants to put on the table. It doesn't even include almost a fraction of the known things that can cause injury for vaccines validated by the Institute of Medicine and others. And so families that want to protect their children or families that have one or more religious police contrary to the practice of vaccination, like some folks oppose abortion. And every single vial of an MMR vaccine or a chickenpox vaccine, there are literally billions of pieces of DNA from the cultured cell line of an abortive fetus. Billions of pieces. That is, I mean, it's all in my book. That may sound unbelievable to anybody watching. But that's what the evidence reflects. There's not really a contested point. It's in fact, it is no contest that there's DNA and cellular debris from the aborted cell line of abortive fetus in those vaccines. And the reason they're in there is because you got to grow a virus themselves. Right. So what do they grow it on? They grow on the cells from an abortive fetus. So some people have moral objections to that. They don't want to participate. They don't want to inject billions of pieces from an abortive fetus cell line into their children. But yet those folks were also kicked out. So I think 2015 really was an inflection of white. Then New York State did it. And then Connecticut and Maine also got rid of their exemptions. Up until that point, there were only two states in the country, Mississippi and West Virginia. They didn't have an exemption. But they're smaller states, not very popularly hated. And you could just live across the border or send your kids across the border, which often happened. And so, you know, I'd say that was an inflection point. But really, if I was going to go to what led up to that, another meg inflection point was in 1986. In the passage of National Talented Exin Injury Act. We're going to get into that. Yeah. I'm going to put you on the stand real quick, sir. We're going to do a role reversal. Okay. So I just, just to give a little bit of background for anybody that's questioning you. Yeah. Okay. Because one of the things that I have to battle, which I really don't anymore, because once people listen and see what I do and how I talk is, well, you don't got 35 letters after your name. So you, you can't know what you're talking about. And then I explained what's actually going on in medical school. And I say, well, we can sit down and go back and forth. I'm down if you want to compare and see where we go. And so, you know, what I look for in every person that I interview that's going one way or another is, what's the barriers that they have to overcome? Let's talk about it. So give them a chance to explain without somebody going crazy on you and yelling at you without giving the opportunity to talk. Sure. Go ahead and set and kind of get into what makes you somebody that people can listen to. Like what, what is it that you've done that you've experienced that qualifies you to discuss the topics and give the information that you've given? So, you know, people are going to ask that and they're going to throw that at you. I know the answer to that, but I want you to explain it to everybody else. Sure. Well, I would say my number one qualification is that I think about vaccines. I don't believe in them. I read and I think. Right. And I'm, I have no feelings about the products. They're just products, but if somebody wants, you know, experience and so forth, I mean, I, I'll say this, you know, when I was at Berkeley for law school, I never thought I'd be doing anything with vaccines. All right. And then when I clerked for the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Israel for a year after law school, I didn't think I'd be doing the vaccine. And then when I worked at the, you know, one of the, the five biggest, three biggest law firms, prestigious firms in America for almost six years representing, you know, massive companies and Beth, the company litigation. I didn't think I'd be doing the vaccines. Even when I left the serve room for him well over a decade ago, didn't think I'd be doing that. You know, I left and I was still doing commercial litigation, you know, representing public traded companies, even a few hundred million dollars in dispute where we used to work before a minimum firm was billions of dollars in dispute. And, you know, there was an inflection point and the inflection point was 2015, what we just talked about where they started excluding, they excluded those families in California. And then they started doing that in New York. And at that point, I had, you know, I had already learned some about vaccines, not much. I didn't know anything about the science at that point. But, you know, it struck me as just intuitively there was there was something wrong about it. And so I started bringing some lawsuits in this area. And over time, this became my main focus of practice. Over the last decade, I have, I have deposed from the world's leading vaccinologists, including the world's leading vaccinologists. I've deposed immunologists, infectious disease doctors, pediatricians. I have brought endless lawsuits against state health departments and federal and all kinds of federal agencies, CDC, FDA, NIH, go down the list. And during that, those last 10 years of litigating, pretty much anything you can litigate around vaccines, if I'm going to have to, you know, depose an expert in vaccinology, well, I've got to know, you know, everything I can. And so my office isn't filled with law books on the shelf. It's all medical textbooks around this discipline and the disciplines I just mentioned, you know, books on vaccinology, immunology, infectious disease, pediatrics, and more recently, some genetics as well. And so, you know, I've had to, during that process, when I litigate around vaccines, I don't get to go into court and brandish credentials. I don't get to go in court and say, I'm an MD, PhD, MPH, so what I say, you should just listen to him. I don't get to do that. I have to prove everything I say about vaccines with evidence, data, not credentials, right? Not only that, so I have to carefully look at it and present it. And if you go to look at most of my court, my court papers, I'm not citing to stuff that anybody would say, that's not credible. It's most of CDC data. It's FDA clinical trial reports. It's in student medicine reports. It's, you know, it's the stuff that they tell you should rely upon, right? They just don't, I don't even know if they really look at it. No. And then, separately, in those litigations, not only do I have to carefully evaluate the evidence and present it properly to be able to win my cases. I also have to learn the underlying substance. I also get to hold them to their proof. If you make a claim, if they make a claim that vaccines acts, I get to go in discovery, get you subpoena you or give you a doctor's request and say, give me the evidence. Give me the support for that claim, right? And then I get to put you in a room and depose you for nine hours and say, all right, what's the proof? What's the support? And then we can go to trial and I can put you on the scan and cross-examine you. That kind of process, everybody says, oh, well, we've got to have this public debate on vaccines, right? I have them all the time. Yeah. I have exactly the debate in those depositions, in those court cases. So over those, you know, that decade of experience, I've got to see firsthand and had to critically and carefully evaluate the evidence and the data about these products. So, you know, over that period of time, there is what public health authorities say about vaccines. There's also, by the way, what you'll randomly see on the internet about vaccines. There's all kinds of stuff said about vaccines. And then there's what the data, the evidence actually shows. And so I've relied on the primary sources. And then that's what I lay out in my book. Yeah. You know what? It's always so telling to me when these people that have the credentials, but then they sit across from you and they got to really be put on the spot with no screens around them to answer for them. Nobody influences what they can say. They're on the spot. They're directly in front of your face and have nothing to rely on but themselves. And what I find so often is that a lot of these people, they don't know a fraction of what they come across to know or try to dance, to dance around, which I'm sure you see it all the time. And I have learned so much over time having direct one-on-one conversation. And, you know, I try to be versatile and well-rounded in what I do and like to what you said, you're already kind of handcuffed because you're not the expert. You know, you can go and spend all your time researching and be ready for everything. Right. And that's what I do with my podcast guests that I research everything. So when we get in here, I can go back and forth with you and I know what I'm talking about. So, you know, you put in extra work and I'm telling you with what I read and where I've seen over time, these people, they hide behind a lot of stuff. They really do and we're going to get into that. But I think that when you're in the position that you're in that makes you so credible is you get in these one-on-one conversations and you really pull that out and you really get to see men. They're lying. They're lying. Or they're leading or they're answering dancing like a politician. Well, you can't answer simple questions and you got to go off on a separate tangent because you A. don't know the answer or B. It's like, ah, I can't answer this. You know. And so I'm assuming that you probably over time experience that over and over and over and were like, wait a minute, this just doesn't add up. This just doesn't make sense. And I'm sure that's probably part of the reason why you dug so deep and did this. I mean, it honestly didn't take that long, you know, within a year or two, it became pretty apparent, especially after I deposed Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who's the world's leading vaccinologist. It really brought that position particular just really brought it home for me because up until that point, I was, you know, looking at all the primary sources. For example, you know, you can't sue manufacturers. I know you want to get into that at some point, but we you can't sue vaccine manufacturers for vaccine injury in America because they have immunity for the most part. But you can bring a claim in a specialized government program. And when you do, you have to prove causation, right? Okay, so I need to prove the vaccine cause injury. So where do I start? I want to start with the clinical trials, right? That's how you can prove causation. They're prospective. So you, you know, they say, oh, you can prove causation. So I started looking at all the clinical trials for all the vaccines that is along with, you know, nonprofit that are represented called ICANN and Formation Action Network. You know, they wanted to look at actually safety carefully. So start looking at all the clinical trials. And, you know, this is very early on and I'm like, what? You licensed the vaccines for babies on clinical trials with days or weeks of safety of you after injection or even only a few months with no placebo control and any routine injector to the vaccine. We can get into that. Yeah. I know that they fact-checked that claim a lot, but it's categorically true that what I just said. And you don't have enough kids in the trial. In contrast, most drugs robustly trial before licensure. And I say, how can this be? And I thought, for example, when I deposed Dr. Plotkin, he would show, he proved me wrong. He'd show me, no, you're wrong. You know, Mr. Siri, you were wrong. And here's a mountain of evidence. You didn't have that. And we even subpoenaed him after that deposition. I, you know, and instead of producing documents to support what he said supports their safety. He got a lawyer and moved to Quashit when it comes to consumer products. Okay. For every other consumer product in America, planes, trains, cars, the so if you're sitting on this, these glasses, everything, every chemical, every substance, every single thing in your house, like you think of your house, think about your floorboards, your sheetrock. What is the insulation? What about your bedsheets? What about the fire retardants? Like for every other product that can hurt you, they could do things to hurt you or