Vaccine Critics Hearing

Senator Johnson (00:00):

RNA injection and hid that fact from the public. Our second hearing allowed witnesses who have been impacted by vaccine injuries and fatal infectious diseases to tell their stories. The news media is all too willing to highlight a new outbreak of an infectious disease, but is loath to broadcast what they generally describe as "rare and mild" vaccine injuries. As a result, the vaccine injured had been ignored and abandoned. In September, 2024, I held a public roundtable discussion titled American Health and Nutrition, A Second Opinion, that highlighted America's alarming rate of chronic illness. Dr. Chris Palmer, a psychiatrist who studies the impact of nutrition on mental health testified that when it comes to chronic illness, "They do not want root causes to be discovered". By they, I assume Dr. Palmer was referring to the powerful entities and individuals whose multi-billion dollar businesses and organizational interests would be disrupted by the knowledge that the products they produce or promote could cause harm.

(01:11)
They certainly don't want the public to know the root cause if it's one of their products and they're willing to go to great lengths by spending billions of dollars on advertising and lobbyists to keep the public from even asking the question, much less finding the answer. The purpose of these hearings is to force the acknowledgment of reality. Exactly what all the realities and truths are, I cannot say. Where I can say for sure is that we have been lied to repeatedly and that in order to restore public faith in federal agencies, integrity must return to science. We must also have open minds and be willing to face the truth.

(01:49)
It's been interesting to see the media's reaction to our previous hearings, except for a few highly biased attack pieces. The legacy media has largely ignored what I consider to be highly informative hearings. Perhaps they're taking advice from Senator Blumenthal who hours before our last hearing, Voices of the Vaccine Injured, held a press conference and was reported to have stated, "I hope nothing comes of this hearing. I hope people don't pay attention because it isn't deserving of credibility and attention." However, during that hearing Senator Blumenthal stated, "I'm heartbroken to hear these stories. It makes me want to do something". So maybe hearing true incredible stories of accident injuries actually did deserve attention. I certainly believe today's testimony deserves attention and hope it will prompt us to do something to restore credibility and integrity to science and our federal health agencies. Senator Blumenthal.

Senator Blumenthal (02:48):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Welcome to everyone. Whether you agree or disagree, this hearing is not personal between Senator Johnson or myself, between any of you and the witnesses. This hearing is about "the corruption of science". And I agree we are witnessing the corruption of science. It's happening before our eyes in real-time, maybe more accurately it should be entitled, The Denial and Degrading of Science. When the Senate-confirmed director of the CDC is fired because she refuses to fire officials or approve unscientific vaccine guidance without evidence, that is corruption of science. When the indisputable determination that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health is rescinded and clean energy projects are canceled in favor of pollution-heavy coal, that is corruption of science. When the CDC's measles risk forecast is suppressed in the middle of the worst measles outbreak in decades, that is corruption of science.

(04:11)
Overriding ongoing corruption of science is to deny or spawn doubt about safe and effective vaccines, that discourages people from making use of them to save lives and keep our kids healthy. The Trump administration's corruption of science is unprecedented in our country's history. Our committee has analyzed the ways in which the Trump administration has interfered with science in just the first eight months and found 57 separate discrete instances of corruption of science. And if there's no objection, I'd like this staff memorandum to be entered into the record, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Johnson (05:00):

Without objection.

Senator Blumenthal (05:02):

Since President Trump took office in January, secretary Kennedy and other administration officials have silenced scientists, halted research, crippled our public health infrastructure and politicized institutions that were once renowned around the world for adherence to nonpartisan science-based recommendations. And they've also demonized vaccines and taken steps that will make it harder for Americans to access them, depriving Americans of basic public health tools. Less than two weeks ago, President Trump fired CDC director Susan Monarez, barely a month after she was confirmed by this body, the United States Senate because she refused to go along with Secretary Kennedy's demands about changing vaccination policy. This administration not only wants to consult people who will tell it what it wants to hear, but it denies others who have accurate fact-based words that should be heard. That is not science. It is zealotry. It is an obsessive distortion of facts and a adherence to conspiracy theories over science. Secretary Kennedy is creating a public health system that puts allegiance to his dogma over health and safety. Just last week, more than 1000 present and former HHS employees wrote an open letter calling for him to step down. Stating that he is, "Endangering the nation's health by spreading inaccurate health information." Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter that letter in the record.

Senator Johnson (07:06):

Without objection.

Senator Blumenthal (07:08):

I certainly concur with their conclusion. A charlatan like RFK Jr. has no place in the government or anywhere else near public health. I am deeply fearful of the consequences for our country if he remains in charge and unscientific rhetoric, corruption of science continue to rule the day and perpetuated by people in leadership position. So I have some questions. How many preventable diseases will become out of control because people cannot or will be discouraged from getting vaccines? How many advances in science and medicine will we miss out on because the NIH is cut in funding and research is impeded? How many public health workers will lose their jobs? Public health workers who could save lives and health. I deeply fear for the future of public health in this country because of the corruption of science.

(08:26)
On August 8th, the gunman fired nearly 200 rounds of ammunition into the CDC's headquarters in Atlanta. Allegedly over his anger about the COVID-19 vaccine. One heroic police officer tragically lost his life. Dr. Robert Malone, one of the new members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization, or ACIP, appointed by Secretary Kennedy after he fired all of the sitting members, made multiple statements that appear to threaten violence against scientists and public officials before and after that shooting. This is an image that Dr. Malone posted. This image just hours before the shooting a revolver loaded with a single bullet and the words, "Five out of six scientists have proven that Russian roulette is harmless." This was apparently not enough for Dr. Malone because less than 48 hours after the shooting had occurred, he posted several other violent images including one apparently threatening politician. And one seen here with an image of an automatic weapon with the words quote, "The Second Amendment was not written in case the deer turned against us."

(09:59)
I wrote to Secretary Kennedy in the wake of these posts and demanded a fire Dr. Malone. I would like my letter of August 13th to Secretary Kennedy be entered in the record if there's no objection.

Senator Johnson (10:13):

Without objection.

Senator Blumenthal (10:15):

Chairman Johnson, I would ask you to join me in my demand that Dr. Malone be fired. Violence and violent rhetoric should not be tolerated. That is corruption of science. Rhetoric has consequences, misinformation has consequences and the failure to respect real science will deprive all Americans of treatments and cures. And before my time is up Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the study that will be discussed by the majority at this hearing. Citing the fact that one deeply flawed study was not published as evidence of a cover-up ignores the thousands of others contradicting its findings. In fact, as you probably know, there have been 3000 published studies of vaccines. 1000 since 2020 showing vaccines are safe and effective. The estimate is that thousands of lives have been saved by vaccines and illnesses prevented. I'm looking forward to hearing from Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease specialist from Stanford. By the way, the only doctor on this panel and why no reputable journal would or should publish that study. It pains me, frankly, it pains me that unscientific studies like this one are being promoted in this committee purporting to be scientific fact and I fear that this kind of hearing will only undermine our already shaken public health system. But in the meantime, I want to thank all of the public health workers at the federal and state level who continue to do your job day in and day out despite the discouraging atmosphere here in Washington and in some cases despite these kinds of intolerable threats that should merit the firing of Dr. Malone. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Senator Johnson (12:43):

I think you see there's a slight difference of opinion here on the panel. I would ask that we enter into the record the study Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children, A Birth Cohort Study by the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan. Ask that be entered in the record without objection. I would also ask that, we actually have Dr. Malone in the audience today and we'll see whether, what opportunity we afford him to defend himself, but in the meantime I would ask that his, basically resume, his CV be entered in the record as well because Senator Blumenthal has termed him unqualified for the position, which I completely disagree with. Here's his CV. You might even take a copy. It is the tradition of this committee to swear in witnesses so we all three rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you'll give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? Thank you. This ought to be a interesting discussion. Before we turn to the witnesses. In preparation for this hearing, I became aware of the fact that a full-length documentary is being prepared, basically talking about how this study was proposed, how it was conducted. And I asked the producers of that, it's produced by the Informed Consent Action Network. Mr. Siri represents that organization and I asked ICAN to put together a five-minute video representative of what they're going to be discussing as they tell the story of this withheld study. So can we run that video now?

Speaker 2 (14:30):

Children struggling every day with ADHD. Scott's allergies made it hard to keep up with his friends.

Speaker 1 (14:35):

Allergic reactions from accidental food exposure.

Speaker 3 (14:38):

For to moderate to severe eczema.

Speaker 4 (14:39):

Plaque psoriasis.

Speaker 5 (14:40):

Rheumatoid arthritis.

