Hard hitting medical truth, cutting through conflict and confusion to the understanding you're searching for.

Join Dr.

Peter McComa, world renowned medical expert and practicing physician for this edition of the McCullough Report.

Your life may depend on it.

Let's get real.

Let's get loud on America Out Loud Talk News and Focal Points Substack.

I'm Dr.

Peter McCullough, your host, and my guest today is Aaron Seary.

He is an attorney that uh in many ways has become the nation's civil rights attorney when it comes to vaccines, mandates, vaccine injuries, and really all the swirling controversy we're hearing about vaccines nowadays.

And Aaron, welcome to the show.

Great to be here.

We are going to discuss his book in detail today, vaccines amen.

So you're going to have to ask, wow, what a title.

And it has such a strong uh connotation.

The subtitle is The Religion of Vaccines.

So, Aaron, what um what was the impetus for writing the book and how did you structure it?

Well, when I first got involved with vaccines, you know, over a decade ago.

Um, I would say I didn't really know fully what to expect.

And as I started deposing vaccinologists, including the world's leading vaccinologists, um, infectious disease specialists, immunologists, suing public health authorities on the state and federal level.

What I came to realize is so much of what you hear about vaccines, right?

Um, are just slogans, their beliefs, their mantras, their dogma, their belief through repetition, not because they're based on the actual evidence.

And so um, you know, I I uh I I wrote the book, and uh I thought, well, what should I title it?

Um, and after I, you know, because and I as I wrote it, I realized what I really what I'm writing about is here's what the public health authorities tell you, but here is what the evidence is.

And when you put it all together, it really does it is it has akin to a religion where um you have the folks who just believe things, and and it really is a religion in the sense that when you try to challenge those who perpetuate those beliefs with evidence, they don't respond to you intellectually.

They respond to you with ad hominem, they respond to you with personal attacks, they respond with emotion oftentimes, get angry, they get upset, try to sense you, try to that is not science.

That is that is not the way scientific discourse is supposed to happen.

And so um that's how I ended up uh um calling the book the religion of vaccines.

There's what the public health authorities tell you, and then there's what they admit when they're under oath on the stand or in a deposition, and also what they have to admit when you force them to prove their claims.

They can't hide from it.

You give me the documents that support that claim, and man, you get something very different in that context versus what they tell the public.

Um, in terms of how I structured the book, I structure it by starting with trying to explain the big picture around vaccines.

Um, because it's disjointing for people when you tell them no, uh, the vaccines are not properly clinical trial before they're licensed.

You're like, really?

I heard they're the most properly, you know, most clinical trial products out there.

They're thoroughly safety tested before they go on the market.

If I just present you the evidence and show you that's not true, which I do in chapter 10, without giving you how did we get there, it can be disjointing for people.

So I spend the first uh six chapter explaining the framework in which vaccines have developed in the United States and really around the world over the last 40 years, so that you don't have cognitive dissonance when you get to the later chapters and you see the discord between what they say and what the evidence shows.

Aaron, can you pick up on this um regulatory issue that uh the positioning of two major features regarding the product?

One, it's safety and then efficacy.

And I can tell you as an internist and cardiologist, when we present our clinical trials at the major cardiology meetings and when we make FDA presentations and products are approved, we always discuss safety before efficacy.

And the philosophy is no matter how wondrous a drug is, or how much prof, you know, promise it holds for the population, if it's not safe, it can't move forward.

And this has been the way it's been through cardiology.

And I can tell you, we've had products that were you know easily billion or multi-billion dollar products in cardiology that never saw the light of day after tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars put in clinical trials because they weren't safe.

There was a safety signal of some sort, and it just the company said, no, we're not gonna go through with this.

How you know is the whole world of this product class of vaccines?

How is it different than medicinal products?

Oh, sure.

Uh, I'll tell you actually, not only, I will not only explain how it is different, how vaccines are different than drugs, I'm gonna tell you how it's different than every other consumer product out there in the United States, and this is true of many other places.

And that's this vaccines are the only product in the United States, the only one where you cannot sue the company that sells up profit that comp that the vaccine and profits in the tune of billions on the basis that had they made the vaccine safer, your child wouldn't have died.

Your child wouldn't have been seriously injured.

Your loved one wouldn't have been hurt.

It's the only product like that.

For every other product that you see, drugs, cars, planes, every other product in the office that you're sitting in right now, um, you know, the sheetrock, the the flooring, the chemicals used in them, you could sue based on the claim that had you made that safer, I wouldn't have gotten cancer.

Had you made that safer, I wouldn't have gotten a car crash.

Had you made that drug safer, I wouldn't have been injured.

But you can't do that with vaccines because in um leading up to 1986, uh uh, well, let me just say this.

Because in 1986, Congress passed something called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that gave that immunity to the vaccine makers, not only for the only three vaccines, routine vaccines that existed then, but for all childhood vaccines um thereafter.

And so, you know, we've gone from a child receiving three shots in the first year of life under the CDC schedule back in the uh early 1980s to a child receiving today, including in your road, 29 shots by one year of age under the current CDC schedule.

