Hey everyone, most of you are aware of
my passion for debunking anti-vaxers, a
task that has become quite the marathon
as of late given how mainstream and
institutionalized this brand of science
denial has become. Today's target is a
jerk named Aaron Siri. Who is he and
what lies does he tell? Let's get into
it. To put it plainly, vaccine hesitancy
is the highest it has ever been along
with the number of child deaths from
vaccine preventable diseases due
entirely to the volume of anti-vaccine
propaganda that is currently circulating
and the sheer number of frauds that
engage in it. Every time one figure gets
exposed and disgraced, three more pop up
behind them to spew similar narratives.
The goal of this propaganda campaign is
to villainize vaccines in a seemingly a
credible manner as possible. Fake
studies, deliberate distortions of real
studies, all aimed at eroding the
public's trust in legitimate health care
and disease prevention. The ringleader
of this circus sideshow is Bobby Kennedy
who is somehow still the head of HHS. As
the Sauron of this tale, he has many
underlings he can summon to perpetuate
his [\h__\h] narratives and a new
charlatan has recently shoved his face
into the public consciousness. Aaron
Siri is a litigation attorney who has
built a career challenging vaccine
policy, often representing anti-vax
propaganda organizations like Informed
Consent Action Network or ICAN founded
by grifter Del Bigtree, the jerk off who
gave us the Vaxxed pseudo-documentary.
Aaron's firm has made well over 10
million from ICAN since 2020. He's also
represented Bobby himself and even
played a role in Bobby's presidential
campaign. So he's part of the ragtag
crew of plucky underdogs standing up to
the corrupt vaccine religion. Of course,
let's not forget that these frauds make
a lot of money by sowing doubt about
vaccines that bring so much profit to
the evil pharma lizard people.
Organizations like ICAN and Bobby's
Children's Health Defense or CHD rake in
millions of dollars in revenue per year
and those numbers have climbed
dramatically post-COVID pandemic.
Whether donations from rich gullible
idiots or payoffs from alt health pseudo
wellness corporations which benefit from
public distrust of legitimate health
care that nudges them towards snake oil,
all of this anti-vaccine rhetoric spells
big bucks for these guys. They sell
books, they charge large speaking fees,
it's an entire industry that goes all
the way back to Andrew Wakefield and
other such shameless figures. These
frauds are essentially highly trained
influencers who sell their brand and
they do so at the expense of measurable
damage to public health. Just look at
the numbers for measles cases in the
United States. 2025 was by far the worst
year of the 21st century and 2026 is
already almost outpaced it just a few
months in.
Aaron has made so much money
representing these organizations that
he's begun to speak up himself. Why not
get some more free advertising for his
services after all? And as a lawyer who
gets paid to sound convincing while
lying, he's rather cut out for this sort
of gig. He testified in a Senate
hearing, he's even been on Joe Rogan to
absolutely nobody's surprise. So what's
his angle? As you'll see, his narratives
lean heavily on litigation to
manufacture an argument that sounds
scientific and evidence-based. Since he
isn't a scientist, he's a lawyer. His
arguments center around legal documents,
Freedom of Information Act responses,
and court filings, as well as using
constrictive legal terminology in order
to construct a plausible sounding
narrative. The main narrative he pedals
is that vaccines are inadequately
tested. He selectively defines the
meaning of words like placebo to mean
only salt water and this disingenuous
semantic approach is what gets him
theatrical legal wins so that he can
say, "Look, I won this case. See,
vaccines are bad because I won." The
core narratives he presents, like that
vaccines are inadequately tested and
shielded by design to obscure harm, all
boil down to a pattern of selectively
defining scientific terms and placing
them within a legal framework, not a
scientific one. Let's go over his
primary talking points from the Senate
hearing and his Rogan appearance and
explain why they do not stand up to
scrutiny. In doing so, we will
illustrate an important difference.
Science evaluates the totality of
evidence, randomized trials,
observational studies, mechanistic data,
and decades of real-world outcomes.
Legal arguments, by contrast, often
hinge on narrow definitions and
procedural framing. And when you apply
that legal framing to scientific
questions, you can easily distort
science to fit your narrative. The
Senate hearing is very short, so let's
check that out first. Our vaccine
practice, I believe, which has over 40
professionals, I
doesn't represent pharmaceutical
companies, I believe is the largest
vaccine practice in the world. When we
litigate vaccine cases, we cannot rely
on credentials or fancy titles.
We have to prove our claims with
high-impact data and sources. We're
nothing like those ivory tower elites
with their fancy titles and legitimate
scientific knowledge. We're just the
ragtag underdogs making millions of
dollars on sham lawsuits. Remember
lawyer jokes? Remember when the public
used to view lawyers as shady grifters
rather than white knights fighting
oppression? But sure, high-impact data
and sources, you're all about the data,
we get it. Let's hear about the data.
For example, I saw a slide put up that
showed 3 million lives were saved from
COVID-19 vaccines. The citation to it
was to the Commonwealth Fund. If you
follow that, that's not a peer-reviewed
study. That's a blog. It's a blog that
used a mathematical model to calculate
that 3 million lives were saved. Cool
story, bro. Well, I don't know what
Commonwealth Fund is and I don't care.
COVID vaccines objectively saved
millions of lives, far more than 3
million in fact, as is clearly outlined
in many peer-reviewed studies from
various countries around the world,
which I've shared in previous videos
debunking anti-vax frauds. I'll link to
some of those in the description in case
Aaron wants to take a look at them
instead of pretending that this
objective fact can be reduced to a
singular blog post.
>> The underlying data is not typically
really
carefully evaluated. Claims about what
vaccines do when they're positive
because our health agencies are
responsible for promoting them,
easily made claims that vaccines cause
any harms or injuries often get ignored
no matter how good the underlying data.
