Aaron Siri testifies that mRNA vaccines were "robustly tested in clinical trials" and demands that vaccines are re-tested on children.

Siri's testimony to the New Hampshire House Committee on COVID Response Efficacy and a lawsuit v FDA.

A reader pointed me to this testimony made by Aaron Siri to the New Hampshire House Committee on COVID Response Efficacy. Full video from The Highwire channel on Rumble.

I made a 4-minute clip from this testimony, which I will discuss in this article:

Edit: I am adding the transcript of the video, because some people in the comments can’t cope and accuse me of misrepresenting Aaron’s statements. Here is the transcript with time stamps from the clip:

Siri at 0:57 in the clip: “…I don’t see the covid vaccines as rushed in the same way …. from MY perspective… MY perspective… not as rushed as it’s been [presented] in the news… [talks about different technologies, HepB being “recombinant” etc]”

at 1:43 in the clip “when it comes to mRNA… the mRNA platform had been in development for decades… the science that underpins the creation of mRNA technology, they have been working on it for a long time.. replaced the uridine with synthetic uridine [explains LNPs] .. that was decades of development… talks about Barney Graham, Fauci… that’s why they were able to make it so fast”

at 3:18 “ from MY perspective it [mRNA] is not that different from … compared to any other vaccine, the clinical trials were pretty robust, in MY opinion … safety review for 6 months, they were well powered, 30-40K people and they did have the placebo control, both Pfizer and Moderna, they just vaccinated them [the placebo group] after an average duration of 2 months, once it was emergency authorized. So, I don’t know if that … [shrugs, smiles] that’s MY perspective on it… um, uh, [fidgets]… there is a lot of media outlets that might disagree on it… “

I posted these questions on Aaron Siri’s substack, and on X/Twitter:

1. Why did you state in the recent NH covid committee hearing that "mRNA vaccines were robustly tested in clinical trials?" Is this the type of trial you believe will be satisfactory to study all vaccines for safety and efficacy?

2. Do you believe it is ethical to study vaccines on children, knowing how harmful they are? Why do you believe they MUST be studied in "proper clinical trials"? What trial would be "proper"?

Aaron never responded to my questions.

An X post by Aaron (emphasis added):

FDA will soon be sued for an invalid clinical trial.   We petitioned FDA, on behalf of @ICANdecide to withdraw licensure or require a valid trial for both Hep-B vaccines indicated for use in babies because both were licensed based on inadequate trials: one with only 147 children and 5 days of safety monitoring and the other with only 4 days. (See FDA docs cited in petition below.) FDA's approval was thus not only scientifically invalid, but morally and ethically bankrupt. FDA had 180 days to substantively respond to the petition but so far has had nothing but excuses. Despite the passage of over 3 years, FDA has failed to provide any further data to support the safety of these products. Lawsuit soon to follow and we encourage everyone to write to FDA to support ICAN’s petition here: https://regulations.gov/document/FDA-2020-P-1857-0001

To correct the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the poor science, in this petition, Siri and Gilmstad demand that:

A. Action Requested 1. That the FDA withdraw or suspend the approval for Engerix-B and Recombivax HB for infants [2] and toddlers until a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of sufficient duration [3] is conducted to assess the safety of these products.

[2] Excluding infants born to mothers who test positive for HBsAg during pregnancy.

[3]… safety should be assessed until the infants and toddlers are at least six years of age so that the rates of autoimmune and neurological disorders, many of which are not diagnosed until childhood, can be assessed.

This is a demand to experiment on more infants and toddlers with knowingly dangerous substance! My main concern is the hypocrisy and lack of ethics exhibited by the petitioners. How long the product was studied originally is not a valid reason for a forced FDA recall. Indeed, there are drugs on the market and in use that have never been approved by the FDA because their discovery and use pre-date the FDA or pre-date the FDA mandate for regulating that particular class or particular types of manufacturer’s claims. The FDA’s original mandate was for regulating manufacturing quality and purity of product only. Decades later they started regulating safety claims and years afterwards - efficacy claims by the manufacturers. Vaccines were not regulated by the FDA until 1973, and as my colleague Katherine Watt has detailed in her analyses - are only pretend-regulated now (see below).