And every one of those products was licensed by a company knowing they would not be responsible for the injuries that and deaths that were caused by the vaccine on the basis that they could have been made safer.

And and and how has that had an impact?

It's had an incredible impact on how these products are trialed before licensure vis-a-vis safety, and how they're treated after licensure again vis-a-vis safety, not efficacy per se.

And here's why.

Big companies exist to make money.

That is how they make their decisions in the boardroom.

That's how the officers of the companies make their decision.

A boardroom that sits around and makes decisions based on what's more moral, what's ethical, or a CEO or a COO or CFO, they're not lasting very long in that position.

Wall Street's gonna kick them out.

Their uh investors are gonna kick them out, the shareholders are gonna kick them out.

That's just not the way corporate America works.

Now, normally that drive to make money, that economic self-interest to make money aligns with safety when it comes to products.

Okay, they're usually aligned.

If the product's not safe, the company loses money.

So they want to make sure the product is safe before they go on the market and after they go on the market.

That's why most drugs often have long-term placebo controlled trials before they go to market.

Not even because the FDA requires it, but because the company wants to know.

Because if they put a drug on the market that a million people take, and even 5% get serious, 2%, 1% get seriously injured, they very quickly could end up upside down in terms of profitability.

They don't want to do that.

So they have an economic interest to properly clinical trial it before it's licensed, and then to also check safety afterwards.

But with vaccines, that economic interest is for the most part gone.

In fact, the pharmaceutical companies have the opposite financial interest to do as little safety review before licensure and after licensure, because they don't want to get the product not licensed and lose out on billions.

And they don't want to have a pull from the market later because they're not worried about lawsuits that are going to harm their bottom line from the injuries from the product.

That may sound nefarious, but really it's just good business, so to speak, right?

That's just the economic incentive.

So vaccines are the only product that exists in this inverse economic framework versus.

Other products in this country.

So it sounds like your analysis is this is just part of business.

This is inherent in the business, certainly after 1986.

And you know, in my field in medicine, uh products uh are improved.

The safety improves.

And one of the things we see it for medicinal products is the package inserts are updated very frequently.

So we'll have a new package insert come out and a list of another side effect that just become known.

Uh we'll see new boxed warnings arise on why they use medicinal products.

And you know, I I've been through this multiple times.

I've been on review committees for the FDA where it's it decided um that a black box warning and uh when this happens, uh we don't have to have certainty that the that the adverse event is is directly caused by the product.

We just have to observe the safety event and say, you know what, it's it's too close to the administration of the product and you know it's within the the realm of possibility.

So for an example, a popular drug used to lower uric acid and treat out called euloric, euloric.

It got a cardiovascular box warning because there was you know an increased uh odds ratio for cardiovascular events.

We really couldn't explain it, but it was seen in some of the studies, and that was enough to put a boxed warning.

Do we see that with vaccines?

Are the packaged inserts regularly updated and in your understanding of this?

How often do new boxed warnings come up for vaccines?

Um black box warnings on vaccines are virtually non-existent.

Wow.

Um I mean, I've rarely ever seen one in terms of adding an adverse event to section 6.2 of the packages or just post-licensure event.

Sometimes they get added.

Um, you know, under the basically under the relevant regulatory framework, they effectively uh I think the only ones that really get added is when the pharmaceutical company really has a basis to believe that they're causally related, that that injury is causally related to the vaccine.

When they have the evidence, when they have the basis to actually reach that conclusion, I believe that is the only time you'll see it added.

Because in that instance, if they don't do it, then it could arise you could potentially make certain arguments um because one of the avenues is fraud.

That that that you could still go after a pharmaceutical company, but it's very hard to prove.

And so in that instance, they I you know, I assume they'll do it.

I mean, a lot of times by the time they add that to a vaccine, it's so obvious that that the vaccine causes that injury.

But um, uh and so, you know, when I look for vaccines at a package insert, section 6.2, unlike with drugs, I agree with you with drugs, they will often just add it, even if there's just a correlation.

Um they're more readily will be added.

But I think they're a lot closer to causation when they're added for vaccine.

And I'll tell you legally why, because many ways it's a legal document.

If you're gonna sue for an injury from a drug, there's usually two ways that you go after the pharmaceutical companies.

The first one is is to argue that had they made the drug safer, then I wouldn't have gotten hurt.

My child wouldn't have gotten hurt.

It's called the design defect claim.

And so uh uh, you know, you can uh bring those claims whenever you can say you didn't use the best available technology to make this safer.

The classic example is you know, somebody's selling a saw, and they for one penny they could have put a piece of plastic over the saw for one penny, but they didn't, and I lost my finger.

Or for one penny, they could have put a stopper on that gas tank in the car that would have prevented a backflow or f or or movement of the gasoline in the case of an accident.

And because you didn't put that one stopper in the gas tank exploded and somebody died, right?

That's called a design defect claim.

You can never ever bring that claim against a pharmaceutical company regards to vaccines.

You can for drugs, which is why they try to improve them, but you can't bring that claim for vaccines because of the 86 Act.

Now, the second way, and that's the primary way that you hold a uh uh a drug maker or other product manufacturer liable and accountable.