What a delightful reversal of reality.
The underlying data regarding vaccine
safety is not carefully evaluated and
sadly health agencies in America no
longer promote vaccines since they've
been captured by Bobby Kennedy.
Fortunately, other countries exist that
aren't engaging in state-sanctioned
science denial. Just like we saw with
Steve Kirsch and Pierre Kory in the live
debate I had with Dan Wilson, this
narrative hinges on people believing
that the global scientific community can
be reduced to what CDC says. And if
you've watched my other content covering
this propaganda, you know that 100% of
the outrageous claims anti-vaxers make
regarding harm and injury is based on a
shameless distortion of self-reporting
databases like VAERS. Nothing to see
here. I also heard that deaths sharply
declined
in 2021.
Well, when you look at all-cause
mortality in the United States, deaths
in 2021 went up compared to 2020 and
presumably most of the most frail, the
weak among us died in 2020 from COVID.
We should have had a reduction in
all-cause mortality in the United
States. We did not. Yeah, the pandemic
was still raging in 2021, dumbass. He's
just baselessly asserting that all the
old weak people died in 2020 so
everything should have been hunky-dory
after that. Also, 2020 wasn't a full
year of pandemic. People started dying
in large numbers in April. Tack on to
that a severely strained health care
system in 2021 after a full year of
dealing with COVID patients plus higher
mortality rates from accidents and drug
overdoses and there you go, more people
died. Shocking. For every product on the
market, you can sue the manufacturer for
harm. For design defect claims, meaning
the claim that the product could have
been safer. I mean literally, look
around this room, planes, cars,
pharmaceutical drugs, every one. There's
only one product in America you cannot
sue the manufacturer for design defect
claim to claim that it could have been
made safer and that are vaccines. I
heard you know, injections, vaccines. My
definition of vaccine is any product for
which the government needs to give it
immunity from harms. To me, that's what
a vaccine is cuz some prevent
infections, some don't. That's what a
vaccine is, meaning
it can't survive without that immunity
apparently.
Why did vaccines get this immunity?
Which was provided in 1986 under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
Because leading up to '86, there were
only three routine childhood vaccines,
MMR, OPV, and DTP and they were causing
so much harm and causing so much
liability that that
all the manufacturers were going out of
business to stop making them and
Congress, instead of forcing those
manufacturers to do what every other
product manufacturer needs to do in that
situation, which is what?
Make a better, safer product. Instead
said, "You know what? We're just going
to give you immunity.
We're going to make it so nobody can sue
you for those harms
and you can keep selling your product to
the American public no matter how many
children it kills." No matter how many
children it kills. How many children did
they kill, Aaron? I can find five from
the polio vaccine, not finding anything
else. How many lives did they save? Over
150 million in the past five decades?
Seems a bit one-sided, don't you think?
Of course, all of this is not the point.
The point is this story about the evil
companies who can't get sued when they
sell their poison. Sounds convincing,
huh? Well, it's [\h__\h] and as a
lawyer, Aaron should know that the
Supreme Court settled this matter in
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth 2011. This act he's
talking about does pre-empt design
defect claims for covered childhood
vaccines. That's the unavoidable side
effects clause. Courts have recognized
that vaccines have very rare inherent
risks even when properly made, which
will appear if the sample size is
hundreds of millions of people. Congress
included this clause because lawsuits in
the 1980s were bankrupting manufacturers
of DTP and other important vaccines,
thereby threatening supply. But, it is
not blanket immunity. Manufacturing
defects and failure to warn claims are
still allowed. Vaccine manufacturers can
be and are regularly sued. He's just
lying. But, he's also leaving out the
most important part of the story. The
National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, or VICP, is a no-fault system
that has paid out roughly 5 billion for
injuries since 1986. This is funded by a
small excise tax on each dose. This
system is much better for the average
person seeking compensation for
legitimate injury, which is extremely
rare, but does happen. Civil litigation
is far more expensive and time-consuming
to the point that it is totally
inaccessible to most people. VICP claims
can be filed for $405, and they even
offered to waive the fee for those who
can't pay. Petitioners can even reject a
VICP award and sue in civil court if
they feel they have a case.
Manufacturers remain fully liable for
fraud, contamination, or inadequate
warnings. The economic incentive to
improve safety never disappeared. It
simply shifted to regulatory oversight.
The FDA requires ongoing
pharmacovigilance, lot release testing,
and post-marketing studies. Companies
still face massive financial and
reputational risk for safety signals. It
is objectively the case that vaccines
are tested supremely rigorously for
safety. The risk-benefit ratio is
overwhelmingly on the side of mass
administering vaccines, and anyone who
says otherwise has no [\h__\h] idea what
they're talking about. Are we done here?
And and and I I sell you this not to
take issue with childhood vaccines, but
to explain to you the regulatory
framework in which vaccines have
developed over the last 40 years. We
have now gone from three injections in
the first year of life under the CDC
schedule in '86 to 29 injections,
including in utero, if a child follows
the CDC schedule today.
Every one of those vaccines, save one,
was developed by a pharmaceutical
company knowing they would not be
responsible for the injuries that are
caused by those products. Actually,
Aaron, you are specifically taking
issues with childhood vaccines and
brainwashing the masses into rejecting
them, which results in children dying.
You kill children while pretending that
having more vaccines to prevent more
diseases is somehow a bad thing. But,
all of this rhetoric serves the purpose
of queuing up his primary talking point.
>> So, when you have drug trials, where
pharmaceutical companies, they care
about losing money, they don't want to
lose money on their drugs, they often do
multi-year placebo-controlled trials
before they get on the market, because
they don't want to end up upside down.
They're there to make money.
