I couldn’t believe what I was hearing when I listened to Russell Brand interviewing trial lawyer Aaron Siri. Oh, and by the way . . . good luck finding the interview (on Rumble) using Google, but that’s another story for another day.

Here’s and excerpt with some of the referenced documents:

Aaron Siri 17:20
So here we go. So actually, I had the opportunity to testify before Congress, actually, on this exact topic. It was specifically about COVID vaccines. But in doing that, we submitted a report. Can you see my screen? And here we go. Pharmaceutical companies, I think, do not like that this is on formal US Congress website, but there it is. And to this day, it remains uncontested. Never gotten anybody to challenge or say anything in this document is false. With that said, it’s all cited to the government sources. Well, let’s take a let’s just zoom in on this one chart right here. Okay, if you look at this chart, yes, zoom right in.

These are the top five selling drugs that Pfizer has sold as of 2020 as of 2019 I believe, according to Money Inc. I’m assuming it’s correct. And when you look at this list of the top five selling drugs, four of them are drugs. One of them is a vaccine. And which we’re looking at is a summary of the clinical trial relied upon to license each of these products before they went to market. So when you look at Enbrel, it had a safety follow up in its clinical trial before it went to market of 6.6 years against a placebo control group. Elliquis, Lipitor, Lyrica had multi year placebo control trials. Essentially what that means is you’re comparing a group that got this product when it was experimental before it was licensed, with a group that gets a placebo over a multi year period. And then you’re comparing.Are there any neurological differences, immunological differences, cardiovascular issues? What is the difference in the in the safety profile between the placebo group and the vaccinated group? That how they determine safety and Pfizer wants to know that safety file before these products go to market, because they don’t want to end up upside down.

But then look at the one vaccine on this list, Prevnar, six months of safety review. Far, far less. A product given a two, four and six months of age, by the way, and then at 12 months. Now, what was the control? It was a different vaccine, Prevnar 7. Now, you might say, hey, hey, maybe Prevnar 7 was properly licensed in a long term placebo controlled trial, but that’s not the case. It wasn’t and we’ll go through that in a minute.

I’ll zoom out now, and we’ll take a look now at the childhood vaccines. And these are the vaccines given in the first six months the United States, three times each. And what you’re looking at now is the safety follow. Period that safety was reviewed after inject to these products in the clinical trial and the control that was used. Now I the first time I saw this, or if I saw this, I’d say, No way. It cannot be one. How could the companies do this before you’re giving a product, you’re injecting into a baby? Again, each product is injected three times each in the US schedule by six months of age. Okay, so you would imagine these would be the most robustly studied products on safety. You could imagine healthy babies, millions of them. You want to make sure you’re not going to break society, right? But yet, this is what you see. And you might say, Well, what? What is driving this difference? Why would Pfizer or these other companies do long-term versus short-term? I think I’ve beaten the answer that question to death. It’s economic interest. Pfizer is going to do the absolute minimum and Merck and snow feed to get their products to market so they can make money from them. Now why the FDA will let them get away with this? That’s a different story. We could talk about that later, if you’d like. But, but really. Does it really matter? That’s the reality of it. And, you know, but seeing is believing… imagine it like this, Russell, I came to and I said, Hey, Russell, I got business idea for you. And you’re like, Oh, really? Well, look, I got this great idea. We’re going to sell this injection. What’s the injection? Well, it doesn’t matter. Don’t worry. Well, don’t have to worry about safety. No, the government said we can’t be sued for it. Okay? He said, well, well, who’s going to take that product? You say, Don’t worry, the government’s going to mandate that millions of children take it every year. Well, but who’s going to promote it? Don’t worry, the government’s going to take our money and promote it for you to get a guaranteed market, guaranteed immunity, government promotion. I think you just summed it up as well, which is absolutely your vaccine, portfolio [inaudible] and it’s and it’s only growing because They they understand they can sell this product risk free, with a guaranteed market, and they push for mandates. It’s the best possible. It’s the best of all worlds for them.

So a sensible piece of legislation might be to end that immunity.

