Aaron Siri Introduces his New Book, Vaccines, Amen.

New post on X by Aaron Siri:

An excerpt from the intro to Vaccines, Amen:

Ever hear someone say, “I believe in cars” or “I believe in tools”? I cannot recall ever hearing anyone say they believe in a certain product. But I hear people say, “I believe in vaccines” all the time, especially in response to evidence regarding vaccines.

The expression “I believe in vaccines” carries a truism. The properties often attributed to vaccines require faith. Belief. This is because most claims about vaccines are not grounded in evidence. They are beliefs. It is why challenging claims about vaccines—meaning challenging beliefs—often results in an emotional, not logical, reaction.

This is also why wading into this topic is not for the faint of heart. Nor is it for anyone seeking to avoid controversy. Just the word “vaccines” evokes emotions for many.

Falling Into Vaccine Law

For this reason, among many others, I likely would have laughed if someone had told me eighteen years ago that I would be managing a law firm, with over 100 professionals, working on vaccine injury, exemptions, and policy. Back then, I was working on high-stakes, multi-billion-dollar lawsuits at one of the country’s premier law firms. Even after starting my own law firm over a decade ago, I continued to handle mostly high-stakes business litigation matters.

Then, one fateful day, I learned something I could not unlearn: of all the corporations I was defending, I would likely never have to defend a pharmaceutical company against claims that children were seriously injured or killed by a vaccine. Why? Because in 1986, Congress granted these companies financial immunity for injuries caused by childhood vaccines in a law titled the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (the 1986 Act).

I learned that, because of the 1986 Act, parents of seriously injured or deceased children must sue the federal government’s health department, instead of the company that profited from the product that harmed their children. From that one data point, my journey regarding vaccines began. What I have uncovered along the way has frequently been unbelievable.

This journey, spanning over a decade of litigating vaccine lawsuits of all stripes across the country, has been unique. This is partly because, unlike doctors, who can appeal to their credentials, I do not get to just say, “trust me.” I need to prove claims I assert with real data. Real proof. Something that will hold up in court. Non-authoritative science will not do. Unreliable data will not do. This means my vaccine litigation work requires me to study the primary sources and carefully review and scrutinize the studies and data that support each claim. v In the course of that legal work, I have worked with well over a hundred immunologists, infectious disease doctors, pediatricians, and other medical professionals. I have deposed these specialists as well, including the world’s leading vaccinologists. This work requires an understanding of vaccinology, immunology, infectious disease, and pediatrics, among other disciplines, with regard to these products. Want to talk about any other drug, medical procedure, etc.? I am not your man. But vaccines, those I know.

Incredibly, most of the information needed to understand vaccine safety is freely available on federal government websites and public databases. Most doctors and parents never bother to look or don’t know it exists. Those who do know and look often learn things they cannot unlearn.

Continue ReadingAaron Siri Introduces his New Book, Vaccines, Amen.

Pfizer and “Risk Reduction”

In 2021 I was joyous that Pharma had vaccines that were on the order ot 95% effective. Now we know what that means.

How Pfizer duped billions via statistical manipulation: Pfizer reported that its vaccine shows a 95% efficacy. That sounds like it protects you 95% of the time, right? But that's not actually what that number means. That 95% refers to the relative risk reduction, but it doesn't tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by vaccination.

For that, we need absolute risk reduction. In the Pfizer trial, 8 out of 18,198 people who were given the vaccine developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 people got it, which means that even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting COVID-19 was extremely low at 0.88%, which the vaccine then reduced to 0.04%. So the net benefit or the absolute risk reduction that you're being offered with a Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%. That 95% number, that refers to the relative difference between 0.88 and 0.04%. That's what they call 95% relative risk reduction.

And relative risk reduction is well known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead, which begs the question, how many people would have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccines had they understood that they offered less than 1% benefit?

Continue ReadingPfizer and “Risk Reduction”

Regression into Autism

Of all the vaccine videos I've seen this week, this one is the most haunting. Many case of autism REGRESS into autism. The child is initially healthy. Then, in many cases, shortly after vaccines, the parents notice a shocking loss of function. I've seen several videos where the parents describe this. Admittedly, this is not true of all cases of autism, but it is true of many.

Continue ReadingRegression into Autism

Preprint Warning of mRNA Risks is Censored

People need to be protected from preprint warning of mRNA risks. The article:

"BREAKING: MDPI Censors One of the World’s Most-Read Preprints Showing mRNA Shots Disrupt Thousands of Genes: With over 34,000 views and 8,600 downloads, our study discovered long-lasting genetic disruption from mRNA shots—only to be unethically censored by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex."

Nicolas Hulscher:

The sheer reach of this work made it impossible for the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex and its online enforcers at PubPeer to ignore. So they pressured Preprints.org into doing something unprecedented: retracting a preprint, an act almost never seen in science.

Infographic from the censored article:

Continue ReadingPreprint Warning of mRNA Risks is Censored

Dr. Aseem Malhotra Criticizes the mRNA COVID Shot

Dr. Aseem Malhotra speaking at the recent Reform UK conference:

Called for a moratorium on COVID mRNA vaccines citing a reanalysis of Pfizer/Moderna trials showing a 2-4 times higher risk of serious harm than hospitalization prevention.

- The World Health Organization that is being captured. That is being captured by Bill Gates, who is largest funder now Bill Gates, who made half a billion dollars in investments in the COVID vaccines.

- Audiences gasped when Dr. Malhotra claimed that COVID vaccines were a significant factor in cancer cases among members of the royal family.

- Calls out Pfizer of pushing COVID-19 vaccine mandates for profit, despite knowing by summer 2021 that the vaccines did not stop infection or transmission, while funding organizations to support these mandates and earning $100 billion.

Continue ReadingDr. Aseem Malhotra Criticizes the mRNA COVID Shot