But, with vaccine products, because they
don't have that financial incentive,
they have the actually the disincentive,
almost every childhood vaccine in this
country is licensed based on clinical
trials with often with no placebo
control, save for COVID-19 vaccine,
often days or weeks, up to maybe 6
months of safety review after injection,
and are often extremely underpowered.
Holy smokes, no placebo-controlled
trials. When they make the drugs, they
use placebo, but when they make the
vaccines, they don't, so they can murder
people with untested vaccines and
nothing happens to them. We've debunked
this talking point before, but in case
you missed it, let's unpack this load of
horse [\h__\h] First of all, the word
placebo refers to an inactive substance
that is used in clinical trials to
determine efficacy. When testing
palliative medicine, it's important
because the placebo effect exists.
Patients can feel better just because
they think they're supposed to. Pain and
other symptoms can be reduced due to a
placebo effect, and this must be taken
into account when determining the
efficacy of a drug which has the purpose
of reducing pain or those other
symptoms. Vaccines aren't like that.
Vaccines aren't a treatment for
anything. They're preventive, not
therapeutic. They're given to millions
of healthy people to prevent infection
by specific pathogens, not as treatment.
Mechanistically speaking, the purpose of
a vaccine is to introduce an antigen
that will result in antibody production.
You can't will antibody production with
your mind. The placebo effect has no
bearing on vaccines. So, comparing
vaccine clinical trials to drug studies
is misleading. Nevertheless, every
ingredient in a vaccine should be tested
extensively for safety, and they are,
without exception. Aaron pretends that
components of vaccines must be tested
specifically against saline, or salt
water, meaning nothing, basically. This
is ridiculous. He wants you to believe
that it's exclusively vaccine versus
saline to assess safety. Otherwise,
whoopsie, no safety studies were done.
Everyone could have died from the
vaccine. This is [\h__\h] Every
component is tested rigorously, whether
we are talking about the antigen itself,
preservatives, adjuvants, any of it.
They test adjuvants without the antigen
present. They test components against
other similar components that have
already had their safety demonstrated.
And, get this, they also frequently do
indeed test against a control of saline.
So, beyond the claim being misleading,
it's just flat-out wrong. Here are a
bunch of vaccines that have been tested
against an inert saline placebo. It
happens all the time. So, when Aaron
says this, or Bobby, or whichever other
fraud is parroting this talking point,
it's nothing more than a cocktail of
lies and deception. Continuing, once a
vaccine is proven effective against a
serious disease, it becomes unethical to
withhold it from children for an
extended period as part of a placebo arm
of a study. You can't tell a parent that
you're immunizing their child against a
particular disease and then not do it.
That would be insane. That's why
long-term placebo-controlled trials stop
once efficacy is established. After that
point, safety is monitored through
massive post-licensure systems like
VAERS, Vaccine Safety Datalink, or VSD,
PRISM, and BEST. These have tracked tens
of millions of doses, and this is how
the extremely rare adverse events from
COVID vaccines were spotted. This
includes myocarditis in young men from
the mRNA vaccines. It also includes
thrombosis with thrombocytopenia
syndrome from the non-mRNA-based
adenoviral vaccines like Janssen, which
caused 10 deaths in the United States
before being swiftly pulled from the
market. Both of these were so rare that
phase 3 clinical trials just don't have
the statistical power to detect them.
You need millions of recipients for them
to show up. And again, saline was used
as the placebo during COVID vaccine
trials. These events are so rare that
they were undetectable in trials
containing 40,000 people. So, for anyone
to reference them as a criticism of the
way vaccines are tested just doesn't
understand how any of this actually
works. I talked about all of this in
extreme detail in my videos on Steve
Kirsch, Pierre Kory, and Peter
McCullough, and I'll again reference
Jeffrey Morris's paper on post-licensure
surveillance systems. To speak more
broadly, the National Academy of
Medicine and FDA have reviewed the
entire childhood schedule repeatedly.
There is no evidence whatsoever of
systematic safety failures from
inadequate pre-licensure testing. The
only corruption we are seeing is under
Bobby's HHS and his meddling with the
ACIP vaccine panel and their recommended
vaccines, now attempting to rescind
recommendation for extremely important
vaccines like hepatitis A and B,
influenza, RSV, and meningitis. That's
the corruption, not anything to do with
the FDA approval of vaccines that have
demonstrated safety and efficacy. So, as
you can see, Aaron's rhetoric is nothing
but shady lawyer speak. They didn't test
against saline, so we don't know it's
safe. In reality, everything is tested
against an appropriate placebo, which
often even includes saline. Got anything
else, Aaron? Based on our over 2,000
FOIA requests to federal health agencies
over the years on behalf of our client,
I can I could tell you our federal
health agencies act like partners of
pharma.
They don't they they don't they're not
only they encourage their inroads, they
act basically in the shoes of pharma
because when the immunity to liability
was given to the pharmaceutical
companies, Congress recognized that
apparently and transferred all the
safety functions to HHS and the mandate
for safer child vaccines. And by doing
so, it's made them hopelessly
conflicted. Everyone is evil but me.
Stupid pharma from the private sector is
evil. Stupid FDA from the government is
evil. Only us brave anti-vaccine
warriors are fighting for the truth.
[\h__\h] ridiculous. There is no
conflict. Forget that the entire story
is rendered impotent by the fact that
other countries exist with their own
regulatory bodies, as well as
independent research groups. But, let's
stick to his dishonest framing, which
pretends that only the United States
exists. The purpose of the FDA is to
regulate food and drugs. Around one in
10 drugs that enter clinical trials
receive FDA approval and make it to
market. If the FDA and pharma were one
in the same, and the whole system was
hopelessly broken, and all the evil
poison drugs were out there poisoning
everybody, what would that number be?