Yes, that would be extraordinarily sensible. Which is just let these products operate in the same exact environment as every other product out there. Okay? Even in the United States, a lot of times, guns have immunity liability for injuries. But even there, it’s only in the commission of a crime or a wrongful act, you could still sue a gun manufacturer for design defect claims, saying that they could have made safer and various other claims. You can never do those for vaccines. So yes, that would be imminently sensible. And think about it like this. Okay, hepatitis B vaccine, the two given to babies, were licensed in 1986 and 1989. It’s now been, oh, I don’t know, over 30 years of them telling us they’re safe, assuring us they’re safe, promising us they’re safe, but you’re telling me 30 years later, you still can’t lift the immunity liability? You still are concerned about lawsuits? If they’re so safe, what do you get? There are drugs that treat just a small number of people, right? So they don’t have a large market. They can’t make a lot of money off them. But yet, those can survive in an economic environment where you can still sue the manufacturer of those drug products. Here, a product you give guaranteed millions of individuals every single year? You can’t make a profit from unless you have immunity liability? That should be very concerning. So yes, it would be very sensible. And you got to ask yourself, why they won’t do it, despite, by the way, bill after bill being proposed over the years to repeal that immunity.

Russell Brand
Yes. I mean, I suppose if the people with the most authority and power were the same people that one way or another indirectly or directly benefited from that immunity, then there would be no real incentive to end that immunity if their interests aligned significantly or sufficiently. But that would amount to a degree of corruption, Aaron, that I find difficult to even contemplate,

Aaron Siri
Or some might view that and say, That’s just good business. All right. They use the they use the tools they use, the advantages they have to make as much money as they have. Unfortunately, that is why the stop gap has to always be the ability for an individual to say, “No. Hey, you know what I looked at the clinical trial that and I decided no. Hey, you know what? I looked at the post licensure safety data, no. I looked at the ingredients, no.” You have to always say no. And that is, you know, what we saw so acutely, especially during the last few years, is that right come into sharp tension with what the government wanted. You know, mandates, really, when you think about mandates coercion, they’re only really necessary when the government wants you to do something that is probably problematic. Otherwise. Persuade you on the merits. I don’t need to persuade you to

Russell Brand
That’s staggering. I mean, I suppose coming at this as I am, from a media perspective, what I recall is that during the period where vaccinations were being encouraged, there was a near hysterical assurances that, were we not to take these products, we were irresponsible socially, that we would be causing more vulnerable people to get ill, even if you don’t want to take it for yourself. A lot of the messaging said, you should be taking it for other vulnerable people. That you are selfish, that if you didn’t take the vaccine, you shouldn’t be treated in a hospital. All of this seems to have been forgotten. And yet when we found out, and the way I personally found out was there was a conversation, I think, at the EU where someone like a Dutch politician said, no, there were never any clinical trials for transmission. No, it was a Pfizer executive just sort of blithely announced it. It sort of seemed to just, I don’t know, melt into the the ethereal, ongoing narrative that we should be incredibly forgiving when it comes to what went on in that pandemic period, the whole stop the spread argument Aaron, was there any basis for it at all?

Aaron Siri
The vaccine was never tested in a clinical trial for whether or not it stopped transmission. And by the way, that’s true for pretty much all vaccines. The FDA will tell you as much, and most vaccines don’t stop transmission. And the premise should have been that it doesn’t stop transmission, frankly, and until proven otherwise, because when you look at respiratory viruses and respiratory vaccines, they don’t stop transmission, pretty much, and many of them don’t stop transmission. So when you look at some of the raw data regarding other vaccines, it shouldn’t have been very surprising you’re trying to inject something in the arm that often will create systemic immunity, immunity in your blood, IgG antibodies, to try and create mucosal immunity, immunity in your in your in your lungs, IGA antibodies, and then the crossover typically does not happen in science. So it should have started with, “Well, this is probably, this is almost certainly not. Not going to create immunity to transmission.” And I could walk through some of some of the other vaccines as well. But, you know, if I was one of your audience members, I might be saying, I still don’t believe five days of safety review for the clinical trials. And you know, if you want, I could pull up the FDA website, and I could show you one or two of those, just so that folks at home or watching this, actually believe it, because I wouldn’t believe it without seeing it personally.

Russell Brand
Yes, I’d love to see that, Aaron. And this is the FDA’s own website, their own information, in which it’s made explicitly clear that the follow up for some of these vaccines is just five days. So if they go and see someone, if they check in on someone five days later and they’re not coughing up blood, their project is declared a success.