Speaker 6 (14:41):

Food allergies.

Speaker 7 (14:41):

Allergies-

Speaker 8 (14:41):

[inaudible 00:14:43]-

Speaker 9 (14:47):

The health of American children is in crisis.

President Donald Trump (14:50):

More than 40% of American children now have at least one chronic health condition.

Robert F. Kennedy (14:55):

Autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus and Crohn's disease. All this IBS-

President Donald Trump (15:01):

Just a few decades ago, one in 10,000 children had autism. Today it's one in 31.

Robert F. Kennedy (15:08):

ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, Tourette's syndrome, narcolepsy, sleep disorders.

Speaker 10 (15:13):

There's no way in the world these kind of increases in the incidence of disease could be genetic. Genetic change takes generation, centuries to play out.

Speaker 11 (15:22):

What the heck is happening?

Del Bigtree (15:26):

What is happening? Chronic disease has gone from 12.8% in our children in the 1980s to over 54% of our kids now. That's the greatest decline in human health that's ever been recorded. And people will say, "How do you know it's not the pesticides sprayed all over our crops or the hormones in our beef or plastics or forever chemicals?" But when we're talking about an autoimmune disease crisis, which is what's happening in America, shouldn't we look closest at the one product that's designed to alter our immune system for life. And we don't just inject it one time or two times or 10 times or 15 times or 20 times or 50 times. 72 times we are altering the immune system for our children with our vaccine program. There'd be one easy study to rule it out, compare vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children, but we don't know because they've never done the study.

Robert F. Kennedy (16:21):

The CDC's responsibility to do those studies and they've been ordered again and again and again to do them and they have refused.

Dr. Sylvia Fogel (16:29):

This is information that vaccine safety advocates want and I'm not sure why it hasn't been done.

Aaron Siri (16:35):

What we would need is a scientist that the CDC could trust.

Del Bigtree (16:39):

They would have to be a passionately pro-vaccine, highly accredited group of scientists willing to do a super robust retrospective vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparative study.

Aaron Siri (16:51):

As fate would have it Del met the head of an infectious disease at Henry Ford Health System, Marcus Zervos.

Del Bigtree (17:00):

Dr. Zervos is the perfect epidemiologist for the study. He's incredibly pro-vaccine and he's also used to being in high profile cases because he was at the center of the Flint, Michigan water investigation. Dr. Zervos only agreed to do this study to prove us wrong.

Aaron Siri (17:17):

Del and I through that was an excellent opportunity.

Del Bigtree (17:20):

We only had one request.

Aaron Siri (17:22):

"Whatever the outcome, you publish it." And he said, "Whatever the results they get published." Would he stick to that promise if the results show that unvaccinated kids are healthier, didn't know.

Dr. Peter McCullough (17:45):

Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children. A Birth Cohort Study. I've never seen this study before.

Dr. Sylvia Fogel (17:56):

18,468 subjects.

Dr. Peter McCullough (17:58):

Henry Ford, like other institutions, has a bias towards the goodness of vaccines. If the results came back demonstrating that the battery of vaccines was associated with chronic diseases, such a result would be particularly convincing.

(18:14)
This could be essentially one of the most valuable studies in the field.

Dr. Sylvia Fogel (18:17):

The vaccinated subjects were over four times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis.

Dr. Paul Thomas (18:26):

600% more acute and chronic ear infections.

Del Bigtree (18:30):

4.47 times the amount of speech disorders in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

Dr. Paul Thomas (18:37):

Five and a half times risk, 616% increase learning issues, developmental delays, speech delays, language delays.

Aaron Siri (18:45):

Amongst the unvaccinated group, there were zero.

Dr. Paul Thomas (18:48):

There was zero brain dysfunction, zero diabetes, zero behavioral problems, zero learning disabilities, zero intellectual disabilities, zero tics and zero other psychological disabilities. None.

Dr. Sylvia Fogel (19:01):

It's a big difference.

Dr. Peter McCullough (19:02):

It's very important that this study sees the light of day.

Dr. Sylvia Fogel (19:02):

This is devastating.

Aaron Siri (19:02):

This paper should have been rushed to publication on an emergency basis.

Dr. Sylvia Fogel (19:13):

We are systematically making kids sick and not just a little bit sick, very sick.

Del Bigtree (19:18):

This may be the most important study that has ever been done and it needs to be published.

Dr. Paul Thomas (19:24):

He knows if he puts his name on this, his career is over.

Dr. Sylvia Fogel (19:25):

I'm obviously like really emotional.

Dr. Peter McCullough (19:29):

Zervos is probably going to lose his job over this.

Senator Johnson (19:36):

Our first witness is Mr. Aaron Siri. Mr. Siri is a managing partner of Siri & Glimstad with over 85 professionals. He's handled numerous high-profile cases involving challenges to medical mandates, restoring exemptions, agency transparency, including forcing FDA to release the COVID-19 vaccine licensure documents and deposing immunologists, infectious disease doctors and vaccinologists. Mr. Siri.

Aaron Siri (20:04):

Thank you Senator. Leading up to 2013, the Institute of Medicine was commissioned by the United States Department of Health & Human Services to review the entire body of existing scientific literature to assess the safety of the CDC's childhood schedule as a whole. HHA has paid the IOM to do that. After the IOM engaged in that task with a panel of multidisciplinary scientists, it concluded, "The studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted, have not been conducted." That's the Institute of Medicine's finding after reviewing the entire body of scientific literature.

(20:56)
Meaning the IOM could not find studies comparing as you would do to study the safety of a product, an exposed group, meaning kids that got vaccines, the childhood schedule with unvaccinated children, kids who got no vaccines. Which is what you would need to assess the safety of the schedule. Lacking evidence to support safety, the best the IOM can conclude was, "There is no evidence that the schedule is not safe." This of course also means the IOM cannot find evidence to conclude that the schedule is safe. The IOM report did say it is, "Possible to make the comparison… ". Meaning through vaccinated unvaccinated children, "… through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as the Vaccine Safety Datalink." Which used to be housed at the CDC. But to date, the government has still not conducted this comparison. By the way, the CDC conducted, published a white paper in 2015 on how to do that study. Has it been done? I don't know. Has it been published? No. In 2017, one of our clients, as Senator Johnson said earlier, the Informal Consent Action Network wanted to see this exact study of comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. As the trailer you just watched noted Del Bigtree, ICAN's CEO had met Dr. Marcus Zervos at one point who was the head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center, and he agreed to meet and to potentially do the study. He conducts clinical trials for vaccines including for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. He's a validly pro-vaccine, and when we met him, we argued that this was an opportunity to shut the anti-vaxxers up about their claim that unvaccinated children are healthier.

(22:50)
To our surprise, Dr. Zervos said he would conduct the study. He recruited a chief epidemiologist and two statisticians within Henry Ford to do so. These were mainstream scientists who no doubt held orthodox views regarding vaccines. In early 2020 I received a copy of the study. It showed the results of the analysis comparing children enrolled in Henry Ford from 2000 to 2016 from birth onward who had no vaccines compared to those who had one or more vaccines. This study was based on actual medical records, meaning finally a large vaccinated versus unvaccinated study using health data from a major United States health institution. Something as the IOM pointed out, never existed before.

(23:31)
The study began by explaining it's set out to reduce vaccine hesitancy by assuring parents the CDC vaccine schedule is safe. Instead, what these researchers found was that vaccinated children had 4.29 times the rate of asthma, 3.03 times the rate of atopic disease, 5.96 times the rate of autoimmune disease and 5.53 times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders. Which included 3.28 times the rate of developmental delay and 4.47 times the rate of speech disorder. All of these findings were statistically significant. There was also other conditions for which there were numerous cases in the vaccinated group with zero in the unvaccinated group. Hence, a rate cannot be calculated. Including brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and tics. For example, there were 262 cases of ADHD in the vaccinated group and there were none in the unvaccinated group. In this study there were around 16,000 kids in the vaccinated group by the way, and around 2000 in the unvaccinated group. So the rate of course between those is important and that's what the study compared.