The randomized placebo controlled prospective clinical trials have not been around as a standard for much of the FDA history. The duration of a clinical trial is a complex issue, relating to the power of the study to measure the endpoints that are being studied. So, the insistence that the duration of a clinical trial can be litigated to some undefined, vaguely termed “long-term” is a very weak argument.

Before you start screaming at me that I am splintering the freedom movement, that I am a controlled opposition and I hate Siri - stop. I am not any of this. Aaron Siri has done a great job in many cases. I am not picking on Aaron Siri here, I am expressing my expert opinion on what I think is an unethical position in clinical research.

Other than a voluntary recall by the manufacturer, the only valid reason to remove a product that has been on the market for many years is the adverse events and deaths associated with the product in postmarketing surveillance. Siri and Gilmstad state that:

C. Urgent Need for Placebo-Controlled Trial of Hepatitis B Vaccine The need to assess the safety of each Hepatitis B vaccine in robust clinical trials is manifest. The following is a list of the reported post marketing adverse reactions added to the package insert for Engerix B because Merck had a “basis to believe there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event”[39]:

Abnormal Liver Function Tests; Allergic Reaction; Alopecia; Anaphylactoid Reaction; Anaphylaxis; Angioedema; Apnea; Arthralgia; Arthritis; Asthma Like Symptoms; Bell’s Palsy; Bronchospasm; Conjunctivitis; Dermatologic Reactions; Dyspepsia; Earache; Eczema; Ecchymoses; Encephalitis; Encephalopathy; Erythema Multiforme; Erythema Nodosum; Guillain-Barré Syndrome; Hypersensitivity Syndrome (serum sickness-like with onset days to weeks after vaccination); Hypoesthesia; Keratitis; Lichen Planus; Meningitis; Migraine; Multiple Sclerosis; Myelitis; Neuritis; Neuropathy; Optic Neuritis; Palpitations; Paralysis; Paresis; Paresthesia; Purpura; Seizures; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; Syncope; Tachycardia; Tinnitus; Transverse Muscular Weakness; Thrombocytopenia; Urticaria; Vasculitis; Vertigo; Visual Disturbances.[40] And these are the reported post-marketing adverse reactions for Recombivax HB added to its package insert because GSK had a basis to conclude each has a causal relationship with that vaccine: Agitation; Alopecia; Anaphylactic/Anaphylactoid Reactions; Arthralgia; Arthritis; Arthritis Pain In Extremity; Autoimmune Diseases; Bell's Palsy; Bronchospasm; Constipation; Conjunctivitis; Dermatologic Reactions; Ecchymoses; Eczema; Elevation Of Liver Enzymes; Encephalitis; Erythema Multiforme; Erythema Nodosum; Exacerbation Of Multiple Sclerosis; Febrile Seizure; Guillain-Barré Syndrome; Herpes Zoster; Hypersensitivity Reactions; Hypersensitivity Syndrome (serum sickness-like with onset days to weeks after vaccination); Hypesthesia; Increased Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate; Irritability; Lupus-Like Syndrome; Migraine; Multiple Sclerosis; Muscle Weakness; Myelitis Including Transverse Myelitis; Optic Neuritis; Peripheral Neuropathy; Petechiae; Polyarteritis Nodosa; Radiculopathy; Seizure; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; Somnolence; Syncope; Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE); Tachycardia; Thrombocytopenia; Tinnitus; Urticaria; Urticaria; Uveitis; Vasculitis; Visual Disturbances.[41]

These post-marketing reactions reveal a consistent pattern of autoimmune, neurological and other chronic disorders that would appear or only be diagnosed years after vaccinating a baby.

What I am very troubled by the [IMO unethical] logic of this legal argument.

