Aaron Siri
speaker
358 appearances
2 recordings
2 series
first heard Nov 2024
last heard Dec 2024
Aaron Siri’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
Oh, you want everybody to get polio and die? I mean, you just saw it happen. It's your own eyes.
I don't understand what that means, by the way, to be pro for or against vaccines or pro or anti-vaccines. I mean, I'm not for or against cars. I'm not pro or anti-cars. Cars have a purpose. They have a function. Sometimes I want to use them. Sometimes I don't. If you want to like park it in my bedroom, I don't want it. I mean, they just, it's just a product. And this is the problem.
This is what I'm talking about is that they're just a product. They're a product. They were not given to Moses at Sinai. Right. They're a product made by companies. And the problem is, is that people just can't talk about them objectively. Like, it's a problem.
And it feeds into, so you said, I think that this program and the federal government, they also are part and parcel of the overall objective. Let me put it this way. Agencies set policy. The CDC is not a science organization. It's a political organization. What do political organizations do? They set policies and then they subscribe and they follow them. Exactly.
Okay, so the CDC, for example, I'll give you a great example. There's something called the MMWR. It's what they call their scientific publication. It's what I call their newsletter, okay? And they publish studies in it, all right? And those studies are often used to then set CDC policy. But here's the thing. They don't go through a peer review process.
They go through something called, this is all on the CDC website, a clearance process within CDC. And one of those steps... is that the study must align with the CDC policy. Come on. I'm not joking. I'm not joking. How's that science? It's not science. It's the perversion of science. I've written about this. I've sub-stacked about it.
I've tweeted about it, you know, but I don't have your platform, but it's the perversion of science. I mean, but that is the reality of the MMWR. And I'll give you an example of how this plays out in the lives of everyday Americans.
Do you remember the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic when the vaccines first came out, the COVID-19 vaccines, and the CDC came out with all this guidance about how natural immunity is useless. It's worthless. You got to get the vaccine no matter what. And so their guidance to the public and the states around this country, luckily not all of them, followed it.
And they said, okay, if you've been vaccinated, you're allowed to have your civil and individual rights. You've had COVID, you're not allowed to have your civil individual rights. How do they get to that conclusion? There were at that point, numerous peer reviewed studies around the world with millions of people in them that showed natural immunity was more protective than vaccine immunity.
But what did the CDC do? They went and they did this 300 person, basically case controlled retrospective nonsense of a study. We could do a whole show on that one study. We could pull it up and you and I could sit here and we could read it and you could spend your all day reading it.
And I promise you would never understand the study design because it is the most convoluted nonsense to achieve the result they wanted. but it achieved the result they wanted. If that study, which showed what they wanted it to show regarding natural immunity versus vaccine immunity, they relied on that one study in the MMWR. I shouldn't even call it a study in their newsletter.
to deprive people with natural immunity of their civil individual rights, ignoring all the other science. So yes, it is the perversion of science, but it has real life consequences. And I just gave you a real life example of it. On behalf of ICANN, by the way, and others, I actually wrote the CDC, my firm wrote the CDC a letter.
We put all these studies and I could provide these, you could make these available. They're such great letters. I wish everybody in America read them. We laid out all the science, all of them showing natural immunity is at least as efficacious as vaccine immunity. Can you please give these people their rights? Civil individual rights, freedom.
They wrote back with that one study, that one study that I just told you about. We wrote back another letter saying, this study is total garbage. We explained why it's garbage. You know, as I told you, I, you know, one of the things that I do is I depose vaccinologists. It's part of what I do in infectious disease doctors and immunologists.
So I have to learn epidemiology, you know, statistics, vaccinology, immunology. I mean, you know, that's part of what deposing experts requires you to do, okay? I don't, again, I don't have any degrees, but I have to learn this stuff. And I can tell you that that study design, it categorically is designed to reach the conclusion that they wanted.
And because it's a clearance process I described, if something had shown a different result, it just wouldn't have made it through. So yes, it is the perversion of science. Going all the way back to your actual question now, CDC is a policy entity. HHS is a policy entity. And to your point, why wouldn't the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program work? Now, finally going to answer your question.
That was a long road to get there because it's a policy organization. And yeah, of course, what the policy of that organization is, vaccines are safe and effective. That's a mantra. I don't know what that means entirely, by the way, but they say it all day long. And anything that shows they're unsafe will get people to not vaccinate, and that goes against their policy. So absolutely, they are-
Well, after law school, I clerked for the chief judge of the Supreme Court of Israel for a year after law school. And after that, I worked for Latham & Watkins, which is one of the biggest firms in the world for almost six years, doing bet-the-company litigation, right? Multi-billion dollar disputes. And then I left there. and started my own practice. I wasn't home enough.
I wanted to see my kids more and my wife more. So my own practice. And I continued to do commercial litigation, actually. That's what I kept doing. But instead of doing multi-billion dollar cases, we would do a few million dollars or A few hundred million dollar, a few hundred million dollar cases.
You know, there are some cases, for example, that, for example, Latham would have or a big firm would have, and they're doing a giant bankruptcy and they can't do a litigation, right? They can't do the litigation because it conflicts with the bankruptcy, but they don't want a different big firm to do that litigation, right? because they might steal a client.
Showing 161–180 of 358 · page 9 of 18
← Previous
Next →