your children. Right. You talk about health. I mean, this is part of what got me attracted to thinking about like, we should have a conversation, you know? I mean, if you're, if you're interested in health, this is an important conversation. For everyone of those products, if they injure you or your child, you could sue the company and say, Hey, had you made this product safe from my kid wouldn't have died, my kid wouldn't have gotten injured, my kid wouldn't have cancer. My kid wouldn't have some kind of encephalopathy or cardiac issues. You name it. Vaccines are the only product that I'm aware of that have an immunity that do not let you sue the company to make that claim because of this law from 1986. Okay. And, and let me put that into even sharper focus. Okay. People really understand this. If you have a car and there's a gas tank and for one penny, you could have put a stopper in. So you get into an accident, the gas wouldn't flow out and cause an explosion. Right. And you didn't do that. We could sue the car company and say, Hey, you should have had that stopper in. It's technologically feasible. Everybody knows it's existing. Other cars are companies doing it. Why don't you do it? My family would be alive if you did that. Right. Right. You're not intended to expect you to be a car expert, but the car companies are expected to be car experts and they should do the best they can to make it safe. Or if I go sell saw blades, right? And I decided to cheat out for one penny and I'm not going to put a plastic cover on it and you lose your finger using it. I could sue you or I could sue the company and say, Hey, should have put this one penny cover on it on the blade. So I wouldn't have lost my finger. And so that is how you get progress. That is why products become safer over time because the company can be held accountable for the injuries and companies want to make money. Right. That's why they're there. And so when it comes to vaccines, that incentive has been mostly eliminated. So let's come, let's now go back to drug products. Okay. So drug products, drugs are often licensed on multi-year placebo control trucks. Right. Meaning before the drug company puts it out on the market, what are they doing? Valuating it for years. Group gets the drug. A group gets a placebo. What is the total outcomes between those two groups? Why do they do that? Are they altruistic? Are they moral? Are they ethical? They do it because they want to make sure they're going to make money. And if they put a drug out and they don't really know the safety profile and it ends up hurting a lot of people, they're on the financial hook. They could lose money. Right. They don't want to do that. But when it comes to vaccines, do they do multi-year placebo control trials? No. Why? They don't have to. They don't have to. Right. More than that, it's actually worse than that. What is their financial incentive? They're not liable if they could have made it safer. Right? In fact, their financial incentive is reversed. The more safety they do before licensure, the less likely we get license, the less likely they'll make billions. In fact, if you're in the boardroom, if you're the CEO, you're the CFO, if you actually took those actions to more thoroughly review that product, the more you do it, the more safety that you find, the less likely you are to make money. You don't have to worry about injuries afterwards. Again, I mean, it sounds perverse. It sounds horrible, but that is, corporations follow the closest and the simplest path to profitability, and that's what does. You might say, why did this law come into existence? Well, because in leading up to 1986, there were only three routine vaccines in the United States. That's it. Right. OPV, DTP, and MMR. They were causing so much harm that every manufacturer either stopped making them or had a business. We went down from about six musules, manufacturers to one, six for pertussis to one, three for polio to one, basically one left for each, and that was it. Now, many industries face this crossroad where their product is causing more harm than apparently good. What do they do? They go out of business. Or they make a better product. Right. Make a better product. Make a better product. Okay, let's make a better product. Yeah. My gas tank blows up. Do we stop making cars? No. How many products have been found to be carcinogenic? They just make one. Without the carcinogen, think about different food products. Think about different, all kinds of things, right? You don't just, you retool and go a different direction. Oh, you don't like, think about all the different food conglomerates to use food as an allergy. Did they just say, oh, we give up. Everybody's going organic. No, they bought the organic companies. They made better, healthier food products. Take out the sucralose and the stevia. Right? Okay. Exactly. I don't want to get the food stuff, but you adapt. Right. So, that is what they could and should have done. Instead, what did Congress do? It did something unprecedented. It said, hey, hey, listen, guys, you know what? Instead of you going and retooling and making a better product, a product that's not going to cause so much harm, we're just going to do something unprecedented. We're going to make it so that all those kids who are dying from your product or are being seriously injured from your product who are suing you, we'll just make it so they can't sue you. And that is what the National Childhood Vaccine Indirect from 1986 did. Not only for those three products in existence then, and this is why I call it the original set, but for any other childhood routine vaccine developed thereafter, we've gone from a CDC schedule that had only three injections in the first year of life, 1986, three to now a child by one year of age, including a new drug, it's 29 injections. Every single one of those vaccines was developed by a pharmaceutical company hoping to make billions of dollars knowing it would not ever be held responsible if it killed, injured, named, you name it, a child or an adult for the most part, even if it could have made its product safer. I knew that beforehand. And so you end up with the ridiculous clinical trials that you see for vaccines and the often vacuous post-lational safety literature. So this act is only for child or children vaccines or is it for any vaccine? So that's the qualifier I just said about the adults. So it applies to routine childhood vaccines. They expand it actually also to pregnancy, but if the vaccine is covered for children, it's then also covered when used by adults. So flu shots are routinely recommended for children. So hence, if you're an adult and injured, you also, it also has immunity, which is why it covers almost all vaccines, including adults. Right. So it's basically all. So right here, you've got this chart and it's got Pfizer's top four most profitable drugs and vaccines given in first six months of life. And we got a safety review here. This was another thing I found extremely troubling. So Pfizer's top four most profitable drugs, Lipitor, which is statin, which of course, Lyrica, Enbril, Elkis. And then we've got these vaccines given in the first six months. Well, we're going down the line here, seven and a half years of safety review with a placebo control, six and a half, five and two. Right. Those are for the four drugs. Four drugs. That according to Money Inc. in 2019, the four most profitable drugs that Pfizer would sell. So they're taking precaution and doing the proper type of study here and the control and then you look at the vaccines. And just to be clear, those are the clinical trials. Yeah. So that's what they did before. Yeah. As part of the licensure process. So they've, they made them do some work here and prove it. Well, when you say made them, I will just say that I don't think anybody made Pfizer do it. I think Pfizer wanted to do it because they wanted to make sure that these, they have an economic interest to assure they were safe. So they want to lose money. They cause injury. I don't think anybody can really make them do it. Well, they can't necessarily approve it though if they don't have the right data, right? I mean, they can do whatever the hell they want, technically, but you know, if they want to, they want to. Yes. You know, did the FDA require, you know, maybe maybe it's a, it's a complicated thing with the FDA, but, but they, I think they had an economic interest to do. Sure. Well, here's the, here's the part. Here's the part I would say the fun, not so fun part. The one that really, really kind of like morally upset me. Yes. Because I try to stay unemotional on this stuff to the best I can because I don't want that to trickle into an interview, but you can't, when it comes to kids and stuff, dude, I'm sorry, man. And this is the one that really got me kind of like, okay, what the hell? 28 days, five days, three days and three days. After injection is a safety review for those products on that list. What are you going to know after three days? Just before anybody's outraged by the numbers, meaning nothing. So five days was for hepatitis B vaccine, Recomba Vax HB. It was the clinical trial relied upon the license that had B vaccine, which is given to a newborn baby. Yeah. One of only two vaccines was licensed based on clinical trial, unlike those drugs that have multi-year placebo controls that had five days of safety, moderate after injection, 147 children, by the way, that's it. And no control group. It is outrageous, but anybody can go to the FDA website. So anybody outraged watching this podcast, just go to the FDA website and it's just right there, or just go to the link in the book. That's why every single thing I say in this book has a link and it's to the FDA source and I permalinked almost everything that's permalinkable so it wouldn't get lost. Dude, it's like, it is outrageous. Didn't croak in three days, let's go. But see, this is why I think understanding the economic division is so important. Meaning why would a pharma company risk putting out a product that's injected into every baby, right, with only five days of safety, moderate after injection, 147 kids and no control group. Why would they do that? In my opinion, they do that because they don't have an economic interest to be concerned about injuries. What do you think that trial would look like? Probably look like emerald or eliquus or lipotour or the other ones, multi-year placebo control trial. I mean, I would personally argue even five years is not enough data to really reflect on long-term damages that something could cause. But it's a lot better than five days. Of course, yeah. The point is, they're both not great by any stretch of the imagination and I think another thing that people don't really know this kind of data, how long was something studied or tested, you just kind of assume because you're told. To get certain, and I hate to go back to it again, but to get certain supplements or products approved by the FDA, do you know how, I mean, it is so hard, most people just give up. Do you know that to license, I tweeted this out a few times just because I don't know how else to contrast it. To get a vaccine license for chickens, you need at least 21 days. That's in the, because that's not by the FDA regulations. That is a different agency, right? That does that covers agriculture. They require 21 days, but yet here we have a vaccine given to human babies that was licensed based on five days. And that, by the way, just, I want to put this, just to put this to the further context, they're like, well, they probably had a hundred happy vaccines already licensed. So they knew it was safe. This was actually the very first for Combinant DNA vaccine ever licensed. It's a brand new technology at the time. So there had never been a happy vaccine licensed for children. Generally, there was a different happy vaccine that came out in 1981. It was, they made it, nobody wanted it for the most part because it was made human, excuse using human blood from each happy positive individual. So they actually recruited people from communities that were more likely to have like intravenous drug use and so forth. More likely to have happy and they would use their blood and, you know, take out and they would use that to make it. So it wasn't very popular. And that product was also very limited. I mean, they used it for some adults. They used it for