(24:40)
These findings were troubling, including because these chronic health issues can be caused by immune systems dysregulation and vaccines can cause immune system dysregulation. Citations for this are in my written submission. Overall, the study found that after 10 years, 17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic health issue. While 57% of the vaccinated children had at least one chronic health issue, often multiple. That's 17 versus 57%. The only real problem with this study and why it didn't get submitted for publication is that its findings did not fit the belief and the policy that vaccines are safe. Had it found vaccinated, children were healthier. It no doubt would've been published immediately, but because it found the opposite, it was shoved in a draw. We have repeatedly urged Dr. Zervos and Lamerato to submit the study for publication. They have affirmed the study was well-designed, conducted, but Dr. Zervos has said he doesn't want to lose his job and Dr. Lamerato has said she does not want to make doctors uncomfortable. This is a real-world example of how the science around vaccines gets corrupted. How only studies that confirm the beliefs and policies that vaccines are safe get published. Everything else gets shoved in a draw. This selection bias is dangerous and results in corrupting all the science concerning vaccine safety. We can protect children from infectious disease and we can protect children from vaccine harms. We should and we must do both.

Senator Johnson (26:18):

Thank you, Mr Siri. Our next witness is Dr. Toby Rogers. Dr. Rogers is a fellow at the Brownstone Institute for Social and Economic Research, he has a PhD in political economy from the University of Sydney and a master in public policy from UC, Berkeley. His research focuses on regulatory capture and corruption in the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Rogers.

Dr. Toby Rogers (26:40):

Good afternoon Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Blumenthal and members of the permanent subcommittee, on July 4th, 2015 my then partner's son was diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. I was in a PhD program in political economy at the University of Sydney where I had access to almost all current scientific and medical journals. I wanted to better understand what was happening, so I went to the CDC's web page on the causes of autism. As a PhD student, I was trained to focus on primary source documents, so I read all the references in their footnotes. To my surprise, I quickly discovered the CDC's narrative did not add up. Claims that autism is genetic don't make sense because autism prevalence was rising too fast. There's no such thing as a genetic epidemic. Then the CDC blamed valproic acid, a treatment for epilepsy that is contraindicated in pregnancy and thalidomide, which was never approved for use in the United States.

(27:44)
Finally, the CDC pointed to advanced parental age, but the odds ratios were modest and the increase in the proportion of older parents is insufficient to explain the surge in autism prevalence. Furthermore, the cost of autism was already in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the US, and yet government was not responding with a sense of urgency. I changed my doctoral thesis topic to The Political Economy of Autism and spent the next four years reading and analyzing nearly everything that has been written on autism prevalence, causation, and cost.

(28:20)
In 2019, my thesis passed rigorous external peer review. It's now in the top 10 of the most downloaded doctoral research papers in the history of the University of Sydney. Since then, I've continued my research with Children's Health Defense as an independent journalist and as a fellow at Brownstone Institute. Here are the facts. In 1970, the first autism prevalence study in the US found an autism rate of less than one in 10,000 children. According to a study by the EPA, sometime around 1987, the autism rate in the US began to skyrocket. The most recent report from the CDC showed that one in 31 eight-year-old children in the US in 2022 were on the autism spectrum. That's a 32158% increase in the last 52 years.

(29:10)
Two massive studies from the best epidemiologists in California show that changes in diagnostic criteria only explain a small fraction of the rise in autism prevalence. There are 22 studies that claim that vaccines don't cause autism. None of these studies have a completely unvaccinated control group, so unfortunately, if you want to understand what's causing the autism epidemic, these studies are of no use. Then there are five large genetic research projects, AGREE, SSC, ASC, MSSNG and SPARC. Together, they produced 501 published papers. The search for the gene for autism has consumed over $2.3 billion, and researchers have almost nothing to show for it because genes don't suddenly create epidemics. The human genome just doesn't change that fast.

(30:01)
Then there are four large epigenetic research projects, so genes in the environment, CHARGE, MARBLES, SEED and EARLY. Combined, they've produced 437 publications that look at the effects of air pollution, pesticides, fluorinated substances, PCBs, nutritional factors, flame retardants, maternal metabolic conditions, and volatile organic compounds. None of these studies control for vaccines as a possible covariate or confounder, so it's impossible to know the true impact of these variables. The critical missing piece in autism research is vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies. Thankfully, there are now six good studies that we can rely on. Unfortunately, these studies have been systematically suppressed and ignored by the mainstream media and the medical establishment.

(30:52)
Two studies by Gallagher and Goodman show that the birth dose of the Hepatitis B vaccine significantly increases autism risk. Three studies by Anthony Mawson confirm that vaccination increases the odds of developing autism by at least 4.2 fold. Preterm birth coupled with vaccination increases the odds of neural developmental disability by more than 12 fold compared to preterm birth without vaccination. And finally, a study by Hooker and Miller published in 2021 found that vaccination increases autism risk five fold. Vaccination in the absence of breastfeeding increases autism risk 12.5 fold. Vaccination in addition to C-section birth increases autism risk 18.7 fold.

(31:37)
After conducting the systematic review of a thousand studies, my belief is that the autism and chronic disease epidemics are primarily caused by toxicants, mostly from vaccines and about a dozen additional toxicants. If we stop exposing children to these hazards in the first place, that would stop the epidemics of chronic illness in children. Now we must summon the political will to act. Thank you.

Senator Johnson (32:01):

Thank you, Dr. Rogers. Our final witness is Dr. Jake Scott. Dr. Scott is a board certified infectious disease physician and clinical associate professor at Stanford University School of Medicine. He attended the University of Vermont College of Medicine. He currently provides inpatient and outpatient care for general infectious diseases. Dr. Scott.

Dr. Jake Scott (32:22):

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Blumenthal and members of the subcommittee, thank you sincerely for the opportunity to testify. It is a true privilege to be here. My name is Jake Scott and I'm an infectious diseases physician at Stanford. I've spent my career treating and evaluating medical evidence with a focus on vaccine safety and efficacy. I have no financial conflicts of interest. My vaccine research is either self-funded or supported by a Stanford University. Since April, I've co-led and international team building what we believe is the most comprehensive database of vaccine trials ever assembled. We set out to answer a fundamental question, "What does the complete trial record actually show about vaccine testing?"

(33:13)
We've cataloged 1088 randomized control trials from 1941 to 2025 involving over 10.5 million participants. Every entry is publicly verifiable through PubMed links. The entire database is openly accessible. Anyone with internet access can verify our findings. This is what transparency looks like. Our findings directly refute false claims about vaccine testing. We documented 661 trials using inert placebo controls, with saline, sterile water, or other biologically inactive substances. Of these 503 involved antigens that routine childhood vaccines are based on. Most importantly, we

Dr. Jake Scott (34:00):

We confirmed that all 16 antigens routinely recommended for children have been studied in placebo controlled trials. Every single one. The claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested against placebos is demonstrably false. I'm also a senior researcher on a systematic review analyzing respiratory virus immunizations published over the last two years. 590 studies from over 17,000 identified references that we screened through the Vaccine Integrity Project. Our safety monitoring systems work. They detected intussusception with RotaShield in one in 10,000. The vaccine was withdrawn. They caught Johnson and Johnson blood clots at three per million. When early myocarditis reports emerged, CDC proactively alerted clinicians to enhance surveillance before the signal was confirmed. Within weeks, the risk was quantified, communicated and incorporated into guidance. These systems detect events as rare as one in a million doses. The unpublished Henry Ford analysis being presented today is fundamentally flawed by design. Unlike our publicly accessible database, this study remained hidden from peer review after five years. The core problem vaccinated children had twice the follow-up time, substantially more healthcare visits, than unvaccinated children.

(35:20)
When diagnoses require doctor visits, children seeing doctors more often will inevitably have more recorded conditions. This is classic detection bias that inflates risk estimates without reflecting true health differences. The study reports zero ADHD cases among thousands of unvaccinated children. How is that possible? With a national prevalence at 11% that's highly unlikely unless conditions went undiagnosed. They claimed six to eight-fold increase in ear infections. That lacks biological plausibility, but it's fully consistent with differential healthcare utilization. Additionally, the study found no association with autism and adjusted hazard ratio of 0.62. Yet the authors emphasize selected findings while disregarding this null result for the very condition many claim vaccines cause. How do you explain that?

(36:26)
What does rigorous published research show? A Danish study of 1.2 million children found no association between aluminum exposure from vaccines and 50 different chronic conditions. Meta-analyses encompassing millions of children consistently find no link between vaccines and autism. Throughout my career, I've treated countless patients with vaccine preventable diseases. During COVID, I lost unvaccinated patients who had would've survived with vaccination. These realities coexist. Vaccines can cause rare adverse events and they do, and they prevent vastly more death and disability. We're experiencing our worst measles outbreak in decades, 1,431 cases and three deaths in 2025. No kid should die from measles. The choice before this committee is clear: based public health policy on transparent peer-reviewed evidence that anyone can verify or on an unpublished analysis with acknowledged fatal biases hidden from scientific scrutiny. Vaccines have saved 154 million lives globally over 50 years. The data are public, the evidence is overwhelming. Parents deserve policies grounded in this evidence. Thank you. I welcome your questions.