The other way is is if you fail to warn of the harm, a failure to warn claim.

And so with drug products, they're completely open to those claims.

You can sue a drug manufacturer for failure to warn.

And so, to your point, uh, Dr.

McCullough, if they have some indication that the drug might cause it, they slap it on the label.

Because if this way they can't be sued for it, right?

It protects them.

But with vaccines, um, it's not the same standard.

You can't just readily sue in that regard directly against the manufacturer, because again, they have a level of immunity.

And so they're in no rush to add it to the label.

They don't need to typically.

Like I said, the only time I really think they do it is when they just it is so clearly caused by the product in my mind that they want to avoid, you know, the worst possible claim, which would be potentially being sued for fraud and so forth.

So, yes, there is a big difference in my view about what gets added to a drug label versus vaccine label.

Wow, I mean, this is really astonishing.

Now let's get into the book.

We're discussing vaccines, amen.

And this is really a book about uh, in a sense, the religion that's formed around vaccines, Aaron, and so you have four parts.

Why don't you walk us through the four major parts of the book and what are the highlights?

Sure.

Uh first part I walk through uh, you know, the uh essentially uh the high priest of vaccinology uh and vaccinologists are are those who do the clinical trials for vaccines often.

They're the ones who write the uh a lot of the peer-reviewed literature on vaccines, they write the standard medical textbooks on vaccines, and that literature, that textbook, those clinical trials often then get relied upon by government agencies that said vaccine policy, as well as filters down into in many others in the medical profession.

So the immunologists, the infectious disease doctors, the pediatricians, and so forth.

A lot of folks think that, oh, the pediatricians know a lot about vaccines, right?

Or even the immunologists or even the infectious disease doctors.

In my experience, they they often have never really studied vaccines much at all.

They're really just relying on what's coming down to them from the vaccinologists, right?

And they just repeat it like mantras.

Um, and then that gets filtered into the rest of the medical profession and from there into the media, right?

And so that's kind of like the how it gets diffused.

So if you want to understand uh vaccines uh and how the framework of vaccines develop, putting aside the economic structure we just talked about, you need to also understand how you know the the clergy, as it were, those who disseminate the supposed truths about these products, and that starts with the vaccinologists and and the and the head of that pact um is Dr.

Stanley Plockin, the world's leading vaccinologist, often dubbed the godfather of vaccines, as Dr.

Paul Offitt said, he trained a generation of the us vaccinologists on how to think about vaccines, and uh, and yes, he did.

And so understanding how Dr.

Stanley Plockin thinks about vaccines is critical to understanding how Dr.

Paul Offitt thinks about vaccines and how the rest of the vaccinologists think and how that filters down.

So in part one, um, you know, I go through my deposition of Dr.

Stanley Plockin, where I, you know, uh explain and lay and and and give excerpts to show how he thinks about vaccines.

And I can, you know, go through some examples as we talk more.

And after I do that in chapter one, then I talk about his disciples, the other vaccinologists, and then I talk about kind of the uh the public health authorities and the rest of the profession.

And then in uh part two of the book, I go through the power structure because every religion it doesn't exist in a vacuum, and I explain how you know go through pharma and I um how you know and and the other power structure.

Part three, I go through the common uh uh, you know, claims that are often made about vaccines, the dogma.

Everyone would die if they don't get a vaccine, vaccines stop transmission, right?

Everybody would be injured by vaccines.

And I go through that.

And I show what does the data show on those on those claims, right?

When you actually look at the hard data, what did millions of Americans die before there were vaccines?

Is it even hundreds of thousands?

And what does it show like the decline of mortality was pre-vaccine?

How much did vaccines contribute?

And when you actually look at the data objectively, it's it's nothing like what they claim it is.

And then in the final chat uh part of the book, part four, I go through safety.

Um, and again, go through what did preclinical trials look like.

What did post uh licensure safety look like?

And I try to make it front along the way.

I don't want to make it sound too clinical.

Um, I I try to make it uh a bit of an interesting read as you go through it.

Well, what do you mean in that fourth part?

Is the title of it's called the golden calf?

Yeah.

Well, I call it the golden calf because um it, you know, just like the golden calf was a false idol, a false deity, right?

Um, it was the ultimate falsehood.

So is the claim that vaccines are.

Been thoroughly and rigorously tested for safety is the ultimate falsehood.

It's just an incredible falsehood.

And it's not just a falsehood that you know is of no consequence.

These are products that are given over and over and over to healthy babies.

They should be the most thoroughly tested products that exist.

There should be nothing that we test with more rigor with less conflicts of interest for the longest duration, with the most powered trials, with the best controls that we could have.

But yet, and that is what they that is what if you watch the media, if you listen to public health authorities, that's what they lead you to believe.

But sadly, the opposite is true.

Most vaccines are licensed based on place on trial, excuse me, every routine childhood vaccine I should say was not licensed on a clinical trial based on a clinical trial that in any way could have validated its safety.

None of them had a placebo control group.

And even if they did, none of them reviewed safety for long enough, often days or weeks, maybe up to six months.