newborns of happy positive mothers, but they use it generally for children. It wasn't licensed for that group. Moreover, the trials for that were also not, you know, of this kind you can. And the safety baseline for that product was not established. Critically, it wasn't used as the control for this product anyway. And even if it was 147 kids fighting the safety monitoring, it would have been irrelevant. So this trial, and this is what I mean, there is what the public health authorities tell you. Right. What the C has in their site. It's what the FDA says is what the vaccinology, it's what the public health authorities say is what the medical community says. The most robustly trial products out there, right? There's nothing. We're super careful. But then there's a reality. And the reality is what you just read. Five days, 21 days, three days for some of them. I mean, it's, let me put it this way. If Dylan, if you said to me, Aaron, I want you to come up with the craziest, most nefarious thing. You can come up with that. I mean, I'm not something crazy, man. Like Aaron, give me something crazy. I could sit here for probably close to eternity. And I wouldn't dream of saying to you, you know what? You know what? A license of vaccine given to millions of babies on a trial for five days of safety monitoring after injection with 147 kids. I wouldn't dream of it. You'd be like, that's crazy. Right. That's not that is 100% false. Impossible. Impossible. Yeah. I would say that is just nuts. Again, anybody, you can do this at home, kids. Go to Google. Yeah. Search FDA license vaccines. Go to, go to pick it up. Or just pick up the book and go to the link to the FDA website. I did this. It's just, I mean, of course I'm going to check and see what your site is. You've got 30, I think it was 30 pages here at the back of the book. Because I was, you know, you always, when you get a new book, you look and see how many pages that are and what's the ending. And I didn't read the ending, but I'm saying, what do you got cited back here? I always look for stuff like that. I'm going to. Senator 50 or so site. Yeah. I looked these up. I mean, it's just clear as day. You can, it's just about taking the time to look at them. Yeah. Which people don't want to do. They're all sitting there. They've literally listed everything, every chapter it's all sitting here. So I was like going back and go, this, this shit can't be real right here. And then I went and looked it up and I was like, holy shit. Yeah. It's sitting right there. I wouldn't believe it unless I saw it myself. Somebody told me. Well, cause unbelievable. I stay pretty even keel at this point in my life to where I don't let things affect me. And I always say the one thing that just aggravates me more than anything is an insult of intelligence. This stuff is just sitting right out there. It's just sitting right in front of your face as if this is like a big middle finger to everybody like, well, too bad. It's, it's, you know, uh, you know, it's why sometimes some folks will be like, well, they'll come in and want to talk about, you know, we got to make public X issue. And I say, well, about vaccine. So first of all, that's unspecified. And I go, why do you gotta go into the realm of speculation of vaccines? I said, first of all, people are already skeptical about anything you say about vaccines. I'm like, you don't, we don't need to go there. I said, all you need to do to show the problem of vaccines to the most part is just go to the FDA website, go to the CDC website and actually read it. Actually read what's there versus just reading the conclusory statements. Never just trust the conclusive statement of vaccines. In fact, I will say don't trust any conclusive statement of vaccines. In fact, don't even trust me. Okay. Look at all the sources. Any sentence for anybody reading the book, as it sounds like you did to, and I tell this to everybody, you read something and you don't believe it. Please don't just keep going. Go to the footnote. Go pull up the document and look at it. Yeah. Go to the CDC data source or the FDA or whatever it is and take a look yourself. Yeah. It's easy. I mean, I did that. I said, there it is. And then it was like, wow, okay. All right. Well, just throw it out in front of my face. Okay. Fine. So I questioned then on these and he mentioned this. It started up with like three vaccines, which they 29 now for kids. Well, no, I mean, I just meant up until the first year of life. Now I'm not talking to, I'm not talking all 18 years. Right. We're just talking initially from three to 29. So it's three injections. So a child in, yep, in 1986, falling CD schedule, gotten three injections. A child today, we got 29 injections if they follow the CDC schedule. Is that for 29 different conditions or is that like multitudes for like, say measles? Is it like three for measles? So it would be only one shot of MMR. So it's just one MMR will be one of the 29. That's it. Just one. That's measles, mumps, a rebel, a rebel. Okay. Um, all right. You're going to test me right? You want to? You want to? See? If I can do it? All right. You're ready? Let's see. Ag�dramatic������������ of which one did I say? Let's see. I don't know. You just oh, oh, be a shot of sorry, flu at six months and seven months. If you got COVID vaccine, that would be a shot at six months, seven months and eight months of three dose series. In utero two, the mother routinely we get a T that vaccine a flu shot and now also an RSV shot. What did I miss? Oh, you get a few more. Yeah, there's there's there's a few more. Well, I'll just stop there. The charts in there. You could you could say, yeah, I guess then my question would be, well, I have two questions by Andrew because I don't want to forget one, but how, how actually deadly are these things where we're getting vaccinated for like, what is the actual reasoning given? Is it because these are all going to kill you? And man, if you don't do this, you're going to and you get catch these, you're going to kill everybody around you too. Because I can't think of any good reason aside from that, is you're going to seriously hurt somebody and and or hurts yourself by not taking these. And why does it take so many? Well, first of all, obviously, every one of these products is hundreds of millions of billions of dollars, right? Pharmacy companies exist to put out products. And they put out products to make money. And that's what they do. Right. And when it comes to vaccines, here, let me put it this way for you. Ready? What if I approach you Dylan, I say, Hey, I got a business idea. And you said, Okay, what is it? I say, Listen, we're going to sell this product that you injected people. And you said, Oh, really? Well, does it hurt anybody? Say, Don't worry. Don't worry, they can't see what's for that. Well, why the heck would everybody take it? And you say, Don't, don't worry, I'll tell you, don't worry. The government mandated for us like, really? Well, won't people just rise up? Don't worry. They're also going to promote it with billions of dollars of tax money or money for you. We're like, but still like, what if people still see through all that? No one even want to pay for it. Don't worry. The government actually has a program to make sure that you get paid, even if people can't afford the vaccines called vaccines, your children program. Yeah, the government pays almost $8 billion now a year to pharma companies to buy and give for for vaccine. I'm not kidding. And so, so think about this business model. Okay, you ready? Guarantee market is mandated. No liability because you have immunity. Free marketing by the federal government. Guarantee payment. Who wouldn't go into this business? And that's, I think that's a big component about the, you know, the next thing to do now, lesson, the innovation is great. Pharmacy companies looking to innovate and create products that can help people on all four. Okay. The problem is they have no economic interest. If we talk about to share the safety of these products, right? That has created incredible, unbelievable moral hazard. And, you know, I think subtextually to your comment, I think is the question of, well, but, you know, since the 80s, haven't, you know, haven't things gotten better health wise? No, they have not. Have we gotten healthier as a nation? Since we've gone from three to these 29 injections? No, we have gone from under 10% of kids in the early 80s having a chronic health condition to today, over 40%. Some estimate over 50%. Often multiple chronic health conditions. And what are they? They're ADHD, they're asthma. They're, they're atopic issues. Go down the list. Almost every one of these issues are some form of immune system dysregulation, right? Include ADHD and some of the other people don't think of that way. That's what the literature shows. It's a form of immune system dysregulation. So you might go, wait a second. Okay. Holy cow. So what is causing the immune system of our children to just dysregulate a mass over the last 40 years? Maybe we should start looking at the product we give over and over and over again to completely healthy babies to do what? To modify their immune system. So, you know, the case on whether these vaccines and this increased schedule has done more harm than good. You know, the weight of the evidence on that score is pretty consistent. All the studies out there for the most part are virtually all in that are compared kids with zero vaccines. Two kids with one or more show the kids that get vaccines have numerous rates of the chronic health conditions I just listed. One or more of them. And so what does that mean overall from a public health perspective? So to answer your question, is the explosion in the schedule geared towards diseases that are, you know, intended to prevent death, serious injury, that is their intent. Would millions die without these vaccines? This is the impression they give you. Millions would die. Okay. Right. That is just categorically fault. That's one of what I call the myths. That's one of mythologies around vaccines. Millions in America would die without these vaccines. And as you know, since you've gone through the book, in chapter seven, I actually go through every single disease that you vaccinate. I get the CDC data and I say, okay, how many people died from that disease in the year before? And what was the decrease in mortality up to that point? What has happened since? And you can see for yourself, we're not talking millions, we're not talking hundreds of thousands. Chemally, even if you assume the vaccines prevented all those deaths, it is a tiny, it's less than 99.9% of that millions of lives saved claim. So, you know, in any event, from a, from a public health perspective, if the goal is public health and not profit, right, we need to account for the entire public health impact of these products. And by the way, even if they do do more good than harm, it doesn't mean you should mandate them. Right. It doesn't mean they should be course. Now, let me ask you this, because you brought it up a couple times earlier. And I've always wondered this too, I know a little bit about it. But in these vaccines, like, what is actually, are you actually getting the virus injected into your body? Like, why do people have such bad flu reactions? Why do people have bad COVID reactions? Is that virus actually within that vaccine when they're putting into your body? And if so, what's the theory behind that, how that works? Oof. Okay. So, I know that the term vaccines is used like, all these products are the same. Right. But man, vaccines vary wildly between different types of vaccines. Okay. So, the MMR vaccine is an attenuated vaccine, for example. It is actually a lives measles, mumps, and relics. Those viruses are alive in that vial. Okay. Along with the growth medium, as we talked about earlier, rubella is grown on the culture cell line and border fetus. Cells are massive compared to viruses, right? So, when you go and you've now grown the rubella virus in that culture, when you've passed it through these cells and it basically creates a Frankenstein version of the virus, you then want, you then need to go harvest that virus to get it into the vial to inject it into the kid. You are not doing that and filtering out to only get the virus. Right. I mean, you could do it. I think every vial might cost millions of dollars. So, what do you end