Senator Johnson (37:50):

Thank you Dr. Scott. I'll start with the questioning. I'll just basically turn it over to Mr. Siri. Do you want to start with the 154 million claim?

Aaron Siri (38:05):

Sir …

Senator Johnson (38:05):

But we had the [inaudible 00:38:07] member and we also had Dr. Scott say that the Henry Ford study was highly flawed, flawed by design. Do you want to maybe start there and defend the Henry Ford study?

Aaron Siri (38:18):

Whatever you would like Senator. I'm happy to do that, yes. Thank you. Happy to start wherever you'd like. In terms of the Henry Ford study, I appreciate Dr. Scott's comment, but I don't believe Dr. Scott has actually read my submission, given his comments about what he believes makes this study fatally flawed. He points to one thing, he calls it detection bias. Because what he's saying is that the vaccinated children are more likely to seek medical care than the unvaccinated children. Had he read my submission, he would've seen that the study authors who were looking to validate the safety of these vaccines specifically conducted sensitivity analysis to see whether there was detection bias. How did they do that? What they did is they looked at the average number of times that the vaccinated cohorts sought medical care versus the unvaccinated, and what they found was vaccinated children sought medical care on average seven times a year. Unvaccinated sought it twice a year, which would make sense if you have less illness.

(39:29)
But for the unvaccinated kids, those 17% that had a chronic health issue, they sought medical care on average five times, which reflects that when an unvaccinated child had a medical issue, they did go see the doctor. Number two, as the study points out, the type of health conditions that we saw in the unvaccinated population are not ones you wouldn't see medical care from. If your child has a serious medical condition, you're going to your doctor, you're going to the medical system. And that's not me saying it, that's what these study authors pointed out. Also, to further validate their findings, they even re-ran their study to remove any child that didn't seek any medical care. So essentially they removed the healthiest unvaccinated children, another sensitivity analysis they did, and they still found the statistically significant outcome that I discussed earlier.

(40:31)
Now, the other thing they did to make sure that their results are valid, and again, I assume they did this because they wanted to try and do exactly what Dr. Scott is saying, well, there's got to be a mistake here. It can't be that this is true. And so the other thing that they did is they conducted a sensitivity analysis whereby they removed any children from the study that weren't in the Henry Ford system from birth onward for at least five years thinking, "Okay, well maybe we got it wrong because the unvaccinated kids just had an average duration of less time. But so by doing that, we're only going to look kids who were in there for at least five years." And what they found was consistent with the findings, affirming the findings, the actual risk ratio of chronic disease amongst the vaccinated went up not down. They also did that sensitivity analysis at three years and at one year and each time they still found the vaccinated children a statistically significant increased rate of chronic health issues.

(41:46)
They also used cancer as a control assuming, well, there's no reason vaccines should cause cancer and they didn't find a statistically significant outcome. So the issue that Dr. Scott points to in a study, which by the way, he's labeling fundamentally flawed, there was enough information, in my submission, to have understood what I was saying.

Senator Johnson (42:08):

He actually said it was flawed by design. You know the study authors of this thing that the people conducted. Do you believe these are professionals that would design a study by design to make it flawed to give a result that vaccinated children suffered chronic illness two and a half times? That's basically what Dr. Scott is saying to the authors of this Henry Ford study.

Aaron Siri (42:30):

I mean, I think from the perspective of the establishment, this study is flawed because it's actually designed to detect safety. It's actually designed to reach a conclusion on safety. That's what makes it flawed. It's not like the aluminum study that Dr. Scott points to which he called rigorous.

Senator Johnson (42:48):

So you can get down to the weeds very quickly and you have to [inaudible 00:42:53].

Aaron Siri (42:53):

Yes.

Senator Johnson (42:53):

This is just true. But let's pull it back a little bit. I heard for the first time during the RFK Jr. hearing that there's been a study that vaccines have saved 154 million lives. You have a somewhat interesting take on that. Do you want to talk a bit about that scientific gem?

Aaron Siri (43:13):

Absolutely, absolutely. I think the claim about 154 million lives saved is it actually is the epitome of the corruption of science. It reflects the corruption of science in action. While this Henry Fort study, for example, is based on actual data: medical records, the immunization registry, and looked carefully at it. This study is just based on guesswork and assumptions. As it is a study published by the WHO, it is essentially an advertising piece by them for how effective their immunization program has been over the last 50 years. And they claim there's 154 million lives saved. But when you look at this study, unlike the Henry Ford study, it has no confidence intervals.

(44:05)
So what is the confidence interval of that 154 million claim? What is the reliability range of it? It doesn't have one. You know why it doesn't have one? Because it's totally unreliable. As buried in page 42 of the supplement to that "advertising piece" by the WHO, in a section entitled Uncertainty of Estimates, it says that "It cannot put 'bounds' around the veracity of the estimates." It can't put bounds around the veracity of the estimates. And that "Any bounds are arbitrary," and that "It should not be interpreted as a claim to where the edges of valid estimates possibly lie."

(44:47)
What that means is it could be equally true that 200 million lives were lost because of the vaccine program. It's an unbounded estimate. That is the corruption of science to rely on that. And it gets worse from there because, and when you actually look, when you actually look at the hard data, the number makes no sense. Almost the entirety of that 154 million lives saved comes down to two vaccines, DTP and measles vaccine. While as laid out thoroughly in my submission, the studies that look at DTP vaccine show that it causes more mortality, far more mortality, than life saved. While it may reduce deaths from diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, the studies show … Numerous rate the kids. The seminal studies show that the kids who got DTP died at 10 times the rate, 10 times the rate than kids who did not get that vaccine. And that is, I'll give the PubMed number, it's 5360569.

(45:55)
And that study is not just one study on sitting on its own. It comes after a long series of studies. It was published in 2017 and then another one in 2018. And DTP is the most commonly used vaccine in the world. That's what the science based on hard data that has confidence intervals shows. Not this WHO advertising report with no confidence intervals. The other vaccine that accounts for almost the entirety of the 154 million lives saved is the measles vaccine. The study assumes, I guess to its credit, that 60% of that decline was from other factors and 40% of the decline in measles mortality was from the vaccine.

(46:33)
But here's the thing, when you look at the decline in measles mortality in other countries, when there were no vaccines like the U.S., between 1900 and the first vaccine in 1963, measles mortality declined by 99%. That's CDC data not assumption. When you look at the UK data between 1900 and 1968 when they first started the first measles vaccine there, measles mortality there declined by 99%. So when you overlay that number, not use a 40% decline, but 99% and then you add in the increased deaths from DTP, you're upside down already. That's why they can't put a bound on their 154 million lives claim, those vaccines cost a lot more than [inaudible 00:47:17].

Senator Johnson (47:17):

Let me give Senator Moreno a chance. Okay.

Aaron Siri (47:19):

May I ask one last point on this and I will stop. I'm sorry. And it's this, as I've laid out of my submission study after study after study shows that people who get measles vaccine die at far less lower rates from heart disease and from various cancers. It's not me saying that I'm just a lawyer, as Senator Blumenthal pointed out, but that's what the studies show and they're consistent. They're an inconvenient truth when it comes to the medical establishment. When you add in that data as well, it's really upside down. I lay that out including a 100,000 person 20 year prospective study in Japan that found that those who got measles and mumps, about 7% were dead from heart disease after about 20 years. Whereas those who didn't get measles or mumps, around 14% of them were dead after 20 years. Heart disease is the number one killer of folks in the United States. I'll stop there.

Senator Johnson (48:15):

Okay, we'll continue. Senator Moreno.

Senator Moreno (48:19):

Thank you Mr. Chairman for having this hearing. Thank you all for caring about this issue and being here. Mr. Chairman, I was going to direct my first question actually to the ranking member, but he's not here, so I just want to pause for a second because there's a lot of things that I've seen in my first eight months here in elected office that happens. It's a little crazy. So I just want us to reflect on something the ranking member said. He said that a person should be fired for exercising their First Amendment rights. And I think we normalize bad behavior like that. We just say, well, that's what people can say. And the comment was about the Second Amendment. Something about citizens got to defend themselves. I'm going to read something into the record and I'm going to submit something for the record then we'll get on.