And even if they did have a placebo control group, and even if they did review safety for long enough, they were virtually all underpowered, meaning they didn't have enough children in the trial to be able to pick up if there were safety signals.

So they were almost all useless for determining whether these products were safe.

I mean, it's it's an incredible reality.

And then if you look at the post-licensure literature, you don't need to take my word for it.

Just look at the Institute of Medicine reports, paid for by our federal health authorities in the hopes that the IOM would rule out that vaccines cause all forms of harms.

And the IOM for almost all of them said, sorry, we can't tell you because you haven't done the studies.

So, you know, the post licensed insurance literature is also vacuous.

And I lay that bare in the book.

So that's why I call it the golden calf.

It is the biggest lie, um, unfortunately, but and it's also the one that's it, you know, it has the most potential consequence.

Wow, this is stunning.

It's a terrific read.

Those of you in this uh space right now, of which, if there's any gauge on social media, it's it's hundreds of millions, if not billions of you are.

Um, we've been discussing vaccines on men by Aaron Siri.

We're gonna take a break now for our sponsors, and then we'll be right back on the backside of this.

You're listening to the McCullough report.

Let's get real, let's get loud.

America Loud Talk Radio.

This is a McCullough report and focal points substance.

Struggling with your health, energy, and constantly feeling hungry, want to save money on the rising cost of groceries and dramatically improve your health, go to chemicalfree body.com forward slash out loud today, get nature's super multivitamin, doctor formulated green 85 juice formula, empower your immune system, cut your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order.

Are you eating like your health depends on it?

Because it does.

Most grocery store beef today comes from industrial farms where profit comes before your health.

Wellness farms eat like your health depends on it.

100% grass-fed, grass-finished beef from regenerative American family farms.

Our cattle are MRNA free, hormone free, and vaccine free.

Raised the way nature intended, from farm to table, direct to your door.

Order now at TWC.health backslash out loud and use code out loud to get your exclusive 20% off for AOL listeners.

Wellness farms, eat like your health depends on it.

You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands.

What about washing your nose?

I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe, air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and irritants, make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear.

No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation.

Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion.

Available in stores and online at clear.com.

That is XLEAR.com.

Well, I challenge you to find a broader array of great voices, a deeper bench of experience or a more dedicated collection of passionate patriots than here on America Outloud.

Now is our time, my fellow Americans.

America Outlaw dot news, liberty and justice for all.

Let's get loud on America Loud Talk Radio.

This is the McCullough report and focal points, Substack.

I'm Dr.

Peter McCullough.

We're talking back about vaccines.

Amen.

We have the author here, Aaron Siri.

And you know what, Aaron, I have to tell you, through the pandemic, I traveled to India.

And when I went to India, uh, I was pulled aside by some senior doctors in Delhi.

And they said, Dr.

McCullough, be careful what you say about vaccines, because here in India, we kind of consider vaccines like people, and we don't want to insult them.

Sounds like a religion.

That's it.

It sounds like a religion.

That's not science.

I don't know.

That is that is the antithetical to science.

That's right.

It's it's antithetical.

But think about this.

If people do accept vaccines like religious articles of faith, let's just say this hypothesis is true.

If you were to go into a um a Christian church and start saying things in public in that church that go against uh principles of Christianity, or go into a mosque and say things that are anti-Muslim.

You know, I think if people were cordial, uh they'd just ask you to be quiet.

They'd say they don't want to talk about it.

They wouldn't engage you on it.

They'd say, I want to don't want to talk about it.

And then if they weren't so cordial, they'd tell you to get out.

And that's exactly there, there's no engagement and discussion about people's religious beliefs.

And that's just kind of how it works.

And so uh I think your conclusion that vaccinology has essentially, over you know, probably a very long period of time become essentially an ideology and a religion is very solid.

What many of us are trying to get to in the book is how do we operationalize this information?

And I have an idea, but I have to ask you this.

Uh I thought I was stunned to learn.

And your book is the first place I learned it, that uh U.S.

health and human services had an obligation since 1986 to produce a biannual safety report to Congress, showing how the U.S.

government is working with these companies to make vaccines safer.

Whatever happened to that report.

Um, just to put that report into context, when Congress gave the immunity to the pharmaceutical companies, presumably they intuitively understood that they just eliminated the market force, the economic self-interest that drives product safety.

That is what makes products safer.

Uh, not the government.

You think cars are safer because of the government.

Look at former countries that had heavy regulations like the former USSR or other similar countries.

Incredible amount of government regulations, incredibly unsafe products.

Governments don't make products safer.

Economic self-interest drives product safety.

And we could see that when we contrast company countries that have you know free market capitalism with those that don't.

Now, with that said, Congress recognizing they eliminated that economic self-interest.

They transferred the responsibility to assure product safety for vaccines to the Secretary of HS to the Department of Health and Human Services, which is the federal government department in which CDC, FDA, NIH, all the agencies are located.

And they did it pursuant to a provision called the Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines.

Part of the federal law.

Now, that mandate had three simple portions to it.

The first one basically did that wholesale transfer.

It said, hey, HHS, we just gave pharma free pass.