up with? Just all of the tons of the growth medium. In that case, we talked about billions of pieces of human DNA from the border fetus culture cell line, the cellular debris. So, think of all that makes up the cell, the ribosomes and the cellular wall, all that stuff. You're rejecting human components, billions of pieces into the arm of a baby. That is, and so there's a lot complexity with that. Other vaccines, for example, the pertussis vaccine, I'll use it as an example. Yeah. Pertussis is a bacteria. The vaccine only has, it has about 3000, and it's technically apotopes, but on its surface, right? And the vaccine only contains five of them. So, the bacteria itself is not in the vial. Right. Right. Now, when you inject those five pieces of protein, they're dead. Does your immune system have any reaction? No. Right. All right. I don't want to get too far into my mouth. I don't know. You want me to go down this road? I'm just curious because some of it just doesn't make sense to me at times because I wonder, how does this even fall into a vaccine category with what's being put into our bodies and what it actually does? Well, I mean, listen, vaccines are different things. Like the pertussis vaccine I was describing, for example, if I just injected those five pieces of pertussis into you would probably do nothing because they're just pieces of protein, the tiny peptides, right? Yeah. You get kind of garbage like that in your bottle. It's on, it gets cleared out. So what do they put in the vial? They put something called an aluminum adjuvant. Now, it's not like ionic aluminum, like the table of elements, right? If you ingest it, it's easily disposed of. It's on the micro scale, massive. Like imagine if this cup was a piece of ionic aluminum, you know, aluminum adjuvant would be like the size of this whole city, right? Now, to have an immune reaction, you need to have cellular death. Yes. Cells need to die. Right. Of course. So how do you make cells die at the injection site? Okay. These aluminum adjuvants think of aluminum in a can when you, why do aluminum's in cans? The food in there lasts forever because aluminum is toxic to life. Human beings for the whole length of humanity have not been exposed to aluminum. It is bound with silica acid in the soil. Okay. There are lots of metals were exposed to these human beings and we have developed a biological function for them. Iron is a metal. Right. It, it, it, it attaches to oxygen and our blood cells, magnesium, right? All kinds of metals have a biological function or body. Right. Aluminum, none. None. Because it's completely toxic to life. Yep. Humans were never exposed to it for the whole length of human existence. Until we pulled it out of the ground and we separated from silica acid. That's why that can have food in there last forever because that aluminum lining is killing everything. So when they inject those giant aluminum, the adjuvant particles into your, into your arm, what's it causing it when that aluminum particles are in? Massive cellular death. Yeah. Initially, what happens? Your blood vessels open up, neutrophils start pouring out. Yes. And then you have inflammation. That's what inflammation is. It's your immune system causing, it's because your blood vessels are expanding and, and having these immune cells pour out of them basically. Okay. And then what happens is this, macrophages, which are, they're called garbage collectors, but they're also very important immune type cells and dendritic cells, whatever, they gobble up. These aluminum adjuvants. Why? Because the aluminum adjuvants are bound to the pertussis antigens that you're trying to create immunity for. Okay. They, the, the, the macrophages and go to all your lymph nodes, they found the correlate naivety cell and they create an antibodies for them. Just to keep it simple. But these aluminum adjuvants are massive. They, you can't be excreted. Where do they go? CDC and other scientific studies that have injected aluminum adjuvants into animals that were, you know, that have fluorescence on them. So you inject it in the animal, you then kill the animal and then you see where to go. To go to the brain or lungs, where to go? They find it deposits in the organs throughout the body. Okay. And they, what, and what's that doing? It's creating sustained immune reaction wherever it's deposited because it's causing cellular death. Aluminum adjuvants are not good to have in your brain, in your heart, in your lungs, in your liver. So, so that's just one component of a pertussis vaccine. There are toxwave vaccines that are different. There's so many different types of vaccines. I'm not going to go through more of them. I will just say this. Some vaccines stop transmission like measles vaccine. Most don't like pertussis vaccine like tetanus, like so many others. Some vaccines work like this. Some are live. Some are not live. The only common thing I would say about a vaccine, my definition of vaccine, is it's a product that causes or is anticipated to cause so much harm that it has to have federal government immunity to prevent people pursuing them for the harms they cause. The company could have prevented it by making the product safer. To me, that is the definition of vaccines. That is the only commonality between all the vaccines, mRNA, the common and DNA. Tox, you name it. That's the commonality. Yeah. And I, and that's why I asked you what was in it so that you could paint a clear picture for everybody out there listening. What's being put into kids? Let alone me and you as adults, but about a newborn. And we're putting the stuff in there causing cellular death, putting all of these things throughout their body that have just so unnatural, and especially when they're first being born and I mean, developed to nothing. And you're causing this already before any sort of real process has really begun or gotten a chance to go. You're causing cellular death and injecting aluminum into a kid. Yeah. I hope I didn't lose your audience by going through high aluminum average events, get traveled through the body, but, you know, we can go through a lot of vaccine components, which I will not do. And people think of vaccines as, oh, you just took the virus or the bacteria and you just made it a little weaker and you just injected the arm. It's not a vaccine's word, but you're willing to do all of this on something that won't even potentially, and some even protect you, like stop you from passing it on or getting it from transmission. So you're, you're telling me that it's worth it to go do all of this to a kid. Something that, well, you could still transmit it. Well, yeah, it means many of them don't prevent. In fact, some of them you're more likely to transmit because some of them, for example, Pertossis vaccine does reduce symptoms of pertossis. Just about it. But you could still transmit it. So, you know, at the end of the day, you know, for me, ideologically, my work, you want to get a vaccine, get a vaccine, no one to get a vaccine. You should never be cursed not to get a vaccine. That's the important part. And you clayed that out. And I know that this, I'm going to make this very simple so that it's understandable because when you read it, when you say it, what you just said, you take something and it lowers your symptoms, but you can still get it correct. Right. Okay. So, so like, for example, you still use pertossis vaccine. Yes. Some of these vaccines will reduce the symptoms you might have for a period of time, but they don't prevent you from becoming infected with the pathogen and transmitting it. Okay. So pertossis vaccine, for example, you're injecting it in the arm. Okay. Where does the pertossis vaccine multiply in your lungs, in your, in your nasopharynx? How do you transmit it through your nasopharynx? Does the vaccine create new coastal immunity, the type of immunity that are on the lining of your lungs, IGA antibodies? No, it doesn't. Okay. It creates certain type of immunity that can reduce symptoms, but it doesn't create immunity, mucosal immunity. This is not a contested point, but I've, I've, I've literally litigated this issue. Okay. And so what does that mean? If you've gotten the vaccine and you then, and I'll let's say I haven't, we're both infected now with pertossis. You might have less symptoms. Okay. I might have more symptoms. So if I have more symptoms, I might know to stay home. Right. Stay away from little infants, because by the way, infants are the ones, really only ones that can really be harmed by this pathogen. So I, I, I'm like, oof. I'm not feeling good. I'm not going to hold that baby. Yeah. You, you don't, you don't have the symptom less like, you may not even know. You may not even know. You, you feel great. Give me the baby. Right. Give me the baby. The middle of the baby. I'm going to kiss the baby. I'm going to hug the baby. Yeah. So which one is more of the danger to the baby? You or me, you're more of a danger to the baby. You who've been vaccinated for pertossis are more of a danger to the baby than I am. Right. And this, you know, um, this is something actually, I mean, I literally have directly, you know, uh, I've litigated this point. So, um, and the, the, the best part about it is anybody listening to this might go, really, is that true? Look at the FDA studies and look at the studies published by the industry's own experts on this point, saying what I just said about the lack of mucosal muni and that it has no effect. That's what they write. No effect in herd immunity. And in fact, it has the opposite effect. There's still just as much circulating pertussis bacterium right now as there was decades ago. Um, the, the differences, there might be less cases, so to speak. But, you know, it's another example of like, you know, approaching public health in a rational way. What are we doing? Giving an adult a pertussis vaccine that really the only it's going to do is make it potentially more like you, you're going to transmit it to an infant. And hence what's the benefit to you? Nothing. And you are going to have the potential adverse reactions from that product. You know, we've got so many adult clients who've gotten a Tdap vaccine for various reasons that are terrible. Conscious. We have one individual sadly who's, uh, I don't want to get into, you know, medical information, but it's devastating injuries. Yeah. Including paralysis, um, and so forth from transverse myelitis, neuropathies and all kinds of disorders. No, I mean, these are horrible conditions. They destroy your quality of life. I mean, we're, we get free choices to drink alcohol, smoke, cigarettes, all these things that kill us, drive drunk. If you want, I mean, you got the opportunity to do all this and you can or you can't, but you want to tell somebody that they have to do this when it might not even, it could be more harmful than could you. I mean, like you said, the whole point is here is that everybody should have the opportunity to choose. If somebody says to me, listen, I want that Tdap vaccine. I'll suffice for you right to get it. You should get it. Yeah. That's America. That's freedom. Right. I think you should be able to get it. Okay. Um, but you know what I, but, but my, my concern is that when people have beliefs about these products, rather than thinking about them, that results in a kind of herd mentality where we have to, they start taking away people's rights and they don't get a choice. So all those people have choice. The day comes where everybody has a choice. There's no more coercion. There's no more mandates. All of that. I'll be done just like I don't litigate satins. Nobody should want to take away your rights and satins. Yeah. I'll be done litigating vaccines. Take it all. I, like I said, like, from the beginning, I just want to be an arbiter of truth and explain what it is. You do whatever the hell you want. I am the most devout, you know, man of God in the world, but I'll tell you what, if you want to go get an abortion, by all means, you can deal with the consequences with God later. I'm not, I am not, I am not in charge of you. Go do what you want. You can deal with that with him later. That's not for me to tell you what to do with yourself. We have our own free will to do whatever the hell we want. That's how we were put here. Now, of course, I don't believe in it and I don't like it, but I'm also not going to tell anybody what they can and can't do with their body. The second you start doing that, let's say you get rebellion. Let's see you get fight. Let's say you get division. Let's say you get all these problems that we have that just creates a bigger problem. Absolutely. Because who's going to decide what's best is who's going to decide if the T DAP is everybody's get or shouldn't get it. If you say, well, somebody should decide that it always ends up being the government. And once they do, it's all for that's where you go down that, that dangerous road. Yeah, of coercion, taking where you ride censorship. I want to ask you about something that I found pretty, pretty interesting. And that was when you started to discuss about the measles and the efficacy of the vaccine against the measles. And what you said, if you go ask anybody, if you would have asked me before I read this book, I would have answered just like you said, You're milling to die. We had America. Not necessarily millions would die, but what stopped it? I would tell you, what was vaccine? I don't think any of that stuff stops millions from dying. And I'm not with that, but I would have said it's gone because we got the vaccine for it and that's what stopped it because shit, that's what we've been told. Now you brought to light some pretty sweet data. I'm going to just tell you off the top of my head. I don't need to look at the book. You said, I don't know the exact. I remember it started in 1900 and I believe it was 1958 or 63 when they actually released the vaccine or 65. 