The petitioners list the clear evidence that, indeed, these products are associated with a very long list of horrific and often permanently life-altering/disabling adverse events. I agree that these products do cause these things. Even if Merck only “associates” them, i.e. no formal causation is made, we are talking about a completely unnecessary injection given to healthy infants for an illness that, based on the dogma of virology, exists only in the IV drug user population! The adverse events are the reason alone to remove the products and educate the society about the horrific harms to the children.

The bolded statement above by the petitioners indicates that THEY KNOW and BELIEVE these products are extremely harmful. Yet, what is the remedy that they seek?

Additional, larger scale experimentation on infants and toddlers with these knowingly harmful substances!

“Urgent Need for Placebo-Controlled Trial of Hepatitis B Vaccine The need to assess the safety of each Hepatitis B vaccine in robust clinical trials is manifest.”

Furthermore, the problem is not limited to the HepB vaccines. None of the current on market CDC-enforced vaccines have been tested in long term safety studies:

Do Siri and Gilmstad propose that all of these known unregulated poisons be “robustly re-tested” on children and infants?

Here are some additional questions I would like to ask of Siri and Gilmstad:

• Whose infants and toddlers do the petitioners propose to experiment on?

• Whose kids should be exposed to the risk of death or permanent disability or other harm so that “robust science” can happen?

• What is your proposed list of clinical investigators/sites that will do this robust long-term studies? Do you think Dr. Larry Palevsky or Dr. Sherry Tenpenny or any vocal anti-vaccine physician will sign up to be a principal investigator to knowingly administer what they [correctly] state is poison to their pediatric patients?

• Do you think the principal investigators that WILL sign up for this study to inject their pediatric patients will truthfully document the harms they caused to their patients and produce “proper robust science”?

• Assume all principal investigators signing up to perform the studies are honest, not corrupt, and not routinely receiving money from the NIH, HHS and pharma in other studies that push vaccines, i.e. completely free of any conflict of interest. Do you believe that after the first child dies or gets severely injured in this study (which we know WILL happen based on the list of adverse events you provided), the honest data safety monitoring board (DSMB) will have an obligation to stop this experiment? Therefore, the research you propose is ethically not possible to perform by honest unconflicted people.

Please don’t tell me that “vax obsessed liberals will gladly sacrifice their kids for this”. While this may be true, it is ethically wrong to expect stupid or deceived people to injure their children simply so that you can gotcha them with “science”, or file another lawsuit-to-nowhere so that you can fundraise from people who do not understand clinical trial regulations/medical ethics. Children cannot legally consent to this, and are not responsible for the idiotic health choices or politics of their parents.

Please don’t tell me Siri and Gilmstad are simply bluffing and want to get the FDA to remove the vaccines this way. That’s also unethical, because you have to have an honest position in a legal complaint.

I am well aware of the establishment’s insane argument that it is not possible to test vaccines against placebo, because children will be in danger of “vaccine-preventable disease” (Paul Offitt). How does he know vaccines prevent those diseases? Well by injecting as many kids as possible and denying/suppressing any report of the immediate and long term toxicity because “all vaccines are safe”.

This makes it perfect unwinnable endless argument!

My position is that all vaccines should be removed from the market yesterday due to well documented adverse events and deaths associated with them, and due to no evidence that vaccines prevent anything. At a minimum, the right to refuse injections of anything, regardless whether it is good or bad for you should be universally upheld and protected. Every parent should be educated to stop poisoning their children. The government officials should be prosecuted for lying to the public.

Finally, vaccine manufacturing is not regulated by the FDA at all! They only present a false-front to fool the parents and the healthcare providers that it is a regulated product class. There is no enforcement of manufacturing quality or safety in relation to these substances:

On "unavoidable, adverse side effects" as deceptive language used to conceal the intentionality of vaccine toxicity.

Katherine’s analysis is a much better basis for a legal complaint v FDA. Siri and Gilmstad would be well served evaluating this material and amending their ill-conceived strategy.

Thank you for reading.

Art for today: Hollyhocks, oil on panel, 14x18 in.