100 [\h__\h] percent. This dual narrative
seeks to villainize drug manufacturers
so that they have an enemy to fight, as
well as the FDA, so that Bobby has an
excuse to dismantle the entire
institution from the inside under the
guise of rooting out corruption, when
he's actually just diminishing its
ability to perform crucial regulatory
functions. The thing about frauds like
Bobby and Aaron is that they love to
pretend they're so methodical in their
anti-vaccine assertions that they are
identifying specific vaccines and
specific components that do specific
harm, but they're just not. It's blanket
science denial aimed at literally all
vaccines. Want proof? Can you think of a
vaccine that has saved more lives and
demonstrated its safety and efficacy
more thoroughly than the polio vaccine?
Uh Kennedy lawyer Aaron Siri, who's been
helping him pick federal health
officials for the incoming
administration, asked the FDA to revoke
the approval of the polio vaccine. That
was 2 years ago according to the New
York Times. Now, McConnell, who is a
polio survivor, said the vaccine has
saved millions of lives and quote
efforts to undermine public confidence
in proven cures are not just uninformed,
they're dangerous. Do you know how big
of a piece of [\h__\h] you have to be to
make Mitch McConnell the voice of
reason? These jerks are attacking the
polio vaccine. The [\h__\h] polio
vaccine. What better demonstration do
you need that they are simply waging war
on vaccines in general? All of these
frauds eventually reveal their cards in
this manner. This is just like when I
pressed Pierre Kory in our debate.
>> It's funny to me because it's always the
same story, right? I was pro-vax and my
kids are vaccinated. It's just the COVID
vax. But if it was just the COVID
vaccine, why are we here talking about
the entire vaccine schedule? Right, why
are we talking about vaccines and
autism? Is there a vaccine in the
schedule that you think is good? What
how how is it that we're always fixating
on the COVID vaccine and then all of
these people here that are supporting
you are just magically against all
vaccines, right? If you're not
anti-vaxers, how did that happen
exactly?
>> I'll help you out. It's all of them.
Keep going. Huh? Okay. It's all of them.
Keep going. Okay, so he admits it. So
you are just against all vaccines. All
vaccines. Every vaccine is bad. It
doesn't matter what's in them. They
could be a live attenuated pathogen, an
inactivated pathogen, an isolated
antigen subunit, mRNA based. They could
have preservatives or not, adjuvants or
not. Doesn't matter. All vaccines are
bad because bad bad yucky vaccines. It
makes zero [\h__\h] sense. For something
to be harmful, there has to be an active
ingredient and a specific mechanism by
which it does harm. They don't have one
and they never will, which is how Dan
and I got Pierre so riled up in the
debate by asking him repeatedly to make
a single concrete coherent claim about
vaccine ingredients. Anyway, getting
back let's move on to the Rogan episode.
Until this COVID epidemic, I would have
never questioned it. I mocked
anti-vaxers. I was like, these people
are silly. Don't they know all the good
things that vaccines have done?
And the this the blatant propaganda that
we were force-fed like one of those
ducks they're trying to make foie gras
with, Mhm. it just made me stop and
pause and go, is the whole thing like
this? Yes, Joe. You respected vaccines
and then an avalanche of anti-vax
propaganda was stuffed down your throat.
You fell for all of it and now you're
the primary platform in the entire world
for enabling the continued transmission
of such propaganda to the general
public. Great work. Every other product
that exists,
I can sue the company. I can hold them
accountable
if that product injures or kills you or
your child
on the basis that product could have
been safer.
The only product, and I mean this
literally,
the only product in America
where you cannot sue
to say had you made that product safer,
my child wouldn't be dead. Vaccines
killed my child and I can't even sue
anybody. We already debunked this
classic talking point, so we don't need
to talk about it here. Rest assured, Joe
bought it hook, line, and sinker. But in
the instance of vaccines leading up to
1986,
there were only three routine vaccines.
That's it. That's all there was.
A child following the CDC schedule in
1986 got three injections on or before
their first birthday.
Okay?
Those three products
were causing so much harm and injury
that every manufacturer of them went out
of business. And that was the MMR
vaccine, the DTP, and the OPV vaccine.
No, they were not causing so much harm.
Claims regarding neurological damage
have been debunked. Claims connecting
the vaccines to sudden infant death
syndrome have been debunked. He's just
fearmongering. Three vaccines were so
super bad, so now that they get a
bazillion, it's even worse. The surge in
lawsuits, many or most baseless, was
destroying the vaccine industry and in
countries where DTP use plummeted due to
safety fears like the UK and Japan,
major pertussis outbreaks occurred,
which led to dozens of infant deaths.
All of this chaos is what brought about
the very sensible act he's vilifying and
also the compensation program he never
mentions. Wonder why? Instead of forcing
them to do what every other industry has
to do, like I said, make better building
materials without asbestos, make better
cars that don't explode, go down the
chain of different products out there.
Congress did something completely
unique.
It said, you know what?
We're just going to give you immunity.
Vaccines that work remarkably well and
save countless lives, yet also produce
very rare adverse events given the
sample pool of millions of people, are
not at all like asbestos or cars that
explode. This is a [\h__\h] insane
comparison. So going back to how we make
products safer in America or anywhere.
Okay?
It's not the government.
Governments don't make products safer.
Look at extremely authoritarian regimes
where there was very little free market
like the former USSR. You think products
were safe? No.
What makes products safe?
It's the economic self-interest of the
company. Yeah, the stupid government
can't make anything safe, so let's just
abolish the FDA completely and let the
unregulated private sector go hog wild.
Nobody ever died from drugs before the
FDA existed, right? What an [\h__\h]
>> For most childhood vaccines,
instead of years,
it's often days or weeks of safety
review in the clinical trial before they
allow them to license them.