So you are now responsible for all of vaccine safety every possible way from the trials to the license, you name it, every aspect.

Part two created a task force comprised of the head of the NIH, FDA, and CDC that was supposed to advise the Secretary of HHS on how to make vaccines safety or how to assure that vaccines are safe.

And then part three of that mandate is for the Secretary of HHS to file with Congress every two years.

That's the biannual report you were just referring to, explaining what it is that HHS has done in the last two years to actually make vaccines safer.

You know, look, if the companies were self uh were responsible, then there'd be a natural mechanism to assure safety.

Now that HHS was going to do it, this was going to be the method of oversight.

Report to us every two years on how you made these products safer or how you were assuring safety.

And as you just pointed out, Dr.

McCullough, since 1986, the HHS has never once one time produced a report to Congress.

And think about it.

That's the easy part of the mandate.

And then there's the task force that I mentioned.

That task force has issued was was actually finally was convened, issued one report in 1998 and then was disbanded.

It's supposed to exist forever.

Under Secretary Kennedy, it has finally been reconstituted for the first time.

So now 27 years later.

And then, you know, think about it this way.

If they're not doing the simple stuff of issuing reports and making recommendations, do we really think that the HHS is doing the hard part of making vaccines safer, assuring vaccine safety?

Of course they're not.

Um, and I, you know, I make that case, I think in chapter 11 of the book.

Uh, but but may I comment on one thing you said about going to a church or a mosque?

There's one thing I would say that's a bit just a little different.

It's a little difference, but it's an important difference, is that you know, people who practice a religion know it's a religion.

Religion involves leaps of faith.

That's the point.

They're supposed to be there to answer the unanswerable.

Where do we go when we die?

Where did where did life come from?

Right?

We we we cling on to religion oftentimes for matters of faith that require those leaps.

Vaccinology is not supposed to be a religion.

It's supposed to be a science.

It's supposed to actually constantly be testing and probing and trying to figure out the answers to you know the question of vaccine safety and vaccine efficacy and so forth.

And the and and and and you know, uh, when you think about it, you're right.

If you went into a church and you questioned folks about their religion there, I think they would often treat you very kindly because they recognize it's a different belief.

They know it comes from the heart.

And so that's they respond to you from the heart, but they respond to you kindly.

But when you challenge somebody who is truly uh, you know, who who thinks that they know about vaccines and don't realize it's a belief that they're holding, they think they know it.

Challenge a pediatrician.

I've done this in depositions and over and over again.

Challenge them in a deposition with evidence that contradicts what they believe.

They'll go one of two ways.

Either they'll have to accept that their beliefs are beliefs that, oh my goodness, the evidence is contrary to what I've been told by the CDC, what I've been told by the Red Book, what I've been told by my medical organizations, or they'll do what often happens, unfortunately, is they don't respond with this with intellect.

They respond here, they get emotional.

And they say, no, no, no, you're wrong.

They get upset, they get angry, they they go, you know, they have to censor you, they have to call you names, they have to dehumanize you.

You you've you've experienced this directly, Dr.

McCullough.

You know, you one of one of the brave doctors who've stood out and try to tell the truth as you see it from the studies, you know, I've listened to you over and over again, just regurgitate what the studies say.

I've seen you do it and get attacked for literally just repeating what the studies actually state.

Because those folks who are who are coming after you, Dr.

McCullough, they're not trying to engage with you on an intellectual level, on a data level, on an evidence level.

They are believers in these products.

And you stand in the way of that belief.

And so instead of treating you with respect and treating you with intellect, they'll often come at you with emotion with ad hominem by trying to sideline you with, you know, with all the different things that I just I just listed.

And so um that's the that's the delta I'd say between folks in a church and this religion, this religion is scary, because these folks don't realize they're in a religion.

Well, it seems like we're almost all too deep into this.

I mean, think about it.

You know, I'm a doctor.

Um my children took all the vaccines on the schedule.

I took all the vaccines on the schedule.

I want to believe that they're safe.

I want to believe that they're effective, they were worthwhile to do.

And because they're given by injection, it's already happened.

There's there's if they're not safe now, uh, you know, I can't go back and reclaim that decision to vaccinate my child or not.

So it almost seems like it's this has become too big to fail, that we just we just can't hear about failure because of all these all these dynamics.

Is there anything to that?

Uh that are you saying that the uh those who are proponents of vaccines, they can't accept hearing about anything negative regarding vaccines?

Yeah, well, think about the think about the the visceral response um that a parent would have.

Uh let's say me, I'm a parent that was someone approached me and said, Listen, you you made a decision regarding vaccination of your children that resulted in harm.

That has to be one of the hardest things for a parent to hear.

Yes, we have tens of thousands of individuals, unfortunately, who our firm, you know, it's contacted by and represents um in exactly that situation.

Um and um parents it's it's I know many families who struggle, many mothers and fathers who struggle every day if their child has suffered a serious injury from a vaccine who say, I did this to my kid.

Um, and they blame themselves for different reasons.

Some of them blame themselves because they just didn't look into it.

That I should have just looked at, you know, I you know, because think about it.