Aaron Siri
Well, the way to think, yes, that’s close, but the way to think about is this: when you want to license a product, okay, you have to do a clinical trial. And why are clinical trials so critically important? They’re critically important because it’s the only time that’s considered ethical with a vaccine, to give one group the vaccine and one group nothing, a placebo, and then compare them, because once it’s licensed, they say, oh, it’s unethical to withhold the vaccine now from any child. So the clinical trial is critically important to show the safety, because after licensure, all you can really do are what’s known as retrospective epidemiological studies, okay? And they will tell you, the epidemiologists and the scientific community will tell you, you can’t prove causation with those studies. You can just show correlation, not causation. How do you prove causation? If I come to somebody comes to our firm and says, Hey, you know, I believe this product caused this injury, and I want to show causal connection. I need, typically, clinical trial data. So that’s why the clinical trials are so critical. And those safety review periods that we just looked at and the controls, okay, those are from the clinical trials. When you want to license a product, the company that wants to license it conducts the clinical trial, not the FDA, not any European or UK health authorities. The company conducts the trial and then submits that data to the regulatory authority. They decide then whether to license it. What are you submitting clinical trial? How do you evaluate whether a clinical trial is good? Number one, how long did you safety. If you didn’t look at it long enough, you got a baby. If you only followed in the clinical trial safety for five days. Most immune issues might not come up for a few years of age, like asthma, developmental issues for numerous years of age. Even even like autoimmunity. Think about it like this, if I give you a vaccine and I say you’re going to get immunity to certain antigen in the product, that will often, they tell you take many weeks or months. So if you’re gonna have self-attacking antibodies that will at least take weeks or months, not five days. It’s not going to show up in five days. So how long. That’s that’s criteria, one. Second, what are you comparing it against? Because I’ve even fired you safety for a long time, but I don’t have a placebo control group or another control group where I really understand the safety profile. How do I know it’s safe? What am I comparing it against? The background? Rate? It’s really hard to do that. And then finally, the third factor is you got to have enough people in the trial. Okay? I hope I’m not boring your audience with this. The third criteria is you got to have enough people to what they epidemiological call. It has to be well powered, because if you don’t have enough people, then you’re not going to detect signals. If you only have a few 1000 kids, well, then you’re only going to detect conditions that happen, you know, one in 1000, 1 in a few 100. Meaning you’re not going to catch rare things when you’re injecting this into millions of kids. And it requires giving often, let’s say, 8000, 9000, 20,000, 30,000 vaccines to prevent one case of disease, well, you better be safer than that number. It’s called the number-to-treat. So if the number to treat is 20,000 injections to stop one adverse event from the underlying disease, well you better make sure the product safer than one in 20,000 adverse events.

So you got to be properly powerful. Okay, with that said, what we’re looking to look at is, what was the clinical trial. What were the features of the clinical trial that the company relied upon, excuse me, that the FDA relied upon to license this product? What did they accept? And in that chart, I mean, I will, I’ll share my screen again. So we’re back to this chart again, right? And that’s what it means by saying, follow up.

So let’s take a look at the first one on the list, hepatitis B vaccine. That’s the very first licensed childhood vaccine. And if we go to Google and we go to FDA, licensed vaccines. So here we are. We’re now going to click on the first link vaccines licensed for use United States. On this web page is every single vaccines licensed for use in the United States, these are not very dissimilar for the ones in in Europe as well. Sometimes they have different brand names and so forth. And if we scroll down, we will find there are four Hepatitis B vaccines licensed in the United States. Okay, only two of these are licensed for babies. The other two are only for adults. The first one, Recombivax HB is the first, the one that was licensed. It was licensed actually in 1986 and when we pull up the package insert, I don’t know what it’s like in in the UK or in other parts of the world, but in the United States, when you get a drug, there’s usually a piece of paper in the box. … [U]nder federal regulations section 6.1, I’ll scroll down, require that the manufacturer summarize the clinical trial relied upon to license that product. Vis a vis afety, perfect. So there’s a simple way to look at the clinical trial. I’m about to inject this into my baby. Okay? Now, before I go and buy a car, I kick the tires. Ask a few questions before I you know, I do my homework. Right before you buy any products. Even when you go to Amazon, you’re going to buy, like a camera, you’re going to do some research. Before you inject something into your baby, if you want to start by looking at what was the safety? How did you determine safety? This is probably the place to start. … We’ll scroll down to section 6.1 and right here we will see this is all of the text of Section 6.1. These were the reactions reported in the clinical trial. Section 6.2 is the post-marketing safety. So this sentence summarizes the clinical trial relied upon to license this product for children.