1963, first measles vaccine in the United States. And you said in here with the data that the downhill fall of people that had vaccine, I believe it was like, or that didn't have a vaccine and it stopped, you know, being around was like 98% decline. Correct. Before the vaccine came out. The mortality. Right. So there was over 98% of mortality from measles between 1900 and 1963, even late 50 to 60, with no vaccine. So, right. So, so measles mortality declined by well over 98%. No vaccine. And you could say it was nutrition. You could say it was clean water. You could say a lot of things, but I could tell you categorically one thing, what it wasn't was a vaccine was not the best. It did not exist. It did not exist. I believe I've had doctors like struggle with. I saw that and got the argument. I haven't had this happening more than once where I'm like, listen, I'm like, I'm like, look, doc, listen to 1993. No vaccine. Measles mortality to climb over 98%. You know, what do you think caused that vaccine? I'm telling you, there was no vaccine. Cannot be the vaccine. Uh, anyway, I've had that happen to me. I mean, it's rare, rare, obviously, but it does happen to me. I hit on those tangents sometimes. Oh, yes. Over 98% decline in mortality from measles. And by the time you get to the late 50s, early 1960s, you have around 400 deaths a year from measles in the United States. At a time when everybody got measles, right? So that translated into one in 450,000 Americans dying of measles. Free death is a tragedy that is far from what you're led to believe about measles. And remember, people die when there are not good living conditions from infectious diseases of every stripe, right? Right. Even to today, right now in parts of the world where it is, you know, uh, really, but there's no good nutrition, no clean water, kids will die. Uh, adults will die. Um, parts of America, even the late 50s, early 60s, we're like a developing country. And so as, as, you know, there's no reason that measles mortality would not have continued to decline as it did, by the way, for scarlet fever and numerous other pathogens for which there were attempts to create a vaccine, but they failed. Right. I would, you know, if, if, and I have no doubt had they created a vaccine for many of those pathogens, they're still be on the schedule today. It would say everybody would die if you don't get it. But in fact, what happened is they just naturally the path, it became less pathogenic as were other improvements in society. Now with that said, even, you know, even if you hold that constant as, as I think you're alluding to in the book and you say, okay, well, let's just assume, even though population was going way up between 1900 and 19, like exploded in 19, and then we're tired of going way down, right? So you, but let's just assume that you would still remain at 400 deaths a year. Right. Question is, well, what is the overall public health? Is that where the story ends? Because the measles vaccine, unlike most vaccines, unlike, can prevent transmission, okay? Because it's a live attenuated. So when you get it, it does actually create a more robust immunity that does prevent transmission. And so over time, measles has stopped circulating in the United States. And hence, sure, if it's not circulating, you can't get measles. So you wouldn't dive measles. If you would have died. So it would have prevented some deaths. How many? Yeah, would have been like scarred on the fever. Would they be like basically almost no deaths at this point? I would have been like a chicken pox, which by the time there was a vaccine in 1985, we were down to an estimated maybe a hundred deaths a year. Maybe. Um, I never got that one. Yeah. I forgot that vaccine. The chicken pox. No. Well, you, I mean, it was, it was released in 1995. So everybody who's, you know, um, um, at least my age, I'll say, we all had chicken pox. I didn't. I never got that. You never got chicken pox. Ever. Well, you know, you can have chicken pox subclinically. So you could have had it and you just didn't have the pox. So the only way for you to really know is for you to get a tighter test. It's possible you've had it, but most likely by the way, you did have it. You just didn't have symptoms. Right. There's around a million people that had it. You probably did. It'd be very, very unlikely. Yeah. If you did not have chicken pox, you just didn't have the symptoms, which is not uncommon, by the way, even measles. You know, they, they, there's probably most people that have measles did not have, uh, visible signs based on what the historical data looks like. Right. But as you know, as I described in the book, well, okay, so maybe we saved some lives from measles, but okay, does the story end there now? Because we have to look at the total public health benefit. And what studies have found is that those that have had measles have far less death, statistically significant from cardiovascular disease and from cancers. That was one of the things that I read. That's what the studies show. Yeah. So remember, we talked about there seemed retrospective and prospective. Japan did a prospective study of over a hundred thousand people in Japan for 22 years. And one of the things they looked at was they looked at those that had mumps, measles and mumps and what, how many after 20 years were still alive? How many died from cardiovascular issues? Those that had measles and mumps had a 20% statistically significant reduction in death from cardiovascular disease. That's wild. Think about that. Yeah. That kills 800,000 Americans a year today. Yeah. If that statistic is true, and that's the only study, by the way, there's no study that contradicts it. So that's the data. That's the science. There it is. If that's it, I mean, that's 160,000 lives. I was going to say. Now let's, let's put this in scientific so we can equate it. A child dying and an adult dying, different life years, but still, even if it's 1%, 1% you could have had a reduction in cardiovascular disease, right? From having measles and mumps out there. That's still where you would be completely upside down in your public health benefit. Okay. Even within life years. Moreover, the cancer studies, now these are smaller, the retrospective, but they're by major institutions, university of Ganku, where I believe, uh, you know, university and Leon, like cancer institutes have done these studies where they looked at people that had measles, those that haven't. Those that had measles, statistically significant, 50% reduction of variant cancer. Really? 50%. Though, as well as hot non-Hodgkins and Hodgkin's lymphoma 66, 166% reduction. 20,000 people die here in America of those two types of lymphomas. Many of them kids, if having measles and mumps, having measles, excuse me, would have presented, prevented a fraction of them. Again, you are upside down on your public health benefit. Now look, that's just what the studies show. Right. People might get mad at that data because they feel like they're, I'm attacking vaccines, but I'm not. I'm just saying what the studies say. You can't be attacked. And here's the thing, that's just what they show. Right. And so, you know, as I argue in the book, there could be a reason that measles, unlike many pathogens over the ages, right? They came in the black and when they went, measles may be stuck around, maybe, because it conferred a survival advantage. And here we went and we tinkered with nature. We tinkered with God's design. And we may have, you know, resulted in eliminating something that had a significant public health benefit based on the studies and data I just discussed. Maybe numbers are not going to lie when it comes to that. And I mean, he broke it down. What is, because we've said this over and over and it's, what does mortality mean when you're looking at a study? No. What does mortality actually mean? So everybody knows. Sorry, death. Right. So the higher the mortality, the more death. Yep. I see, I use mortality because I use it as a, a rake. So like, you know, so by the time the measles vaccine came around one in 450,000 Americans died a year, that rate was 98% higher. Or the other way around, basically from 1900. So 1900, a lot of people died of measles. Okay. On a, on a, on a population basis, the percent of people. So it was like, I mean, a lot, a lot is strong. I think it was like, Oh, don't quote me on this. It's in the book though. 12 points, something per 100,000 people died. I believe it was 12 or 13. 12 or 13. Yeah. It was a high number per 100,000 people died of measles in America in 1900. And we were down to like 0.2% of people on a per 100,000 died of measles by 1960. So a massive decline. Yeah. Obviously even in 1900, 13, I mean, 13 out of a 100,000 people is still, you know, the point is, is that just like every other pathogen, except for polio, right? The mortality was just precipitously declining before there was a vaccination. But what will they tell you? What caused that old decline? Neasles, measles vaccine. Yeah. Yeah. What about this stage study here? Because we got a kind of a confounding piece of data that you had here that was talking about something that occurred in 2017. And then they countered it with a study that occurred in 2014. It just didn't kind of equate what you had here. This was in chapter seven. Sage review explains the majority of studies indicated a negative effect of DTP. Oh. And it was basically what was addressed. They didn't address a 2017 study and pointed to a 2014 review that was Yeah. That had no correlation to what we were even talking about. So which, okay. So yeah, what you're referring to is the, so, is the DTP vaccine. Yeah. Which is the most widely used vaccine in the entire world. Yeah. So, you know, my first part of chapter seven, I go through all of the vaccines used in the United States. And when you do that math, you know, it's very easy to end up upside down in terms of did they, did the vaccine, child, the vaccine schedule, in result in saving more lives or did it end up killing more people? Yeah. Based on, if you start looking at the data and you start looking at it in, you know, an unemotional detached way. In a, so then I say, go on and say, okay, well, let's, let's go outside of America and let's look at the world. So maybe vaccines, did they save more lives globally put aside the United States? Sure. And so I just, I look at what is the most commonly used vaccine in the world. That's the DTP vaccine. It's actually the vaccine that the WHO and UNICEF uses the benchmark for how successful vaccine uptake is in a country. Okay. Wow. Okay. Here's the thing. Um, Peter Abe, who's a world renowned vaccinologist relied upon by the WHO. Um, started, um, uh, vaccination programs in Africa and particular in a country, do you need to sow? Okay. And, um, he started it 30, 40 years ago. And over time, what he apparently, you know, thought he was seeing presumably