Not a single, and I know that
folks contest this all the time, but
it's in the FDA literature.
Not a single routine injected childhood
vaccine
was licensed
based on a placebo control trial save
for the COVID vaccine by the way for
children. It's the only one. Yeah,
people contest this all the time because
you're lying. You lied in your Senate
hearing and you're lying to Joe.
Vaccines are rigorously tested for
safety through three phases of clinical
trials. Many are tested against a saline
placebo and that isn't necessary in the
first place to establish the safety of
the vaccine. He is skirting past very
obvious scientific principles that he
doesn't understand as well as ethical
concerns regarding not vaccinating
vulnerable people. No need to explain
all this a second time. You're talking
about these companies that have been
fined billions, billions of dollars in
criminal fines for fraud, for all kinds
of [\h__\h] These are the people. And the
the idea that they wouldn't lie about
vaccines. Like this is the one thing
they're going to tell you the truth.
Ruthless capitalist attached to money
and drugs. This is the one thing they're
going to 100% tell you the truth about.
That seems kind of kooky. That's a
that's a that's a hard sell for anybody
who's not ideologically captured. That's
a hard sell. Evil company lie and sell
the poison. It's a very easy narrative
to sell, but it's just infantile.
Vaccine clinical trials are not run in
some secret pharma bunker where nobody
can watch them do their evil pharma
things. They are designed and conducted
by academic research institutions and
government agencies like the NIH. They
oversee studies to ensure that they go
according to protocol. The FDA evaluates
all the data before approving the
vaccine and CDC monitors everything
closely post-licensure. All people like
Joe can do is go, "One time a pharma
company did this bad thing, therefore
everything all of pharma does ever must
be evil poison money scheme." It's such
toddler mentality. In reality, it's
possible to identify isolated
occurrences of oversight or malfeasance,
which are present in any large industry
and honestly are often mischaracterized
or exaggerated in the case of pharma,
and understand that even when they are
valid concerns or examples of
corruption, they are simply an
indictment of those particular people,
not the entire industry. I don't know
how we're going to rehabilitate the
public from a knee-jerk acceptance of
any narrative that cartoonishly
villainizes the pharmaceutical industry,
but we need to figure that out
posthaste. Go back to vaccines. Think
about how incredibly harmful
and how much harm these vaccines must do
that they cannot survive on the market
without this immunity
from 1986. Think about that.
>> If you're going to steelman the argument
against that, yes. Wouldn't you say,
"Look, these are we can't have frivolous
lawsuits against these people that are
providing us the most important
medication that's available to humans.
The the whole reason why we survived
smallpox and polio and all these
different things, it's these vaccines.
Without them, we'd all be dead." This
episode is brought to you by Montana
Knife Company. I have used their knives
for years. They are absolutely
fantastic. Joe says a smart thing which
should end this entire conversation and
then cut straight to an ad. How fitting.
Let's just assume that the last part of
what you said is true, which we know
it's not. But with that said,
let's steelman it.
>> Yeah. Easy response. Okay? Okay.
>> [clears throat]
>> Drugs,
drugs
that are for very small populations,
meaning not a lot of market, not a lot
of sales,
that cause incredible side effects,
can survive on the market profitably.
Think about that for a second. The last
part isn't true. Vaccines haven't saved
countless lives. Have you ever had
smallpox or polio, Aaron? No? Then what
the [\h__\h] are you smirking about? While
Joe is cosplaying as a smart person, he
said that we can't have frivolous
lawsuits from one in a million people
who take an extremely safe vaccine
derailing all vaccine production. Stop
rambling and get to the point, champ.
>> And that is how companies typically
limit their liability with medical
products, with drug products,
Why can't they do that with vaccines?
Why can't they just make them as safe as
technologically feasible, can't sue them
for design defect, and disclose all the
actual risks in the package insert? They
do that. They are made to be as safe as
possible. That's why adverse events are
exceedingly rare. And these adverse
events are not a secret, and any health
professional can tell you all about
them. So, I don't know what the [\h__\h]
you're talking about. It's been 40 years
for some of these vaccines. Hep B
vaccine, for example, licensed in '86
and '89, the two stand-alones.
It's been 40 years. You telling me they
still don't know it's safe enough to
lift that immunity? You're giving it to
millions of kids a year. You're making
billions of dollars on the sales of this
product, and you still don't know it's
safe enough to lift that immunity,
please. The immunity isn't there because
vaccines aren't safe, you [\h__\h] tool.
They are extremely safe. But when you
give them to millions of people, one or
two extreme adverse events might happen,
which could yield enormous lawsuits that
would bankrupt any company and result in
vaccines not getting produced anymore.
That's the [\h__\h] point of the act and
the accompanying compensation program.
The act does not mean that vaccines
aren't safe. The hep B vaccine is safe.
For example, measles, the dreaded
measles that they say everybody will die
from.
No measles vaccine, we're all going to
die, right? That is the impression they
give you.
You have any idea how many people died
of measles in the years before there was
measles vaccine in the United States?
>> How many?
About 400 a year.
That's it. That's it. 400 a year dying
in the United States at a time when
everybody had measles, which comes out
to about 1 in 450,000
Americans dying of measles. That's in
the CDC. Anybody who's listening to this
who's like, "Come on, that's not true."