Russell Brand
434 doses were administered to 147 infants and children up to 10 years of age, who are monitored for five days after each dose, so that that product being issued after it’s only been given to 147 kids, and they’ve only done less than 500 doses, and their follow up-period is five days. That’s not even really a clinical trial. I reckon I could get together a trial of that standard from previous partners.

Aaron Siri
I think you’re being kind. That’s incredible. I mean, because now I just want to remind everybody, we’re on the FDA website. Last I checked, not an anti vax organization, I think. And this is an FDA approved document. This is Merck’s summation of it. And I will tell you, the first time I saw this, I actually said “It can’t be.” It cannot be that a product that you’re going to inject into millions of babies is licensed based on five days of safety monitoring after injection. That there’s got to be more.

So we actually submitted something called a Freedom of Information Act request, a FOIA request. That’s a law in the United States that allows us to get documents from the federal government here. And I asked, we asked, on behalf of our client, the Informed Consent Action Network, ICANN, we asked for all of the clinical trial reports that were submitted to license, thinking there’s got to be more in there. And we got copies of all them, and they’re on the ICANN website. Anybody can go see them and it’s five days.

And in fact, we then even petitioned the FDA and the formal docketing system that Merck and Pfizer and companies use to license or to modify licensures to say, hey, you know, Congress said you should only license products that are shown to be safe. Now we can debate whether the safety review period, how many kids need to be and what the control should be, right? We could debate those things maybe in the margins. Should it be 100,000 kids? 50,000 kids? Should it be five years? Three years, but five days with 147 kids? And what was the control? Right? There’s none listed. This is useless. It’s utterly and completely useless determining safety. So the company–Merck got this on the market with the absolute minimal safety data that they could obtain. And if somebody out there will say to you, well, maybe they already knew it was safe, and these are the arguments I often hear in return, well, they knew it was safe because there was probably other hep B vaccines. This is the very first recombinant DNA technology vaccine in the universe. Just like the very first mRNA vaccine was COVID, the very first recombinant DNA technology vaccine ever was this hepatitis B vaccine in the United States. There had been a prior hep B vaccine, actually with literal human blood. Nobody wanted to take it, so that went away. So there’s no there’s no precedent safety profile. The other argument I often hear is, yeah, well, but they probably really tested it in adults well. Let’s just scroll down just right to this sentence, and we could see how they tested it in adults: 1200 people. So better, a little bit, but still completely underpowered. And again, only five days of monitoring. And again, you can see the clinical trial reports. So, you know, I’ve deposed vaccinologists, immunologists, pediatricians, and I’ve asked about this a million times I’ve waited for there is no response to this. There’s no good response to this. If you think there’s something else, send it to me. I’d love to see it.

[Supp Dec 18, 2024]

The NYT has published a hit piece filled with lies in order to disparage RFK, Jr. Attorney Aaron Siri sets the record straight in numerous ways about “the polio vaccine.” The IPOL vaccine that is the subject of ICAN’s petition (not brought by RFK, Jr.) is not the vaccine the NYT wants you to think about. It is NOT the Salk vaccine. Further, there are significant red flags about this IPOL vaccine. The NYT never makes this distinction in its article, which is intentionally misleading and inexcusable.

[Supp Dec 18, 2024]

Aaron Siri on X:

The mainstream media is deliberately stoking fear and outrage about vaccines in an attempt to derail Donald Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr… The attempts to stoke fear are based on legal work I did for a different client, which I never discussed with Mr. Kennedy. …

[T]he @nytimes … mischaracterize the contents of three petitions my firm filed with the @US_FDA from 2020-22 on behalf of a client, @ICANdecide. One of these petitions related to IPOL, which is one of the six polio-containing vaccines currently licensed by the FDA. … The media falsely claimed the petition sought to eliminate all polio vaccines…

IPOL was licensed based on a clinical trial with no control group and only three days of safety review after injection. … The media’s outrage should be directed at the FDA, which licensed a novel vaccine after collecting so little data…

A second petition … concerned the use of two hepatitis B vaccines that were licensed for use in infants and toddlers based on trials without a control group that monitored safety for five or fewer days after injection…

A third petition drew on a peer-reviewed study finding that 10 childhood vaccines contained an amount of aluminum adjuvant—a cytotoxic and neurotoxic … ingredient…—that was greater or less than the amount listed on the approved FDA label for each vaccine…

We must be able to raise valid questions about vaccines without fear that anyone who deviates from the accepted orthodoxy will be smeared as a radical…