was that DTP vaccine, when he went into communities and he started giving this vaccine, wasn't clear to him, he was reducing mortality. And so he said, let me study this. Let me look at the data. So what he did is he went and he did a series of studies that compare children that got DTP vaccine with those that didn't. And what he found was that the kids that got DTP vaccine apparently may have died in lesser rates of diphtheria testin, spirtusis. But in terms of overall mortality, far more kids were dying in the group that got DTP than the kids that did it. Really? Yes. So the, uh, world, this got to the point actually where even the world health organization, because they're the primary distributor through UNICEF of this product went and conducted a review of the DTP studies. And they wanted to say, well, what does the data show on this? Because, ooh, this doesn't look good for us. So they published a report in 2014, is what you're referring to. Yeah. And what they said in this report was, okay, most of the studies that looked at this, yes, they found DTP is killing more kids than it might be saving. More kids are dying than we're saving with this product. Okay. Right. Like we would just talk about with Navy and Memorial. But they said, you know what though? We're not going to rely on that data. Here's why. Here's why. They said, first of all, some of the kids got OPV vaccine as well. Confounded too. They said it's in a post elimination environment is what they're calling. Meaning it was after vaccines were long in use, you know, and that kind of mucks up the ecology they said. And the third thing they said is, well, those studies weren't like truly randomized. Okay. So what did Peter Abe and his group do in 2017? They said, okay, WHO, no problem. We're going to see if we can do a study that addresses exactly those issues. And they went back and they pulled the data from when they first introduced DTP vaccine getting passed out all the way back. I think it was in the seventies and they said, okay, so we're not in a post elimination environment. We're right at the beginning. Hey, solve that problem. Right. Second problem. We vaccinated based on birthdays, which is a scientifically valid way to randomize because people are born randomly. Right. So whether you got the vaccine or not was contingent on your birthday. So it was randomized. And they compared kids that got only DTP and kids that got no vaccines. So they had a zero meaning they got rid of the OPV issue. So just DTP, you know, no vaccine group. And what did that study find? The kids that got DTP died at 10 times the rate of the kids that got no vaccine. And now it was a statistically significant finding 10 times rate. And now let's go back to our clinical trial discussion, please. Because this is a licensed vaccine. Can they do a clinical trial? Is it ethical? No. Did they ever do a placebo control trial of this product? No. So think about this. They never did a placebo control trial. They say it's an ethical to do one now. Excuse me. So this study represents what is probably the best, as I've argued to UNICEF. Making chocolate. The best available data you will probably ever have. Right. And whether DTP is saving more children than it is telling. I have written initially on behalf of ICANN letters to UNICEF about this very issue. I said, folks, here is this 2017 study. You are the biggest distributor of DTP vaccine in the world. What are you doing? Either stop or give us the data to show that it's not doing that. You know what they wrote back and said? Here's a 2014 study. I wrote them back. I said, hey, I sent you the 2017 study specifically designed to address the very issues in this 2014 review by the WHO. I'm asking you again. Give us the data. I'm saying give us the science. Yeah. What are you basing your decision on that this is saving more kids than you're killing? They never wrote back. We then wrote to all the member states that use DTP to say, hey, look, this is what the data shows. If you have data, give it to us. We never got more data. And then we finally, we didn't know what to do on behalf of our client. ICANN, we actually petitioned the International Criminal Court to ask them to indict UNICEF for killing more kids than you're saving. I didn't know what else to do. Yeah. Who do I go to for this? So I literally wrote the International Criminal Court. A body, by the way, that I have serious issues with that is, is a really problematic institution. Okay. And which is part of the UN organ, essentially, which is part UNICEF part. They wrote back and said, they didn't say, hey, no, no, you're wrong. They wrote back and said, sorry, this is not something that we can really get involved. We're not going to take jurisdiction over this. Of course. Okay. So then we wrote to all the special rapporteurs within the UN that are responsible for all the conventions that involve saving, protecting children. And they've never even bothered to write back. So I don't, I have no place else to turn to, meaning if we're going to make a science data-driven decision, the data, the best available evidence shows DTP is killing far more children than it saves. But yet nobody cares. UNICEF doesn't care. WHO doesn't care. The International Criminal Court doesn't care. The UN special rapporteurs don't care. The, even the, the member countries that use this product apparently don't seem to care. And, and, and when I say care, I just, let me be very clear about that. I'm not talking about emotions. I mean, they don't seem to be interested in getting to the bottom of this data train because it's now been five years. I'm still waiting for the supposed data that shows better. I haven't gotten it. I just don't, I can't comprehend that nobody, nobody out of all of the things that you just said that not one soul said anything or tried to give you any sort of anything. My favorite part is I describe in my book is that when I sent this letter to UNICEF, it clearly were freaked out because they wrote to the CDC and they said, Hey, how do we respond to this? Right. The CDC sends back a draft to them and they're like, we're all implicated in this. And it's clear that they don't think that the response is strong enough because it's not. Right. And the reason I have that is because we sue the CDC all the time to get their internal emails and UNICEF pillow didn't think about that. So I have those internal communications and you could see they're freaked out. Yeah. Now, the right thing to do was do more studies on this, but they never did it. They've never done a study to truly rule it out. That's the bare minimum. At least look into it. That would be what would be to do. But, but that's not how this, that's not how this discipline works. It doesn't work like cardiology. It doesn't work like other disciplines. Vaccinology in many ways. Is it religion? Well, it's, it's almost unquestionable. Is that how it's viewed? It's just, it is what it is and that's it. It's a belief. They believe that these products save millions more and, and the issue is that the W. H.O. and UNICEF and FDN, CDC and HHS, then go out promoting statins. Don't do that. So if a statin really causes a problem, you might go back on it. They might withdraw the licensure, but every one of these agencies, these government, and this is why governments get out of the business vaccines. They have gone out and bought them, promoted them, distributed them, told the world, take them, they're going to say more, what are they going to do now? They're going to say, oops, sorry. No. W.H.O. CDC, their whole thing is they need legitimacy. If they want the world to listen to them, if CDC wants America to listen to them, they need to have legitimacy. That's why they rarely admit they're wrong. No, they don't do that. And once they've gone out and they've wildly promoted these products, are they going to backtrack on it? And see, that's just it. You get to that place where you never admit you're wrong and you think that that's actually the way it needs to be. Like you're playing God when in reality we all know you're full of it. And by you not doing it, nobody trusts you. No human has ever not been wrong aside from Jesus. I mean, you know what I mean? Like, so you doing that and putting on that masquerade and that facade and then double triple quadrupling down, you just lose trust and you lose more and you lose more and then you got somebody like you pointing out all this data and now we don't trust anybody. And then you wonder why. Right. But I will condense those out there. You don't need to go down the rabbit hole and say, I can't trust anything. No, I really think that these, these products, yeah, they live in a unique structure, yeah. And economically, they live in a unique structure that we've gone through and regulatory, they live in a unique structure. Yeah. And it's just, it's, it's just a whole system is messed up. And I come, so it's like you're saying this is the only one where you can't question, you can't do anything. Ever since I was a kid, I was taught, ask questions, ask questions. The best thing you can do is ask questions. That's how you learn and, and just make sure, you know what I mean? If something doesn't feel right, just ask and make sure. And if somebody can't answer a simple question without getting angry, super emotional, et cetera, I just, I cannot trust a word you're saying. Yeah. It just, if it was something that was a simple conversation with a simple answer and there was nothing more to it, it would just be a, here's, and maybe it's just what you believe it could even be wrong, but it's still be a simple answer. Yeah. I mean, let's, I mean, I see this in deposition all the time, unfortunately, right? So if, if you're the reason you know something is because you believe it. Somebody told you. Yeah. But you believe it because it's a, you think it's a fact. Yes. You think it's a fact and you've said it like it's a fact and you've repeated it like it's a fact. Clinical trials are robust. Post-hocular safety robust. They're a robot. Yeah. Right. But you said it. Yeah. And, and to be fair to like most doctors, they just think it's true. They, they repeat it. Then when you confront them with it in a deposition and you're showing them the evidence, now what can they draw on to challenge you? Can they draw on the intellect? They draw on their knowledge base. They don't have. And that's the problem. So what do they draw on? They draw on their emotions. They draw on attacking you, your character, your person, ad hominem, you know, dehumanize you, that kind of stuff. And you see that happening in this area a lot. Did they engage in the doctors that raises? You about COVID-19 vaccines in a scientific way? No. It was character assassination. It was ad hominem. Yeah. It was never about the substance. You know, in my kind of area, and like then you would call biohacking and ID. We, that's a whole other story, but let's just look at that perspective. Okay. And it is always asking questions and, you know, looking at things from multitudes of angles and seeing what works and what doesn't. And some things they come up with, I think are absolutely insane that are what waste of time and money, but some of the stuff makes a whole hell of a lot of sense, but it's the ability to share these different types of methodologies, naturopathic medicines, things like that, that give you an option, that give you an alternative. And it makes me trust more. I don't, I don't fall into the trap of everything that they spew, but at least there's conversation and there's perspective that does, you know, sometimes makes some merit to me where I'm like, man, that's just crazy. And then I'll look at it and go, well, okay. And maybe, maybe you're just trying to sell me some, but maybe not. Yeah. I've drawn a lot of things from some of these conversations where I've sat and I thought it was absolutely nuts and might come away thinking there are even more nuts, but it was a good conversation. There was no stones thrown. There was no argument. There was no emotion. It was like, okay, maybe I'll try that. And maybe I think you need an assay in asylum, but at least, at least it's like cordial and there's, there's ideas thrown around. And I think that's great. You know, and I think part of the problem, what I've said is I get a lot of those people that industry just don't ever go to the doctor. You just don't ever take any medicine and