CDC mortality documents on the CDC
website, cited in my book. 400. Okay,
it's time for a bunch of [\h__\h] about
measles. Aaron is citing 400 deaths per
year pre-vaccine and pretending that's
the whole story. He's ignoring
incidents. Prior to protection via
vaccination, we saw around 48,000
hospitalizations annually, about 1,000
cases of encephalitis, which means brain
swelling, permanent neurological damage,
deafness, and immune amnesia in
survivors. The vaccine was not just
about reducing deaths. It's about
preventing infection and transmission in
general. Through vaccination, measles
cases were reduced by more than 99%
completely eliminating endemic
transmission. Additionally, measles
vaccination prevented an estimated 23.2
million deaths between 2000 and 2018,
once we remember that countries other
than the United States also exist. This
is just more shady lawyer speak from
Aaron, minimizing the dangers of
something like measles, which is now
returning and killing children because
of the propaganda [\h__\h] like him are
spreading. My recollection of it was the
episode of the Brady Bunch. Do you
remember? Yeah. Remember that episode?
>> Yeah, they were laughing about it.
>> Let's watch this. Find that clip and
let's watch it because
it's so
indicative of
what measles was actually like in the
culture
of the people that would get it all the
time versus this boogeyman of today.
I mean, it is it's so stark. It's so I
mean, it's like imagine the kid coming
home, "Hey, Mom, I've got AIDS. I've got
to stay home from school." It's not
that, right? It's It's the way that most
folks who've had chickenpox think of
chickenpox. Right. Um
but we're told that it's killing people.
And we're told that it's killing people
now. We're told that it's killing It's
always kids. They're We're We're told
it's killing kids now.
>> Yeah. We don't need to watch a Brady
Bunch clip. It is killing kids now. Less
than 400 per year, of course, but I'm
sure Bobby and friends can bring us back
to pre-vaccine numbers with a little
elbow grease. That a fictitious TV
family wasn't panicking about a measles
case doesn't negate thousands of serious
complications that happened every year.
Post-vaccine data from MMWR and CDC
surveillance show the near elimination
of those burdens until importations from
unvaccinated communities like the Amish.
Between 1900 and the late 1950s, early
1960s, the mortality for measles
declined in the United States by over
98%.
You know what didn't cause that?
Vaccines.
>> Yeah, cuz it didn't exist. Sanitation
and nutrition explain a large part of
the mortality drop, but only the vaccine
explains the collapse in actual disease
incidents. Again, he's fixating on
deaths as though that's the only metric
that matters, beyond the callous
dismissal of 400 deaths per year that
are easily avoided by an extremely safe
and effective vaccine. This is the point
he is dishonestly skirting around.
Sanitation did reduce how deadly the
measles virus was. Only vaccines reduced
how common infection was. Anyway, this
is a very long episode, and by that I
mean it's an average Joe Rogan episode.
So, let's just jump ahead and make a few
more important points. In the normal
course, okay, in the normal course,
you've got a product. You've gone from
three of them
in 1986 by the first year. You're up to
25 29 beginning of 2025.
Now you're at 19 still. During that
period, you've gone from under 10% of
kids had a chronic health issue in the
early 1980s, according to the data.
You now have over 40%. Some data show
over 50% of kids having chronic health
issues, often multiple times the rate.
Here we go, another round of vaccines
cause all these chronic diseases
[\h__\h] We dealt with this in the RFK
video, but let's talk about it again.
First of all, it continually blows my
mind how [\h__\h] like this cite more
vaccines as being a bad thing. It's good
that we now have hepatitis vaccines and
rotavirus and varicella and others. It's
good to immunize against more things
beyond just DTP and polio. Second of
all, more vaccines and more chronic
disease, therefore vaccines cause
chronic disease, is such a
mind-numbingly stupid argument that I
can't believe people fall for it. We've
gone over this before about how ice
cream sales don't cause shark attacks
just because they both rise in the
summer. Say it with me, correlation
doesn't equal causation. He's also
omitting very obvious explanations
surrounding better diagnosis and other
such factors. But don't worry, he's got
a story about Amish people that we
totally haven't heard before from other
[\h__\h] Amongst those children, you
would expect to have because like 1 in
10 kids approximately have asthma. You
would expect to have like nine cases of
asthma. You would expect to have six
cases of this, five cases. They have
none.
Zero
of the chronic health conditions
plaguing kids in America today. And the
approximately 10 or so studies that have
been done,
and I'm bringing this back to my legal
point, the approximately 10 or so
studies that have done that compared
kids with no exposure, meaning zero
vaccines, to kids that have had one or
more vaccines, show the same outcome.
Kids with zero vaccines, almost none of
the chronic health issues that face kids
today in America. Kids with one or more
vaccines, multiple rates of the chronic
health issues. Amish people don't get
vaccinated, and they have zero health
issues, while kids who get vaccines are
all practically about to die. So,
vaccines are poison. Absolutely
ridiculous. First of all, Amish people
have chronic disease. They're not
[\h__\h] cyborgs. Could they have
comparatively lower rates of chronic
disease? Sure. And on average, they do
seem to show lower rates of things like
cardiovascular issues and diabetes. Is
it because they don't get vaccinated?
No, there are lifestyle differences.
They do tons of manual labor. Their
diets are different. They differ in
genetics, screen time, diagnostic
practices, almost everything. Two groups
have to be comparable if you want to
isolate a variable like the effects of
vaccines. There are plenty of studies
that document autism, cancer, diabetes,
and every other chronic disease in Amish
communities. So, the idea that they
don't exist is idiotic. But where rates
differ, you have to consider the
countless confounders that exist. Aaron
is really showing how much he isn't a
scientist. But beyond this, he's
knowingly referencing shitty data. These
vax versus unvax studies he cites are
retrospective, convenience sampled,
self-reported, or poorly adjusted for
socioeconomic status, breastfeeding,
prenatal care, and selection bias. Every
time they pretend to be going by the
science, this is what they're actually
doing. In reality, all large,
well-controlled reviews, like IOM or
Cochrane-style analyses, do not support
a causal link between the vaccine
schedule and rising chronic illness.