(49:02)
So there was a gentleman that said the following: "The people's ability to arm themselves and form state militias provide a powerful check on the federal power, ensuring the populace can resist potential government overreach." In fact went on to say that "An armed citizenry is the best defense against an ambitious government." Now the ranking member would have that person fired. What the ranking member may not realize, and I want to submit to the record, is Federalist 46 written by James Madison. So the person that created the constitution that allows us to do our job here for 240 plus years should be fired for saying that we should have the right to protect ourselves. That's pretty outrageous and I thought that was an important part to clarify for the record. So again, without objection, we'll submit Federalist 46 for the record.

Senator Johnson (49:56):

No objection.

Senator Moreno (49:57):

Thank you. It's available at the archives as well. All right, so let's talk about Mr. Siri, I think the main issue here is about biases. Would you agree that when you have a study, not like I'm a business major, I'm not a science major, but I think the issue here is there a bias in your work? Would you agree that that's foundational? And all three of you can answer that. Is being free of bias important Mr. Siri? Yes or no?

Aaron Siri (50:26):

Absolutely. And it's hard to find. Obviously everybody's got a bias. That's human nature. There's no such thing as something that's unbiased. That's why you want to have as rigorous as design to a study-

Senator Moreno (50:38):

Oh, yes.

Aaron Siri (50:38):

… Beforehand.

Senator Moreno (50:39):

So having clear bias is okay.

Aaron Siri (50:41):

Yes sir.

Senator Moreno (50:42):

He won't be as generous with my time. And Dr. Rogers, would you agree? Yes. No? Being free of bias is really important.

Dr. Toby Rogers# (50:51):

Yes, absolutely.

Senator Moreno (50:52):

Okay, and then Dr. Scott, would you agree with that?

Dr. Jake Scott (50:55):

Certainly.

Senator Moreno (50:56):

Okay. So let's talk about the topic of bias. Would the following statement be considered biased or unbiased? "Our president is a misinformation superspreader. I know this isn't surprising to a lot of people, but it's deeply disturbing." Biased comment or unbiased comment. Is that based on science?

Aaron Siri (51:15):

Are you asking me?

Senator Moreno (51:16):

Yeah. This should be quick.

Aaron Siri (51:19):

Reflects a bias against The President.

Senator Moreno (51:21):

Dr. Rogers, a biased statement, yes or no?

Dr. Toby Rogers# (51:23):

Agreed. Biased.

Senator Moreno (51:24):

Dr. Scott, biased?

(51:27)
Okay, that was your statement, your tweet on October 1st, 2020. " Trump spews misinformation like no other. For our president to say that the problem is that doctors taking care of patients dying from COVID are venal and are committing fraud to cook the books, is so low it's subterranean." Biased or unbiased.

Dr. Toby Rogers# (51:43):

Yes sir.

Senator Moreno (51:43):

Biased?

Dr. Toby Rogers# (51:44):

Yes sir.

Senator Moreno (51:45):

Dr. Scott?

Dr. Jake Scott (51:45):

Yes.

Senator Moreno (51:47):

Okay, that was your statement in October the-fifth of 2020. Trump's response to the U.S. COVID crisis when interviewed by Chris Wallace, "It is what it is. Vote like your life depends on it." Bias or unbiased? Mr Siri?

Aaron Siri (51:59):

Yes sir.

Senator Moreno (52:00):

Dr. Rogers.

Dr. Toby Rogers# (52:01):

I think voting's a good thing, but I don't really have an opinion on that one.

Senator Moreno (52:05):

But that your life depends on whether this election happens. That You will die if the wrong outcome occurs?

Dr. Toby Rogers# (52:10):

Yeah, that seems-

Senator Moreno (52:11):

Biased?

Dr. Toby Rogers# (52:11):

Seems overstated, yeah.

Senator Moreno (52:12):

Seems overstated. Dr. Scott?

Dr. Jake Scott (52:15):

I stand by it.

Senator Moreno (52:16):

Okay. July of 2020, your statement. There are 69 days left of the Trump administration. While he schemes to survive politically, thousands of Americans will die. The number of COVID deaths yesterday was 1,421. If the death total remains the same, then 98,049 deaths will occur between now and January 20th. Biased?

Dr. Jake Scott (52:35):

Given the data at the time, I think yes.

Senator Moreno (52:38):

Dr. Rogers?

Dr. Toby Rogers# (52:39):

COVID deaths in the Biden administration far exceeded COVID deaths during the first Trump administration.

Senator Moreno (52:44):

Oh yeah. Biased. Dr. Scott?

Dr. Jake Scott (52:45):

I hope you get into his post too.

Senator Moreno (52:47):

So biased? Okay, now interesting because prior to me coming to Congress, people think I was in a retail automotive business and that's true, but I also had a tech company. I'm going to tell you a 32nd story. We were asked during COVID to develop a schematic where somebody could validate whether they were vaccinated or not, or tested positive or not using our blockchain agent. I thought that was terrible technology. So we decided not to do it. But when we had my tech team explore it, what I thought was fascinating was there was no way to find out who had tested positive or tested negative. There was no data.

(53:23)
So typically with a computer system, you have to plug into a data source, pull the data so that you can report it out. So when we went to the State and said, "Hey, give me the data. Who's been tested and who tested negative, who tested positive?" You know what the response was? We don't have that data. It's like, well, that's fascinating because every night when I turn on the news, they tell me it's 1,421 people died of COVID. I'm like, well that's interesting because if the data doesn't exist, then how do you know that's true? So I just thought I'd share that with you a little bit.

(53:56)
So the other piece of the equation is when we talk about science, I think there has to be a certain humility. My dad was a doctor. He beat in our heads that the key to being a doctor is have humility. I think the humility should be able for us to look back four or five years later and go, "We made a lot of mistakes. A lot of people were harmed." And I think it's the failure of that humility that's infuriating to a lot of people. I'll give you some examples. I have a four-year-old grandbaby. A two-year-old grandbaby. He just turned two yesterday. Do you think it was appropriate, yes or no Mr. Siri, if a two-year-old have been put a mask on a two-year-old? Is that a good idea?

Aaron Siri (54:41):

I believe that everybody be able to make their own medical decisions.

Senator Moreno (54:45):

But again, just generally speaking, putting a mask on a two-year-old seem-

Aaron Siri (54:47):

I wouldn't put a mask on a two-year-old if it was my choice.

Senator Moreno (54:50):

Dr. Rogers?

Dr. Toby Rogers# (54:51):

No, I would not.

Senator Moreno (54:51):

Dr. Scott?

Dr. Jake Scott (54:52):

I wouldn't either.

Senator Moreno (54:53):

Okay. You tweeted in January of '21 that you masked your two-year-old and that all two-year-olds should be masked. I'll submit the tweet for the record, that your two-year-old, I don't know that you have a two-year-old, we've never met-

Dr. Jake Scott (55:06):

Well, I changed my mind.

Senator Moreno (55:08):

But again, having the humility to say that was a bad idea. Having the humility-

Dr. Jake Scott (55:13):

I'm admitting it.

Senator Moreno (55:14):

Which is good. I applaud you for that. Having the humility to say, having the humility to say that when you walk into a bar after having a mask on outside and then you walk to your table and then you take your mask off to eat made sense, we can now look back and go, that was ridiculous.

Dr. Jake Scott (55:37):

And I tweeted about that numerous times. How ridiculous that was.

Senator Moreno (55:41):

Well, I'll submit another tweet.

Dr. Jake Scott (55:44):

Selection bias right here.

(55:45)
I'll put your tweet on the record at which you actually said that a man walked outside with a mask, walked into a restaurant, got in a seat, took off his mask and drank a beer and sat with everybody doing the same as in like, hey, that's normal. In fact, you said something that I thought was very interesting. You said, COVID-19 may never go away so let's keep people isolated en-masse, I will submit these for the records, COVID-19 may never go away, as a way to keep people locked up inside, keep people out of schools. In my state, in my city, Cleveland, Ohio, we closed our schools for 18 months. You look at why we have youth violence today? You draw a straight line right to those decisions during COVID. That wasn't a virus that made those decisions. Those were elected officials that decided that control of people was more important.

(56:41)
Dr. Scott, I'll give you a chance here. You also said that 1.2 million people died from COVID. From COVID. Now I was on the board of Metro Health in Cleveland. We had no idea what actually caused people's mortality. What we did do because the hospital could collect more money, was we labeled anybody who had COVID, who also died, including motorcycle accidents, of dying from COVID. I think what you meant to say, I'm going to give you a chance to clear it up. Did you mean 1.2 million people died with COVID as opposed to from COVID? See the difference?

(57:20)
Oh, I do see the difference. And I also commented quite a bit about the difficulty making that distinction after vaccines had become available. But I think early on, yes, there were a lot of deaths. I lost over 100 patients. I mean-

Senator Moreno (57:38):

From COVID? With COVID?