don't listen to what they say. I'm like, listen, I don't think all of them have like that bad heart or bad moral. I think that's how they were trained. I think they paid a lot of money to go to school. And I know this is what they're getting shoved down their throat. They believe it. They really, really, truly believe it. So be careful about insulting or, or all of that, but just try to, try to show them like what you're telling me. I think most medical professionals, I mean, they think that they're doing God's work. Yeah. And when it comes to these products, that's part of the problem. And that's part of what makes them blind. Yes. Is that they, they just believe the mantras about these products. They never really looked under the hood. And unless you actually objectively step back and, and look at these products and treat them like products, they can't make a good decision, clinical decision for the patient in front of them, nor for their community, nor for our country, and nor for the world. Right. That all starts with objectivity and being realistic about what these products can do, what they can't do, what is the actual safety that we don't have. You'll, you'll never have perfect data. No, you'll never have the perfect, what is the absolute, you know, truth, but we have to use the data that's available to make the best decisions. They're not doing that. Doesn't, doesn't everything change over time? I mean, how did we get from VCRs to CD players to DVD player technology changes? Correct. You don't believe in VCRs. You don't believe in VCRs. Oh my God. You're an anti-VCR. That's, that's exactly the thing. It sounds ridiculous. Right. That's the way vaccines are approached. Right. They're just a product. Doesn't science change? Aren't we supposed to ask and question it? Is, I mean, there's some things that. Here, watch, ready? We're combing a DNA technology for hepatitis B vaccines right now. Over 40 years old. Can we really not do it better? Is there really not a safer way to do it? You say that, you're like, oh, anti-vax or anti-science. You say about VCRs are like, oh, innovation. Yeah. What's wrong with innovation? Calling somebody anti-vax or is like a playground argument where it's like literally boo boo head. Like seriously, like that's all you can come up with. That's your, that is your retort. As opposed to explaining, well, okay, why don't you like it? And then you break it down like you do. The best part is asking what it means and you will never hear a clear answer. Do you know Webster's will tell you what anti-vax or is? No. You want to hear it? Yes, please. All right. The Webster's dictionary definition of an anti-vax, meaning, you know, these editors are like trying to capture what is the vernacular, what is the typical English usage is somebody who doesn't want to receive or poses, receive one or more vaccines or mandate enough vaccine or both. So under the Webster's dictionary definition, more than 50% of Americans don't want a COVID vaccine or I think in many years a flu shot and they oppose but bandating it as well. Yeah. On that basis alone, most of the country is anti-vaxxers. I take that as a reflection of how far those who are truly the zealots, the vaccine and men crowd as I call them in the book have taken this term. They have, they're trying to attack everybody, anybody who says any vaccines. They have this point. That term now encompasses a majority of Americans. So, you know, the next time somebody tells you, somebody or an anti-vaxxer, if you're out there and they call you an anti-vaxxer, maybe what you should say is first of all, I'm in the majority. Right. Okay. Second, yes, I do like making an informed decision and thinking, not believing about these products. And finally, don't worry that you are now in the minority, you who called somebody an anti-vaxxer, right? Don't worry. Because we in the majority now, the anti-vaxxers, we're not going to take away your rights. You can get as many vaccines as you want. Okay. Cause that's America. Just leave us alone too. My argument was always, okay. So let's just say, for instance, I just didn't like the COVID-19 vaccine, but every other one was fine to me or just certain ones or whatever. Right. And somebody, oh, your anti-vaxxer. I said, okay, well, by that logic, then, if we went to Baskin Robbins and I got my favorite ice cream, man, and I looked over at one and I said, I don't like that one, that one tastes like shit. Am I anti-ice cream? Because I don't like one of the flavors. Am I now anti-ice cream? You don't believe in ice cream? No, just you don't believe in ice cream. It's Rocky Road. I just don't like it. So I mean, I just, I hate ice cream. That's the logic though. It's just, it's anything. It's, it's anything. Well, it's the language of religion. Yeah. Right. Language of religion is good and bad, you know, anti in this. That is the overlay. You people, you hear people all the time say, you don't believe in vaccines or I believe in vaccine, but you don't hear that. Never heard that about them virtually anything else. Let me see me. Well, I believe in TV. You don't believe in TVs. I don't, you know, but here's the thing with ice cream, I don't think ice cream is good or bad. You know, you can make an argument for why it might be healthy or not. Let's use cars. It's easier. Yeah. I don't think cars are good or bad. I don't think ice cream is good or bad. I'm not pro or anti-ice cream. Not pro or anti-cars. I'm certainly against my kids having too much ice cream and I'm against my kids driving a car at 150 miles an hour. Right. Right. A specific usage, but I'm not for against, or I don't think a product is good or bad, but that's how they talk about the products. I don't think vaccines are good or bad. And I'm not pro or anti-vaccine. They're just products. Yeah. That's it. And my hope is that, you know, people will start thinking of them that way because that's the only way we're getting out of this mess with these products. Well, that's just to look at it for what it really is, not for what it appears to be or what it's being told that it is. When in reality, it's just like you said, it's just another product. That's all it is. Drugs, that the pharmaceuticals, those are products, man. Candy, all of that supplements, food, it's a product. Yeah. And I think that that gets lost in the shuffle and the equation. This, like you said, has turned into a religion. I'd call it a cult like following the vaccine crowd. It's the same thing. Right. It's like this, it's like they're married to it. I really think that some of these people are like married to this belief system. I, yeah, I think it is. I think in some ways from, for some, it is, it, especially some in the medical community, it is what they point to you to say we saved humanity. Yeah. And, you know, we had many clients during COVID who didn't want to get a vaccine because they said for the following reason, heard this by a lot of folks. I believe that God, I believe Jesus, I believe pick is what saves. Okay. But all I hear is they say the only thing that will save us is this vaccine. Well, I don't agree with that. I don't agree. This is the only thing that will save us. That, that is like the mark of the beast to me because that's not what saves me. My, my Lord saves me, not these products. And when they keep telling me this is the only thing that's going to save me, I can't, I can't participate in that against my religious beliefs. But that is the way that they, they approach it. Unfortunately, all too often it's, it's, um, it's, it's a unique reality when it comes to these products. Well, I think that the work that you've done is just astounding. I think that your ability to convey this message in the way that you do, very stoically throughout the book, I, I read it. I see the language. There's some things that you can see that would rile a lot of people up. I think you handled it professionally and with a lot of class and etiquette in the way that you spoke. And it, it goes for a really enticing read because of the delivery and the verbiage in the way that you convey the message. And I, I thoroughly appreciate it. I, I love to read. I just don't have the amount of time to do this thing at in like a couple of days. I was basically through it. Had I not had so many things come up last minute, it slowed me down a day. But I mean, within a three hour claim right each way I was damn near through it because I didn't put it down one second and normally I sleep on the plane. That's how good it was. So then you forced me to go look data up. And so I spent more time and more time, but I guess aside from everything, I think you deserve a big thank you and appreciation for the work you do. Cause I know this, this, this had to take so much time, so much effort and you have no choice, but could be extremely thorough with this. And, and on a professional level and, and anything else, but on a personal level too, I'm sure that this became something so passionate to you. You, you, you, you, of course you're going to be thorough with it. So I mean, for you, how long did this take you to do? What kind of sacrifice do you feel like you had to make to do this? And what's your goal here moving forward from all of this? Well, the book took a long time to write, but it wasn't like I needed to research any of it from scratch for the most part. I mean, it was an accumulation of the work that I've been doing for a decade. Yeah. I mean, I wanted a place to, to encapsulate for, I would say two major reasons. The one not as significant, the second one really important. The first one was, I get asked questions all the time about all kinds of things with vaccines. And I figured this is just an easy way to go to chapter 10, to chapter seven, look at chapter two. Right. So that just makes it easy. And now I've got it. I've been doing that lately all the time. I'm like, we're a chapter 11 section two. So that makes life all odd. It's our course. So that's first. And, and, and, but second more substantively. Okay. And how just my personal make my life easier thing, because it didn't make my life easier to write it. I've been, I've been doing that. Is, you know, if we're going to secure the right in, you know, the individual and civil right to say no to one of these medical products, people need to a critical mass of folks in this country and other countries need to start thinking and stop believing in these products. And that is not to make them go anti or pro or say they're bad or they're good. And, and it's not even to make them choose to not vaccinate. It's just to make them stop having this a belief around it, you know, an emotional reaction to be able to go back to the way things should be. We can question, we can discuss, we can have debate about these products. Because without that, we're in a really bad spot. And I'll show you why that's so important. And I'll use the analogy of gay marriage. Okay. Gay marriage in this country was never going to be a found to be a constitutional right by the United States Supreme Court in the 1800s or in 1910, 20, 30, 40, 50, 50. What changed? What, what all of a sudden changed that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled relatively recently that gay marriage is a constitutional right. Did the constitution change? No. Cultural cognition changed. The way people in this country viewed that issue changed and that filtered into the way that the judges viewed it. And that same thing happens with the legislative houses in the state level and in Congress at the federal level. The way that they cultural cognition, the way that they view what the public is thinking on issue affects how they vote. Lobbyists, in fact, how they vote too. But that does matter. Okay. Especially in the state level, which is where most mandates for medicine exist. Okay. And so changing how a critical mass, and it doesn't need to be half even, but a critical mass of folks in this country approach these products. All right. So they start thinking and not believing in them. If we get enough people in that camp, that will, I'm hoping it will tip it so that when the judges have cases for them and the legislatures of bills in front of them, they're going to vote through thinking about them and they're not just going to believe in them. And I'll give you a real world example of this. Okay. Pre-COVID-19, pre-COVID. When I went to court on a vaccine case, I'm going to tell