Overall, US chronic disease trends have
multiple drivers, which include, most
critically, better diagnosis, especially
when it comes to autism, but even with
every other such condition, when better
access to diagnostic evaluation is
provided, more people are diagnosed with
things. This is obvious. Other factors
can also contribute, like the global
obesity epidemic, environmental changes,
genetics, and, crucially, better
survival of children that might
otherwise be dead. Kids that don't die
from pathogens because vaccines exist,
so instead, they are alive with a
chronic condition. We beat this horse to
death in the RFK video, but it bears
repeating that while the rise in chronic
conditions is real and deserves study,
attributing it primarily to vaccines is
nothing but a malicious propaganda
campaign that dishonestly ignores
confounders and the absence of any kind
of signal in rigorous pharmacovigilance
data. The The follow-up question would
be, are they even being diagnosed? So,
if they're getting Amish care and Amish
teachers and Amish
Is it possible that there are some kids
that are just behaving odd that would be
diagnosed? Like, this is the criticism.
>> Yes.
>> say, like, this is when you hear some
mainstream suit talking on television,
"Well, there was always someone odd when
we were kids." You know, there's no They
just The diagnosis is different today.
That's why it's 1 in 12 boys in
California. They're over-diagnosing. And
I'm like, "No." Leave it to Joe to
ensure that the only factual information
in a 3-hour podcast is spoken in a
sarcastic tone and brushed aside with
zero basis. How is this so hard to
understand for people? Only severely
autistic kids were diagnosed in the
past. Now autism is recognized as a
spectrum disorder and children with
level one and two autism are diagnosed
that would not have been even 20 years
ago. So so so many adults are autistic
that were not diagnosed as autistic. Get
over it. The notion that autism is just
better diagnosed and that's the only
reason for the increase is um
I don't know a better word for it. I'm
going to say nonsense, okay? Um uh
even if you look at the cuz they've
changed the DSM-5, which is what we're
up to, the diagnostic manual that is the
uh
the psychiatric manual that has the
criteria for diagnosing autism. It has
changed over time. But when you even
just look at severe autism, just severe
autism, which California has a very good
data on,
from the '70s and onward into today,
it's exploded, okay? So that the notion
that we just have better diagnoses is
not a serious point. He's literally
citing the changes to the DSM-5 that
completely altered the way autism is
diagnosed and then just scoffing to
himself. Everyone who was said to have
Asperger's became autistic overnight due
to the change in definition, ASD, autism
spectrum disorder. Cases of severe
autism have also risen a bit, but they
haven't exploded like he claims. It
can't be more transparent that he is
operating in bad faith. And I'll tell
you this about the Amish community.
They don't have phones.
Not not not not the not you know,
smartphones.
They have old school phones, some of
them. They don't have TVs.
When they're with their kids,
they're with their kids.
When they're there at the end of the
day, they really are are so much more in
tune. When I spend time with them and
when I went up there, I mean, it's
incredible, you know? You we have lost
it's a hard thing to experience, maybe
for for somebody who keeps like
Maybe the closest thing I think of was
like those who observe the Sabbath
biblically, you know? So they're just
they're just totally locked in. They
lock in with their families for a day or
so or things like that. And so they're
very in tune with their kids. They know
if those kids have health issues. Wow,
the Amish are so super amazing and
better than everyone else because no
screens and they sit with their kids.
Then go be Amish, [\h__\h] No, Amish
people aren't magic wizards that are
able to diagnose medical issues in their
children without any relevant training
or equipment. You're an idiot. What you
find
in the peer-review literature is that 40
to 70% of parents of a child with autism
report still report
that they believe vaccines cause their
child's autism.
Okay? 40 to 70%. That's after how much
billions of dollars to try to tell them
and gaslight them and convince them
that it's not that vaccines don't cause
autism. Yes, no matter how much parents
are told that vaccines don't cause
autism, since they [\h__\h] don't, they
still believe it because of worthless
propaganda-peddling pieces of [\h__\h] like
you who fill their heads with lies. Epic
self-own, [\h__\h] And so on behalf of
ICAN, which is the Informed Consent
Action Network nonprofit that our law
firm represents,
we sent a Freedom of Information Act
request, FOIA request,
to the CDC and we said, "Hey,
your website says vaccines do not cause
autism. Great. Please give us the
studies that show that hep B vaccine
given three times in the first six
months of life do not cause autism.
Please give us the studies that show
that DTaP vaccine given three times in
the first six months of life do not
cause autism.
Same thing for IPV vaccine.
For PCV vaccine.
And for
uh um
Hib vaccine, okay? Each one of those
vaccines is given three times each in
the first six months of life. 15
injections.
Okay?
Okay.
You say vaccines don't cause autism.
These parents are saying these vaccines
cause their child's autism.
Provide us the studies. Holy [\h__\h] 15
shots. Dumb parents insist that their
kids caught the autism from vaccines
because of whichever other Joe Rogan
guest they fell for. So give me the
studies that prove these vaccines don't
cause autism and make sure to prove it
in the very rigid and narrow manner
stipulated by this FOIA request that is
not reflective of actual scientific
evidence in the slightest and is
specifically engineered to result in
failure. More shifty lawyer tactics.
This is about manipulating burden of
proof, not scientific evidence. They
never gave us the studies.
I sued them in federal court. I didn't
go to Texas. I sued them in Southern
District of New York, okay? Not the
friendliest territory to bring that kind
of lawsuit, okay?
Days before the hearing,
I get a a list of 20 studies finally
from also from the DOJ cuz they
represent the CDC, okay?
Maybe they think I don't read.
So I looked at the 20 studies.
I read them.
19 of them
have nothing to do with the vaccines
given in the first six months of life.