Dr. Jake Scott (57:40):

COVID. From COVID. COVID was terrible. Then it definitely became much more complicated to reconcile people who died with COVID from COVID.

Senator Moreno (57:51):

But you didn't have a problem. You were a pretty definitive statement. But what Dr. Rogers said earlier was interesting, which is more people died during the Biden years. Now just to remind everybody it's important, Biden put out an executive order that said, if you don't get vaccinated, you could lose your job. Think about how insane our public policy got. And look, I think I speak for at least the people I know, that this was an important issue. Just maybe start by acknowledging you made a mistake, apologizing for shaming those of us who said, "Yeah, that's stupid. Yeah, that makes no sense." And acknowledging that if we don't have sovereignty over our bodies, then we are not free people. [inaudible 00:58:46].

Senator Johnson (58:46):

Thanks Senator Moreno. I got a lot of questions. We're going to take a lot of time and people are going to have a chance to respond here. By the way, PSI hearings are definitely different than normal Senate hearings. I mean, when I first got here, it had Senator [inaudible 00:58:57]. He would have a book that thick and the hearings would literally run all day long, go through in detail. That's kind what I'd like to do here tonight. It's not all day long because we only have the afternoon, but we're going to get into a lot of detail here. Dr.Scott, you did mention you said about a hundred COVID patients. Can I just ask you, what did you treat them with? What were your drugs of choice? What was the treatment?

Dr. Jake Scott (59:19):

Yeah, so I mean I've treated hundreds of COVID patients and-

Senator Johnson (59:25):

Did you say you lost 100 then? I'm not trying to-

Dr. Jake Scott (59:29):

I lost dozens of patients, probably over 100. I lost track, to be honest. It was awful. I lost many, many nursing home folks who lived nearby and multiple a day sometimes.

Senator Johnson (59:47):

What was the protocol did you use? Did you use remdesivir? Were you using monoclonal antibodies? Did you ever try ivermectin or budesonide or some of the other generic drugs that were recommended?

Dr. Jake Scott (59:57):

So I was going based on the best available evidence. My role was actually to focus on the best available evidence for therapeutics. I helped develop the guidelines and so yeah, we used remdesivir if patients met eligibility. We used dexamethasone, which clearly shows or had been shown to be lifesaving.

Senator Johnson (01:00:20):

By the way, I had Pierre Kory, I think in May of 2020, he talked about corticosteroids. He was vilified and savaged in the media until a couple of months later they actually had a study come out of England that dexamethasone worked, which is corticosteroid. Now generally under underdosed when they gave it. But regardless, continue.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:00:41):

Yeah. So I mean, we used a of things. Did I ever use ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine? I don't think so.

Senator Johnson (01:00:48):

Were you aware of the Surgisphere study on hydroxychloroquine?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:00:52):

No, that doesn't sound familiar.

Senator Johnson (01:00:54):

You never heard of that, huh? It was published, I think in May of 2020. Totally came out against hydroxychloroquine. But had to be retracted, I think two weeks later, because the data was completely made up. But it had its impact. It completely sabotaged the use of hydroxychloroquine and zinc and Z-Pak. Well, again, just so that's just one example. It kind of surprises me if you're on the front lines trying to treat people you've never even heard of the Surgisphere, which probably turned off a lot of doctors like you who rely on the New England Journal of Medicine, even though Dr. March or Angel said you really shouldn't or can't. Done that, but let's move on.

(01:01:37)
I think Mr Siri's covered the 154 million, which was the first time I heard that. And again, I would call that propaganda. It's not science. Somebody's got some model. Fine. I mean, I can play with numbers too. As a matter of fact, I'm going to show you how you can use numbers. Dr. Scott, you talked about the Commonwealth estimate of 3.2 million lives saved here in the U.S. in 2021 and 2022. Correct? You're pretty confident of that one.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:02:08):

It's one of a few studies. These estimates are not easy to make, but yeah, that's one study.

Senator Johnson (01:02:13):

Define study. I mean, were there confidence intervals around that 3.2 million?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:02:22):

It was a modeling study. Yeah, certainly it-

Senator Johnson (01:02:24):

It was published on a blog, wasn't it? Is that correct Mr. Siri?

Aaron Siri (01:02:29):

Yeah, it's a blog. The Commonwealth-

Senator Johnson (01:02:31):

[inaudible 01:02:33].

Aaron Siri (01:02:32):

The Commonwealth "study" is not a study. It's a blog. It's not a peer-reviewed study. It's not in a journal. It was published on a blog.

Senator Johnson (01:02:38):

So let's put up this little chart that … I'm somewhat famous for charts. So let's look at real data. So this is CDC data. So in 2019, total deaths in the U.S. were 2.85 million. Then we had the pandemic year 2020: 3.38 million, little under 3.4 million. So that's an increase of a little more than a half a million people died in the first year of COVID. The following year, 3.46 million people, more people in the second year of the pandemic 2021, with the vaccines were rolling out, and I think we were close to 70% take-up of vaccines by fall of 2021, I believe.

Aaron Siri (01:03:21):

Some of the estimates are that by the second quarter, over 60% of Americans had some form of immunity.

Senator Johnson (01:03:25):

Then in 2022, we started backing down. Now, I think Mr. Siri kind of argues in your piece that if the vaccines really worked, you'd think even by 2021, because those things are being rolled out pretty quick, you'd probably see those death counts come down, but they didn't. But here's the point I'm trying to make. With this Commonwealth Fund study, they estimated 3.2 million people's lives were saved in 2021 and 2022. So if you add that to the actual death count, what Commonwealth Fund is assuming is that in 2021, had it not been for the vaccines, more than 5 million people would've lost their lives in America. In 2022, 4.88 million people would've lost their lives.

(01:04:16)
Dr. Scott, is that even close to credible to think that we'd go from 2.85 million lives lost in 2019, have a pandemic, no vaccines, unfortunately, the NIH was sabotaging treatment using effective generic drugs telling people "Don't treat at all. Go home, be afraid. Hope you don't have to go in the hospital where they'll plug remdesivir in your veins and hook you up to ventilator and you probably never come off." So we had no treatment, had 3.38 million people die that year. Are we really supposed to believe the next year we were going to leap up to 5 million lives lost in America, and then the following year, close to five again? Because that's what you'd have to be in order to save 1.6 million lives in 2021 and 2022, you'd have to be assuming the death rate was going to go from 2.85 million in 2019, 3.3, 3.4 million in 2019, and then leap up to 5 million in 2021 and '22. Is that at all plausible? Do do you believe that we were literally, had it not been for vaccine, 5 million Americans would've lost their lives in 2021 and 2022?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:05:37):

Yeah, I believe that's credible to me. Were you on the front lines? Because it was awful. I honestly cannot express how terrible it was.

Senator Johnson (01:05:47):

It was terrible.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:05:49):

And there was a dramatic-

Senator Johnson (01:05:49):

It was terrible-

Dr. Jake Scott (01:05:49):

… There was a dramatic decline.

Senator Johnson (01:05:50):

It was terrible in 2020 and the total death-

Dr. Jake Scott (01:05:53):

There was a natural decline in death rates after the vaccines were rolled out. Dramatic.

Senator Johnson (01:05:56):

Let's move on. Let's move on to some other-

Dr. Jake Scott (01:05:58):

I'm not going to parse over these modeling studies, but let's talk about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. I mean there were a number of studies that looked into that, some of which I was involved in.

Senator Johnson (01:06:10):

This is about research. By the way, I'm happy to invite you back when I'll have Dr. McCullough and I'll have Dr.-

Dr. Jake Scott (01:06:15):

I would love to come back.

Senator Johnson (01:06:16):

Good. We'll do that. Okay. We will absolutely have you come back.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:06:19):

Thank you.

Senator Johnson (01:06:20):

And we'll talk about hospital protocols, we'll talk about early treatment. I would love to do that because I've never been able to get people to actually debate or discuss this with the doctors today that have the courage and compassion to treat COVID. And I appreciate you did as well. So anyway, okay, so you think it's credible? I mean, the records show that Dr. Scott thinks, yeah, we had 5 million people die in 2021 and 2022. Mr. Siri, you want to comment on that?