Before you buy a car, you do research, you kick the tires, you read maybe a report about it.

Um, and um, and some of them are are just are angry at the doctors who told them that it's safe and effective.

Um, it's the the emotions just vary widely, but it it it the part where it gets even sadder is that after their child's been injured, and thank goodness, obviously lots of kids seem fine, but their kids who are injured, um, some type of neuropathy some dysautonomia.

I mean, the the the the uh some type of encephalopathy that results in various uh outcomes.

Um, they often then go back to the very same medical community that told them that product was safe and effective, and they say, hey, my child is hurt, my child's been injured.

And I would say, you know, oftentimes if they say that they've been injured from any other product, they'll just get treated.

You say they've been injured by a vaccine, you might get a very different response.

You get looked sideways, you may not even get the same treatment or testing because the presumption is no, no, it wasn't the vaccine.

So they may not even do the proper or the full testing.

And a lot of times you might even get you know something not so nice written in your medical records.

We have to gather those medical records when we go and bring a claim for somebody injured by vaccine.

We can't bring that against the manufacturer against the pharma company.

We bring in a little program that the federal government has that the 86 Act created that does allow for certain limited compensation and effectively for certain injuries, it's kind of like a policy program, um, because they don't want to create vaccine hesitancy, so they'll compensate to some degree some injuries.

And when we get those medical records, we will sometimes see sometimes even disparaging comments made.

Um, you know, so you know, in addition to the injury, they often get the insult.

And then when they don't want to vaccinate their child more because they've already been injured, what happens?

Is society treat them, you know, with with empathy?

No.

It says throw them out of school.

I mean, it's it's uh it's the type of uh situation where uh uh it's mind-boggling.

I as a doctor, I can tell you, I think it's actually worse for doctors than it is the general public, this whole conundrum of this religion and the consequences, because let's take a pediatrician.

So the pediatrician not only took the vaccines himself or herself, recommended them for their children, and then recommended them for thousands of patients.

Can you imagine if a problem is discovered with one of these vaccines?

And then the doctor would have to look at that and say, listen, you know, I was part of recommending something that caused harm to some individuals.

It's almost um it's almost mind-boggling what that implication was.

Do you ever have any doctors when you review these charts?

Do you have any doctors who have just apologized to the patients and have shown empathy?

Does that ever happen?

Very rarely.

Very rarely.

I think it takes um to your point, incredible amount of cognitive dissonance occurs for a doctor who's vaccinated their patients for decades.

Now, obviously, there are some.

There are some very brave pediatricians out there.

You know who they are, probably.

Um, they're very brave doctors out there.

I I count, I consider you one of them, um, who've, you know, um, despite being traditionally medically trained, being part of the traditional medical system for so long, once they see the evidence and the data, instead of going in the direction of ad hominem, instead of just having that protective mechanism, one which is oh my goodness, if I accept this as true, then what else is not true?

Where do you know it clearly creates uh Uh a crisis for those medical professionals.

Um they go down the road and they say, you know what, I have to reevaluate this.

I must go down the road of where the data and evidence leads, because I have to do what's best for my patients.

And that even means me having to accept that dissonance, even accept that my medical community will come after me for literally just speaking the truth, just repeating what the data and evidence shows.

So yeah, I agree with you.

It's it's actually difficult for pedical professionals on a number of levels, not just the one I you were you're saying, but also once they go down the road, if they go down that road, then they say, as you know, the the boards, the medical boards come after them, they're you know, uh uh uh and go down the list, their institutions come after them, their hospitals come after them and so forth.

And so um, and just for advocating, really, what are they doing?

They're advocating for their patients.

But that is um that's part of the problem here, and that is why when it comes to other medical products, um, where there aren't beliefs, you can have those engagements, you can have those discussions.

But when you have a belief, not based on knowledge, but really a belief, we're not going to be able to have real science and discussion around these products until people stop believing and start thinking, and in particular across the medical community.

Wow.

Well, I can tell you looking back on it now.

You know, I attended medical grand rounds for decades.

I presented at most grand rounds in almost every major medical center in the United States.

I subscribe to all the medical journals, you know, as editor of major journals.

I'm still in an editor of a major journal right now.

Um I have come to the conclusion that vaccine side effects essentially are recognized by the medical community, but they will categorically not be discussed or presented in any way.

So let me give you an example.

In uh in the world of internal medicine, we prescribe a drug statins.

Many people are uh aware of statins, the lower cholesterol.

They've heard of them or they take them.

A quarter of adults take statins.

We've had endless grand rounds on statin safety, endless grand rounds on muscle aches and other problems and liver toxicity and how to manage it, what have you.

Aaron, I've never gone to a medical grand rounds ever on autism.

Never.

I checked Primed.

Primed is the biggest uh graduate medical education program in the United States that private practitioners go to, pediatricians and family doctors.

Nothing on autism.

Nothing.

Nothing on vaccine injuries of any type.

You know, how how to manage uh a post-MMR um encephalitis, for instance.

Uh how to manage uh, you know, about 20 vaccines have encephalitis in their package inserts.

Um how to manage it of any other type of vaccine.