They were all either MMR studies
or studies of an ingredient that wasn't
in those vaccines. One of them
was an Institute of Medicine review
from 2012 that canvassed all the
literature on whether DTaP vaccine does
or does not cause autism
because the CDC and HRSA, which is the
agency in in HHS that fights vaccine
injury claims,
re-
asked the IOM to look at whether DTaP
causes autism because it remained one of
the most commonly claimed injuries
still, according to them,
okay?
And the Institute of Medicine would came
back and said, "We could only find one
study on DTaP and autism,
and in fact, it showed an association
between vaccine DTaP vaccine and autism,
but the IOM threw it out because it said
there's no unvaccinated control in it.
So they threw out the studies based on
various data, if you know what that is."
Well, that's a load of [\h__\h] He's
lying about not being provided studies
and he's lying about being able to read
the studies. Plenty of such studies
exist. These are large epidemiological
studies involving millions of children
that have repeatedly found no causal
link. Since I've debunked this point so
many times, I've shown papers like these
so many times, and here they are again.
I'll link to them in the description.
Every [\h__\h] year another one of these
pops up because no matter how many times
it's demonstrated that there is no
causal link between vaccines and autism,
more propaganda is shoved out to deny
this obvious fact and continue to demand
more evidence. How many more years of
this until the goalposts finally stop
moving and frauds like Aaron will accept
that it has been proven by any
reasonable expectation? Never, because
proof can mean whatever they want it to
mean in whichever latest document they
draft up, and they will evade the
legitimate scientific conclusions every
time. Then to push the opposite of
reality, they will cherry-pick a study
and distort its conclusions. Take the
one he's referencing about hep B from
2010 by Gallagher and Goodman. This
study is suspiciously small and doesn't
specify what confounding factors were
controlled. In the autism group, nine of
31, or 29%, were given the hep B
vaccine, compared to 1,258 of 7,455,
or 17%, in the non-autism group. This
does not demonstrate causation. The
study raised red flags and professionals
have expressed concerns on PubPeer. This
post outlines the weak study design,
small sample size, selective data use,
and temporal inconsistencies,
correlation misinterpretation, lack of
confounder adjustment, and more. This is
all that anti-vax frauds can do. Point
at one small study with methodological
flaws and pretend that it outweighs
dozens of much larger, much more robust,
well-controlled studies. The literature
overwhelmingly supports the notion that
vaccines do not cause autism. Anyone who
claims otherwise is being disingenuous
and deceptive. This is why Aaron relies
on his lawyer speak. All he proved is
that CDC could not satisfy a specific
legal request for proof of negative. It
does not overturn the mountain of
positive evidence from cohort and
case-control studies. It's shifty
lawyers doing shifty lawyer stuff.
Nothing more. When this narrative, which
you hear all the time on these panels,
on these news shows, "Vaccines do not
cause autism. That has been thoroughly
debunked."
Where's that come from? That comes from
a frustrated and exhausted scientific
community that knows the truth, has
spent decades relentlessly combating the
hydra that is vaccine-related
disinformation from frauds like Aaron,
Bobby, and a thousand others, and is
tired of trying to get it through your
thick skull, Joe. That's where it comes
from. When I came into this,
I would
Had you told me, "Yeah, they don't have
any studies that show vaccines don't
cause autism in the first six months of
life." I'd be like, "You're crazy. Get
out of here. They tell you it's
thoroughly debunked. Thoroughly studied.
The most studied thing ever. They have a
mountain of science, Joe. There's a
mountain of studies. You know how big it
is? It's so big, and you know what's on
top of that mountain? Another mountain
of studies. You know how much Another
mountain. There's so many studies.
They're drowning in studies that
vaccines don't cause autism.
But then when you demand it, not the
bullcrap that they say on TV, but you
actually demand it, that's the result.
>> [music]
>> But he sure does sound convincing when
he gets all riled up like that, huh?
Never underestimate the power of
pageantry and a good story. Anyway, we
can wrap things up here. To summarize,
Aaron Siri is a skilled litigator who
knows how to highlight legal
technicalities, court stipulations, and
historical mortality declines.
Basically, he knows how to selectively
present and distort facts to win court
cases. But when these points are
presented with full context, they just
do not hold up as evidence that vaccines
are uniquely unsafe or that the system
lacks accountability. Vaccines are one
of the most thoroughly studied medical
interventions in human history. Decades
upon decades of rigorously performed
research all over the world demonstrate
their safety. They aren't perfect,
nothing is, but the pre- and
post-licensure testing, the compensation
program, and a mountain of
population-level data demonstrate that
they prevent far more harm than they
cause by several orders of magnitude.
The childhood vaccine schedule exists
because diseases like measles,
pertussis, pneumococcal infection, and
many others used to kill or disable
thousands of American children every
year. Our ability to prevent infection
by deadly pathogens is the single most
astounding achievement in human history.
So, when the public starts rejecting
them in huge numbers, what can we say
about that? What an amazing job of
gaslighting and propaganda they've done.
Well said, Joe. Well said. If only you
could genuinely experience this epiphany
yourself and stop inviting all the
gaslighters and propaganda peddlers on
your [\h__\h] show, we could start
getting back to preventing more deaths.
To anyone who could possibly still be on
the fence, I don't know how to reach you
because you didn't watch this video. But
if you're out there and can hear me
somehow, if you're still concerned about
vaccine safety, consult your
pediatrician, not your favorite podcast
bro.
So, that's it for Aaron Siri, shameless
anti-vax stooge number 473.
They just keep cranking these jerks out,
and I'll keep doing my best to expose
each and every last one of them. My job
is far from over with so many dozens of
these figures left to go, so it's back
to work for me. I'll see you next time.