Aaron Siri (01:06:49):

Yeah, I could add to that just a little bit, which is that, and this is part of my submission as well, that the data reflects that in 2020 when there was no vaccine, the vaccine was first rolled out at the end of December, 2020, about 18% of folks, 17% of Americans were infected. And presumably by the way, the weakest, most frail among us passed away in 2020. then we get to 2021 where again, the data reflects, and this is my submission, around the same percentage of Americans were again infected. So no vaccine, like you pointed out, that was the increase. Then there was a vaccine in 2021, excuse me. The vaccination rate went sky-high by the second quarter of 2021 when Deltas' coming, the immunity rate according to the data is over 60%. But yet all-cause mortality increases. And I'll point out one last thing about this, remdesivir, and this is a great example, great example of corruption of science-

Senator Johnson (01:07:49):

Do you know what nurses call that? Run death is near.

Aaron Siri (01:07:53):

… Well, I'll give you an example of the corruption of science with remdesivir. The way you should do a study is you come up with a

Aaron Siri (01:08:00):

… study design, and then you implement it because this way you avoid introducing bias. If you start the study and then you're like, "Ooh", you don't like what you're finding, and you change the study design, that introduces bias. That is exactly what happened during the remdesivir clinical trial. The prime at the end points in the middle of the trial were changed by Gilead as it was going on. In fact, we wrote to Dr. Fauci specifically about that. That is precisely what you should never do. It introduces bias, so they can get the results.

Senator Johnson (01:08:34):

By the way, do you remember how many people had some financial conflict of interest to the people that approved that with Gilead?

Aaron Siri (01:08:39):

Yes.

Senator Johnson (01:08:40):

It's nine out of 16 or something like that.

Aaron Siri (01:08:42):

A significant number. Obviously, there's lots of folks who've treated COVID during the pandemic, and there's lots of… You had Dr. Jordan here, for example, and he's had a clinic. I think he has dozens and dozens of clinics around the country, and he, as he would explain the protocols he implemented, lost very few people to COVID. I know other doctors in that similar situation using budesonide and so forth.

Senator Johnson (01:09:05):

Dr. Rogers, do you have something? Dr. Scott, I think you wanted to say something.

Dr. Toby Rogers (01:09:09):

Yeah, I want to add to this debate. So, I watched every single meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Vaccines and Related Biological products Advisory Committee in 2021, 2022, and 2023 when all these COVID shots were being authorized for use in this country. After a while, the CDC's own research showed that the protection from the vaccine, if any, was between months two and six, and by six months, it showed negative efficacy. So, I'm watching the hearings on my computer screen at home. I'm yelling at the screen. The COVID shots have negative efficacy after six months. Tell me how a shot with negative efficacy is saving lives, and it has the worst side effect profile of any vaccine in human history.

(01:10:07)
So, how exactly is the vaccine with the worst side effects and negative efficacy saving lives? That's a preposterous claim. What ended the COVID pandemic was the Omicron variant that was more transmissible but less lethal. The vaccine, how many people it helped? I think it's an open debate. It could be a net negative.

Aaron Siri (01:10:34):

Well, maybe we can look at the clinical trial data in which 21 people died in the vaccinated group, and 17 died in the placebo group.

Senator Johnson (01:10:44):

Again, I believe the first study that came out showing negative efficacy came out of Denmark. But Dr. Scott, you said you want to say something. Then I'll turn it over to Senator Blumenthal.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:10:54):

Well, I just want to say in 2020, 2021, my colleagues and I were doing absolutely everything we could to save lives. We weren't using Remdesivir because we were paid to use Remdesivir. Remdesivir, I have to say, I never thought was a game changer, but it also… It's not that-

Senator Johnson (01:11:19):

By the way, the hospitals will be paid handsomely for using Remdesivir.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:11:22):

Okay. Well, I never saw that.

Senator Johnson (01:11:24):

Coding some use the COVID patient as well, but go ahead.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:11:25):

I never saw that. But in terms of whether or not the vaccine saved lives, it's not just that one study. I mean, there's a Stanford Ioannidis study that was published in JAMA recently that showed that the COVID vaccines probably averted 2.5 million deaths. So, you're cherry-picking by saying that I'm hanging my hat on that one Commonwealth study. I'm not, because I've also posted about these other studies as well. How many lives did the COVID vaccine save? I don't know. I don't know for sure, but I did see with my own eyes the dramatic decline in deaths between December of 2020 and mid 2021.

Senator Johnson (01:12:11):

Variants did change, and Omicron was less lethal, but Delta was a real problem.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:12:15):

Omicron didn't hit until 2022.

Senator Johnson (01:12:18):

I understand. Delta was a real problem. Senator Blumenthal.

Senator Blumenthal (01:12:23):

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I think we all know that COVID-19 had a devastating impact on families across the country. It caused deaths and still impacts the lives of a lot of people. The creation of COVID-19 vaccines through Operation Warp Speed led by then President Trump, and now President Trump was not just one of the greatest achievements in his administration, but it changed the course of the pandemic. The vaccine saved lives and allowed others to begin to rebuild. But unfortunately, just as the vaccine became available, a lot of misinformation about its safety and efficacy spread, and hostility toward vaccines and the public health system that monitors them makes them less available.

(01:13:28)
I want to ask you, Dr. Scott. You saw firsthand what it was like to treat patients when the COVID-19 pandemic began and after the vaccine was approved and disseminated. Based on the studies you've done, do you believe that the COVID-19 vaccines and others have helped save lives, and been safe and effective?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:13:58):

Thank you, Senator. So when it comes to safety, I personally am not a big fan of the slogan, "Vaccines are safe and effective," because there are nuances, right? Nothing is 100% safe. Are COVID vaccines 100% safe? No. Are they generally very safe? Yes. Are they the least safe vaccine ever? No. That's absurd. Show me some evidence that indicates that.

Senator Johnson (01:14:25):

About ready to.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:14:26):

Yeah, please. I'll come back to discuss that. Were the COVID vaccines effective? Yes. I mean, so 2020 was like nothing my colleagues or I had ever seen or expected. It was awful. I'm not making this up. I mean, it was just a nightmare. Despite our best efforts, I lost many, many patients.

Senator Blumenthal (01:14:53):

Is there… Let me ask you. Is there a reason you believe that the Henry Ford Health System study hasn't been published and has flaws?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:15:07):

Yes. I think that's a great question. So, one important question is which peer-reviewed journals have reviewed and rejected this manuscript? What biological mechanism could explain vaccines increasing ear infections by 600%? Do you accept the study's null finding for autism or only the results that support your narrative? What are the models that adjust for the massive difference in healthcare visits between groups? The analysis reports zero cases of common conditions like ADHD. That is statistically impossible. There was a cohort of 2,000 children. There should have been hundreds of such diagnoses unless they were undetected. Let me just clarify. When I said flawed by design, I didn't mean that they deliberately meant for it to be flawed. I just meant the study design itself had flaws in it. It was methodologically flawed, not deliberately flawed, of course.

Senator Blumenthal (01:16:17):

Thousands of studies have been done and published, correct?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:16:21):

Correct.

Senator Blumenthal (01:16:23):

Let me ask you. The seeming assumption here is that this is the only study that ever has gone unpublished. In fact, a lot of studies go unpublished. Correct?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:16:40):

Yeah. I review studies before they're published for a number of different journals and-

Senator Blumenthal (01:16:46):

Because they're subject to peer review and analysis.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:16:48):

Right, and it's not just one person. It's multiple people are reviewing these articles, and if something warrants publication, it's… The other thing is I've recently been reviewing hundreds and hundreds of papers for these two massive vaccine review projects.

Senator Blumenthal (01:17:06):

Simply to be published isn't the only means to make a study public. Correct?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:17:17):

Right.

Senator Blumenthal (01:17:17):

In fact, in this body, we have press conferences. We do hearings. This particular study was done and completed in 2020. Now, apparently for the first time it's being revealed, has it been available during this last five years?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:17:37):

That's a great question. I mean, there's pre-prints, substacks, obviously, a number of ways to get a study out there. The fact that it's been shelled for five years, I think, is saying something.

Senator Blumenthal (01:17:51):

Mr. Siri, why haven't you held a press conference? Why have you kept this study under wraps?

Aaron Siri (01:17:58):

I appreciate the question. It's never been submitted to a journal, and the hope has always been that it would be submitted to a journal, because I agree with you. It should undergo peer review. It should be submitted to a journal.

Senator Blumenthal (01:18:10):

I'm not saying-

Aaron Siri (01:18:12):

But they will not submit it because they don't want to get fired. That is what they told us. We've met with the authors many times. These are validly pro-vaccine individuals. They don't want their institution, the journals, their funding sources, their friends, their colleagues, everybody to turn against them, which is exactly what will happen if they even submit this thing for publication.

Senator Blumenthal (01:18:27):

But that is not my question, and I apologize for interrupting, because I'm limited on time.