How to, you know, it nothing with respect to complications prediction and management of problems with vaccines.

But yet we have it with every other pharmaceutical.

So we can be evidence-based about statins, of which there's risks and benefits, but there's nothing in that space on vaccines, nothing.

Well, the cardiologists would be the ones that would hold the ground rounds, I presume about statins, right?

Cardiology, general internal medicine, um, we've even had pediatric ground rounds on statins about you know how to give them to children, for instance.

And those would typically be run by the pediatric cardiologists, I assume.

Yeah.

And so, you know, and that right there helps you see the divide between how the cardiologists, that discipline approaches a drug, statins versus how the vaccinologists approach vaccines.

And we can even broaden that umbrella to the ID doctors, immunologists, and pediatricians because to your point, they they just believe these products are safe and they approach the clinical trials that way, they approach the way they practice around these products.

Um you said that you thought that they somehow still accept you're saying that because they don't hold these ground rounds, you're saying that means they believe that you believe that they recognize it's causes harms and therefore don't want to have the ground rounds.

Is that what you're saying?

That's right.

This is very important.

Because if they really didn't think vaccines, let's say were associated with autism, you know, we would have had endless investigations into the etiology of autism.

There would have been grand rounds after grand rounds.

There would be uh, you know, major national institutes of health investigations, you know, something like the Framingham Heart Project.

Uh, you know, we'd be constantly seeing in our newsletters about autism.

We we would have uh randomized trials of drugs to treat autism, you know, huge randomized trials because there's so many children with autism.

Yet it is grossly under-researched, grossly underpresented to the community, never mentioned at uh grand rounds.

We don't see request for funding applications, even under the new HHS administration.

I think it was a paltry 50 million dollars was put out for autism research.

I mean, that's a joke.

I mean, HHS has many, many departments that have way over billion dollar budgets.

The CDC's got a nine billion dollar budget, 12,000 employees, many of whom have PhDs and master's degrees, and they can't do a prospective cohort study on autism.

I mean, this is astonishing.

This is absolutely astonishing.

So I think deep down, it's very subliminal, but deep down, they know.

They know, and they don't want to look at this, Aaron.

The same thing is true for food allergies and everything else that's probably connected to this perturbation of the immune system early in life.

I will um I I'm gonna draw, I'm gonna draw a line that that that uh has gray in it, and say that I think that the vaccinologists fall into the camp, Dr.

McCullough, that you were just describing.

I think the vaccinologists, they do know, depending on which vaccinologists.

Um they know vaccines can cause harm.

And I think that they are not presenting potential ground rounds in the manner you're describing for the reasons that you just said.

Um, and that's also I think the reason that they don't show up at the Senate hearings to be on the other side of a vaccine issue.

They're not showing up at anything of the debates.

Instead, they'll send an infectious disease doctor, they'll send an immunologist, they'll send a pediatrician, um, whether uh in all contexts in which they have to engage publicly for the most part.

Um, but I think the uh infectious disease doctors, immunologists and pediatricians, however, I'm not so sure they know.

Um unlike the vaccinologists, um, I think many of them, and I and I said why it's why it's gray.

I think there's spillover.

I think a lot of them, because when I've deposed them, they genuinely seemed totally surprised, you know, about uh things that uh that I present them relating to vaccine injury.

Um they've just they've never heard of it, they've never seen it, they've never even thought of it.

Um I mean, a lot of them don't even know the uh the the contraindications of precautions of vaccines.

I'm someone pediatricians.

Um I'm not kidding.

I I'll tell you, I'll tell you a quick story on that.

I was deposing this pediatrician, been a pediatrician for about 40 years.

And I started off with a simple question, um, because uh sometimes we can get a little monopolist deposing the same type of pediatricians, they don't really know almost anything about vaccines.

And I said, Doctor, can you just tell me anything uh that you've heard out there that's uh a conspiracy theory, you know, about vaccines.

And one of the things he listed, he didn't list many things was the idea that you know people with uh, you know, could be uh that there's yeast or can be sensitive to yeast for HEP B vaccine, you know, and they could have a potential injury from that.

And I said, really?

Okay, here's the here's the contraindication list from the CDC.

Can you please provide me what the contra one of the contraindications are for the head vaccine, yeast sensitivity, because it's literally one of the ingredients in the product.

He didn't even know that.

They don't even know, and and the contraindication list, as you know, is tiny.

There's almost nothing on the list.

You know, so um I don't even think they focus on that.

I think your point is, okay, they don't know about the products.

And um, I concur with that.

And previously, before I started to look into this, I didn't know about the products either.

I I almost uh liken vaccines to you know IV solutions.

You know, I didn't evaluate the the safety of normal saline or ringer's lactate or you know, um IV tubing, you know, medicine is a vast field, and you know, in our field, we're dealing with some of the highest level issues, life and death issues.

And so vaccines are considered so routine and so mundane in.

In fact, in the adult world, we don't even administer vaccines.

People go to pharmacies for it.

We don't even know if they've taken a shot or not.

It's just, it's very remote from us.

But the reason why I think that this is a very subtle part of this vaccine religion that subtly they know is the lack of inquisitiveness on anything else.