you my legal standard to my attorneys at my firm. I would say, look, and I'm talking about a policy case, not injury stuff, though about like, you know, lawsuits that we've brought to like bring back exemptions and protect people's rights. We want to say no on mass. My legal standard was, look, do not bring me a case like that unless I can get before a judge who's thinking in his head or her head, I hate you and I hate your client and I hate everything about this case and I love vaccines, but I have no choice but to rule for you. Yeah. That's the, that is the standard I had. Okay. Eight, nine years ago, when I first started this work and that was true across the country, I would say that, you know, with the help of overstepping by the health authorities, by doing silly things like you've got to wear a mask here, but then when you sit down, you don't need the mask, blah, blah, blah, blah, like people are like, what the heck? And the COVID-19 vaccine and the trials really created a cognition. If you said vaccines were not safe eight years ago to almost anybody, they'd be like, what? Now, like, oh, yeah, vaccines can hurt people. Like that has entered the cultural cognition because of COVID-19 vaccines. Most people accept that vaccines can hurt people. You couldn't really say that eight years ago. It's hard to go back that time, but I was litigating this issue. Yeah. I took this issue back then. You couldn't save people that don't stop transmission. People get that now from COVID-19 vaccines and the work around it and so forth. That change in cultural cognition has made my job in the Court of Symmesia. When I went into Mississippi and I brought a lawsuit to restore the religious exemption to 400,000 kids there, I'm sure that mattered. And we got an injunction. We restored an exemption there. So kids can go to school in Mississippi. First time in 30, 40 years, who didn't have a vaccine? Right. Because our parents didn't agree with abortion. Or when we even went to the UC system in California and we restored an exemption there for 300,000 kids, right? Or we struck down the COVID-19 vaccine mandate in California that was trying to be implemented by schools in the state, right? We got that struck down and so forth. And going down all these different cases for the Air Force, over 10,000 members of the Air Force, we got an injunction preventing them from being discharged for refusing COVID-19 vaccine. We did in the Army too. What changed? This is no knock on any judge. Each judge has thousands of cases. Right. They have to rely on their cultural condition to get through their docket. Yeah. So when that changes, and the only change I'm talking about is not that these judges think vaccines are bad. It's not what I need. It's not what you need. You just need a judge to have enough to go, oh yeah, this is something, you know, you're saying it doesn't stop transmission. Okay, let me look at the data. Like they'll actually look at it. Yeah. They'll actually just look at it. Like they'll actually, it's like not just like a crazy idea that pertussed vaccine doesn't stop transmission. They'll actually look at it. That is what I'm talking about. The legislators will look at it. And so my hope is that, you know, if the more people that read this book, the more people will stop believing, they'll think and they'll understand that these are products. Yeah. We got to think about things. We got to think about what we're doing with them. And I hope is that that will then enter the public consciousness. I know a lot of, there are a lot of, you know, folks in various positions of authority that I know have read this book. And I, you know, and I'm no doubt that that would have had an impact. Yeah. And so, you know, anyway, that's why I wrote the book in law mostly. And that is the impact I hope it has. You know, on this topic, I think it's going to help both sides of the equation here because they're the people that are so pro and don't really know any of this. This maybe will open their eyes, but the other sides too that are so negative, but don't actually have facts that don't really have an argument to stand on. They just hate it because they hate it, right? Because of what they heard. This is important for them too, because then they can see the realities of what it is and then maybe get a better understanding and lose the hate and have a fact. And I think that if you look at it from both sides of the perspective, this is for everybody because this is just facts. This is the stuff we actually need, not the emotion, not all of that, all of that back and forth and that fighting and infighting. You can't deny what's, what's in the reality, you know, and that is what I feel is the most important part of this is you are providing real evidence that everybody can now use and hopefully bring, I don't know, I hate to say like lack of division amongst people, but a better understanding and a better discussion. Because I think that's the main thing is just start the discussion and look at stuff and then progress from there. And I think this is one of the keys to that because it, you know, I try to stay out of this, like I said, and I just kind of assumed things. I questioned the COVID vaccine a ton because I just knew, I just knew. But the other ones, I mean, for me, it's like, it is what it is. I got no problem with them. I have never looked at it. This, it paints a much clearer picture. And so I just hope we've been able to give that and show people in this interview and then more people will take the time to read it because it's so valuable. It was, it changed a lot of things for me on things I'm looking at. And, you know, I live and breathe health and the neuroscience and everything, you know, that's what I do. And these are things in here that I wasn't versed on and you provided versatility to me and you allowed me to convey that to a lot of people. And congratulations, my far, my longest interview, but with good reason. Yeah. You know, well, you know, on that point of, because I get this a lot from folks, they say to me, vaccines had problems, efficacy of safe problems. I'd know it. And I always find that such a funny thing people to say, because I'm like, really? Why do you, because they do, they're like, I would know vaccines aren't safe. I would know. And I'm always like, you know, drugs go off the market all the time, right? Can you name me a drug that's gone off the market and they almost always can't? Or if they can maybe name one, they can't name more than one. I'd say, and what were the injuries it caused? And what are the injuries that those, those drugs cause when off market? They don't know. Plus they don't know. You know why they don't know? Because it didn't happen to them. Right. Why would they know? They wouldn't. They wouldn't know. And that's the same thing. Those that have been impacted by these products, they know. Yeah. And I will tell you, there's an underbelly. I think that is a big part of why, you know, Secretary Kennedy has so much support by one huge demographic. It's those people who we talked about at the beginning who are just marginalized. Not, you know, they suffer insult over the injury to their kids that sit there in that underbelly. And when we can finally, they can finally just talk without fear of reprisal because most of them, it's just families. They're just fathers and good fathers and mothers. They just, just like most parents are, including ones that vaccinate. Just good parents trying to do the right thing. But they won't speak publicly about this issue, almost any of them. It's very few people who will speak publicly about negatively about vaccines. Often the most vocal are also, can sometimes be more rambunctious about it, but there is a giant underbelly. When they feel safe and they feel they won't be attacked and their job won't be under threat, and, you know, all, and they won't have a social contagion and won't be attacked on social media. If they say, beat their truth to what happened to them or their children's vaccines, I think that, that damn will break one day. When it breaks, you will see the shift because look, at the end of the day, we should protect kids from infectious disease. Absolutely. 100%. But we also need to protect kids who are going to be injured by these products. And there are a lot of children in body products. Again, for those parents, so those out there were like, really? You should count yourself lucky. It didn't happen to you or your family, but it happens way too often. I know from all the folks you represent, unfortunately. So, you know, we can and we should protect everybody. And until people start seeing them as products, we're not going to get there. Dude, the truth can't hide forever. That's all I'll say, and I'll leave it at that. Okay. So, well, why don't you tell everybody, I mean, the book is Vaccines Amen, but websites, places to follow you, good places to hear you speak, anything like that. Sure. Well, you can hear me speak on this podcast, your podcast. Right. Damn right. Because that was, or just spoke a lot. But the books available on Amazon, the social media account I've had for the longest is on X, so Aaron Sirius G is my Twitter handle. You know, I also have a sub stack. And I think AaronSiriOfficial.com is where the folks who are doing stuff for me. We're going to work on building your Instagram. Put everything. Yeah. And then, you know, anybody out there who's, you know, needs an exemption, because that's what happens, everybody contacts me. So, don't tell, if you need an exemption for immigration or for anything else or, you know, or your vaccine, instead of contacting me directly, which happens a lot, siriLLP.com, that's my firm's website, then you can go and submit an appropriate form. And if we can help you, we obviously would love to do that. But I think that covers it. Thanks for having me out here. This was awesome. I, like I said, I never do interviews this long, but I told you before we came strap in, because I got a feeling this was a regular one time. I appreciate the conversation, all of the things that we got to spitball back and forth, the read, just all of it, man. I appreciate you just inviting me into your home and giving me the interview. I do. Oh, thank you. This has been great. I really enjoyed it. And thank you for reading the book. And thank you for, you know, being brave about it, because it's, you know, it's a controversial topic. And, you know, I appreciate that you're willing to step in front of it and then have this discussion and put it out there. So thank you. I do work for one person and one person only and he'll protect me. So it is what it is. Where I do, I do, I feel is right. I don't care about any of that other stuff, because I got here one way and I'm certainly not going to turn my back on that. God's work, man. Well, you know, I agree with that philosophy. I found that when you're at a fork and a crossroad in life, doing the right thing is somehow things work out and turn out for the better. I faced those crossroads myself, including in the choice of whether to go down the road to do this work. And it was a tough choice. It was a wife driving me to make the right decision. I'm very thankful I can do this work because, you know, when I look back on it, I don't think I'll ever say, well, I wish I did another, you know, case that made a million dollars. Nobody says that on their deathbed. But I think I will, you know, I look back and I'm privileged to be able to work every day to help protect the rights of folks who are truly one of the most disparaged and mistreated groups in this country. It's those who make the decision to not get this product. And like I said, they don't make that decision likely. They don't wake up one day and go, oh, you know what I'm going to do today? I want to take a socially ostracizing position. Like, yeah, my kids got to school, me called all kinds of bigardies, blah, blah, blah. I don't do that. I just post you make that decision based on, you know, some really serious life experience or some knowledge they just can't unlearn. And so, dude, I always got time for people that are doing the right things with the right motives and for the right purpose. So anytime, man, appreciate it. Appreciate it. Thanks again. All right, everybody, that wraps up probably my most epic episode of all time. So stay tuned for plenty more to come. Dylan Giamelli and Aaron Siri signing off.