So you'll ask somebody, well, where are all these food allergies coming from?

There's there's no curiosity.

Same thing with autism or ADHD or seizures or ticks.

They're all up concordantly with the vaccine schedule.

No curiosity whatsoever.

None.

And we're seeing this with the COVID-19 vaccines.

People, blood clots, heart damage all day long pouring in.

No curiosity.

It's almost as if a spell has been cast over them.

Yeah, well, I'm I mean, your foundation just issued an excellent report on autism.

I was looking through it yesterday.

Um, and I think to your point, um, in part it's because they are looked many places for what is causing the rise of the last 40 years and so many of the chronic health issues you just outlined ticks, ADHD, autism, asthma, atopic issues.

There is a common theme amongst all those.

They're all have an etiology in an immune system dysregulation, ADHD included.

Most people don't know that, right?

And when you look at that, then you have to step back and say, well, what's causing the immune system of our children to go haywire, where we've gone from under 10% of kids with chronic health issue in the early 80s to over 40%, some estimates over 50, often with multiple chronic health issues, many of them having an etiology and some corn of immune system dysregulation.

And then you have to say to yourself, well, you haven't been able to figure out the cause.

They have looked to some degree various other factors, but they don't want to look at the very product design to modify your immune system, given over and over and over to babies.

A baby following the CDC schedule today, gets an injection at birth, gets five to six shots at two months, five to six shots at four months, five to six shots at six months, seven if they get the COVID vaccine, they get two more at eight months if they get again a COVID and a flu shot.

I mean if you're gonna rule out what is causing the rise in chronic health additions, that should be the first thing you rule out.

But to your point, they don't want to look at that.

They do not want to even touch that with a temporal poll.

And the few studies that have looked at it, as you laid out really well in the report that you put out the other day.

They've um almost consistently found a correlation, an association with vaccines in those chronic health issues.

So, Aaron, I do have to say, as a physician, I think self-participation is very, very important here in this whole lack of insight.

And so I I've I lectured at Chautauqua this year and a bunch of other uh venues.

And uh I laid out some periods in medicine where this has happened.

And one is the first great cocaine epidemic, 1860 to 1920.

Virtually every medicinal product was cocaine.

And doctors and nurses were hooked on it.

The public was hooked on it.

It was in Coca-Cola, it was in Keanti wine.

And it was Woodrow, it took Woodrow Wilson to basically begin to start taking away cocaine away from the doctors.

There was one paper in JAMA in 60 years that expressed any safety concern over cocaine.

One.

To give you an idea, there's bazillions of positive papers on cocaine as an anesthetic, a pain reliever, an energizer.

The other example I used is smoking, 1920 to 1978.

You know, compelling information came out on smoking.

All the doctors smoked, the tobacco companies had big physician marketing campaigns, the nurses smoked, they advertised it.

They refused to look at this.

We actually had a courageous surgeon general who called all the chiefs of medicine to Washington to say, look at look at the safety data on smoking and lung cancer.

The doctors refused to believe it.

And then it was 1978.

That's how long the Luther Terry called the doctors into Washington, 1964.

It's 1978 before the AMA had his first campaign about the health hazards of smoking.

Aaron, these are 60-year periods of time.

Uh vaccinology has been going on three centuries.

And self-participation is now a very, very big part of this.

And um, and what you've really, I think, done brilliantly in your book, and no other book has done this, has given us insights into some of these um uh legislative regulatory pharmaceutical liability aspects of vaccines and vaccinology.

And you've made the characters come alive, like Stanley Plotklins and Platkin and Paul Offitt and others.

Um, and I think in a fast reading, uh, at times, you know, humorous, uh, you're a bit sarcastic, and you told me you're from Queens, so everybody can understand that that um sarcastic about what we're dealing with right now.

Uh, rest my case, everybody.

You have to go out and get this book.

Fantastic.

We've been talking to Aaron Siri.

And Aaron, thank you so much for joining us on the program.

It's it's been a pleasure being here.

And I, and you know, I'm just gonna add, if I may, one last thing, which is this is that one of the things that has really caused a shift for those who've been impacted by these products is the fact that brave doctors like you, Dr.

McCollar, and I really mean this, I really mean this.

Um, have um staked it all.

You know, your career, your profession, um, um, you know, uh you name it to speak out and and speak the truth about what you're learning.

Now shouldn't say anything that's not data-driven.

But you're, you know, that is um has really helped it tremendously change the landscape.

So those who are impacted by these products feel like they have somebody who can who who speaks for them, somebody who will stand up for them.

A lot of times I tell my the attorneys who represent the vaccine injured, you may not be able to get them a lot of compensation, but I will tell you a lot of times what those vaccine injured people, what they get the most out of the representation is that somebody believes them.

Somebody's fighting for them.

So thank you for doing what you do.

So true.

Thanks for those kind words.

We're gonna have to leave it here.

Aaron, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Let's get real.

Let's get loud on America Out Loud Talk Radio.

This is the McCullough Report and Focal Points Substack.

I'm Dr.

Peter McCullough, your host.

Thank you for listening.