Aaron Siri (01:18:32):

Oh, I'm sorry.

Senator Blumenthal (01:18:35):

There are lots of other ways to make findings known.

Aaron Siri (01:18:37):

They don't want to get fired.

Senator Blumenthal (01:18:39):

No, I'm talking to you.

Aaron Siri (01:18:41):

Oh, because they are the scientists. They're the ones who have their name on it. They should put it out, not me. My hope is that they would put it out. I wanted the normal course scientific process to work. Look, it's a retrospective epidemiological study. Let them put it in a pre-print. Let it go through peer review. Let others try to replicate it. Maybe they'll find a different result.

Senator Blumenthal (01:19:02):

I'm really curious why you and Senator Johnson or another member of the Congress or members of the health community didn't hold-

Senator Johnson (01:19:13):

Let me answer that for you.

Senator Blumenthal (01:19:14):

Can I just finish my question, Mr. Chairman?

Senator Johnson (01:19:18):

No, let me… Sure, go ahead, but I was going to answer it for you.

Senator Blumenthal (01:19:20):

I'm curious why for the first time we're hearing about a study which was done, completed five years ago.

Aaron Siri (01:19:30):

Yes. Like I said, my hope has always been that the scientists would publish it, and we've tried to persuade them many, many times, so it can go through the normal peer review process. I don't want to run ahead and go put it out there. Because you know what that would do? It's going to happen exactly what's happening right now is you're going to say the things that you're saying, Senator. Well, this is not going through the normal process. This isn't getting submitted to a journal. The answer to that is, I'm going to say it again, it epitomizes the corruption of science. It shows precisely why studies that show vaccines have problems never get published.

Senator Blumenthal (01:20:03):

I don't think with all due respect, Mr. Siri, that you've answered my question.

Senator Johnson (01:20:07):

Let me answer. But no, let me answer. Your time's expired.

Senator Blumenthal (01:20:13):

Mr. Chairman, the reason we have witnesses is so that they can answer our question.

Senator Johnson (01:20:13):

I understand, but I'm part of this answer, okay? First of all, you're not paying attention to what they're saying. The people who conducted this study, highly professional, highly respected, obviously concerned about their jobs. Del Bigtree and Aaron Siri convinced them to do this study. They don't want to have their jobs put in jeopardy, but they respect the fact that these people actually did the study as they requested. What I found-

Senator Blumenthal (01:20:51):

With all due respect, we have… I just want to announced-

Senator Johnson (01:20:54):

No. When-

Senator Blumenthal (01:20:54):

We have a vote going on. I'm going to leave to vote because more than 90 of our colleagues have voted, and I don't want to miss the vote. So if you want to hold your answer until I get back, that's fine. I really want to hear from the witness, not from you, Mr. Chairman, because we can talk to each other anytime.

Aaron Siri (01:21:11):

Sure.

Senator Johnson (01:21:11):

No, I am the one that prompted this release. I told… Once I found out everybody said, "Well, if you don't release it, if they don't release it, I'm going to release it."

Senator Blumenthal (01:21:19):

Why didn't he tell you that earlier? Why didn't he come forward and with the members of this group?

Senator Johnson (01:21:26):

Because he felt sympathy for the authors about losing their jobs. I'm sorry, I feel the same sympathy, but this is too important to protect their jobs. This is information the public should have had in 2020, and I forced the issue. There's the bottom line. I forced the issue. So, there's your answer. By the way, you can go and vote. You are welcome to come back. This hearing is going to go on for quite some time, because we're going to go through this in detail, okay? So, this hearing is going to go on for quite some time.

Senator Blumenthal (01:21:56):

I will. As another American once said, I shall return. Thank you.

Senator Johnson (01:22:01):

Look forward to it. I think I'm going to lay the COVID injection aside for the time being, but we'll come back because we keep hearing these hundreds and thousands of studies. One thing I do want to enter into the record is, Mr. Siri, what is about 2:30 in the morning?

Aaron Siri (01:22:22):

Yes, sir.

Senator Johnson (01:22:24):

Having received testimony, did a very organized and very effective response to Dr. Scott's testimony, and I want to enter that into the record. But Mr. Siri, I'd like you to go to your section, and talk about the 661 studies that Dr. Scott is talking about in terms of these inert placebo controls. Just describe that in detail. I think it's interesting.

Aaron Siri (01:22:55):

Sure. Actually, I think Dr. Scott has done a great service in terms of pointing out the lack of clinical trials, supporting the safety of the routine injected childhood vaccines. You see, he's saying there are 661 inert controlled trials to support the safety of the routine injected childhood vaccines. But when you actually drill down into those 661 trials, let me give you the breakdown of them, okay? 567 of these trials were not a routine injected vaccine for disease on the CDC's childhood schedule. They were for HIV vaccines or other vaccines, so totally irrelevant to the safety of routine injected childhood vaccines. The remaining 94 studies, 70 of them did not involve healthy children. For example, trials of HIV-positive adults, again, completely irrelevant to the safety of childhood vaccines.

(01:24:01)
Of the remaining 24, 21 did not involve a U.S.-licensed vaccine, or it was not a vaccine used as a control to license a currently used U.S.-licensed vaccine. For example, Chinese flu shots, stuff like that. That leaves us with three studies, three that were claimed to have a inert control that were relied upon to license a routine injected childhood vaccine added this entire list of 661. These actually help really highlight the problem we have in terms of assessing safety with regards to the licensure of childhood vaccines. I want good clinical trial data. I need it for my practice.

(01:24:47)
Let me walk through those three. One was a trial for the chickenpox vaccine, varicella vaccine. Now, that trial had… It was only a few hundred people, so it was underpowered anyway, but Dr. Scott says it's got an inert control, but actually, it was an injection of neomycin, an antibiotic. That's not inert.

Senator Johnson (01:25:07):

No.

Aaron Siri (01:25:09):

A neomycin used topically can cause issues, let alone injected. The second one was Gardasil 4 trial, which had thousands and thousands of girls and women in the control group. Almost all of them got a aluminum adjuvant injection. Then there were a few hundred, only a few hundred that were labeled as a inert control, but they weren't. They got everything that's in the vial except for the antigens in the alum, which included l-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate, yeast protein, not inert. Then the third one was a Gardasil 9 trial, which finally, by the way, did have a saline injection, just a few hundred. There were thousands and thousands of girls, women in that trial. They all got an injection [inaudible 01:25:58].

(01:25:57)
I don't even know it's ethical to inject somebody with something that's neuro and cytotoxic. But leaving that aside, the few hundred that got the placebo, but they only got it if they first got three doses of Gardasil 4. So again, not an actual inert control group. The result is there's zero trials, zero, which were relied upon in this list of 661 to license a routine-injected vaccine on the CDC schedule that included a placebo as well as zero trials of a vaccine used as a control to license a routine-injected vaccine on the CDC schedule. Ironically, by the way, this list supports the opposite of what it pretends to do.

(01:26:40)
If you want to know, if want to know what was relied upon to license routine-injected childhood vaccines, it's easy. Look at the clinical trial documents. That's what we do. In fact, my submission to this committee went through every single vaccine that's a routine-injected vaccine, and we cited precisely what the control was. Now, I'll just point out one quick thing here too is that the CNN fact-checked Secretary Kennedy's claim that there is no routine-injected childhood vaccine that was licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial. It relied on Dr. Scott's list, which at the time had about 248 trials listed as being inert. Secretary Kennedy then did exactly the analysis I did. Put it out on a tweet, took it apart. Not one of those was relied upon to license a routine-injected childhood vaccine, nor was it used as a control to license routine-injected childhood vaccine.

(01:27:36)
Then after that, apparently, somebody then scrambled all the RCT numbers for those 248. I mean, so you can't match it up with the Secretary's tweet, and I guess to bury that issue, just added hundreds more hoping that they can just hide behind this mountain of trials. But when you look at it carefully, it does not support the safety. In fact, it points out, it shows exactly the lack of safety. What's critical is this. Look, if you want to know the safety of a vaccine, and we need this stuff when parents call us and say, "My child got XYZ issue after a vaccine," you need trials that are, one, properly controlled, which means either they got to get an inert substance or another vaccine that was properly licensed based on a robust trial.

(01:28:25)
Then even if it has a proper control, it still needs to review safety long enough. Then even if it has a proper, an error control, and it reviews long enough, it then still needs to be properly powered. It needs all three to be a proper valid clinical trial. I can tell you there's not a single routine-injected childhood vaccine on the schedule that meets those criteria.

Senator Johnson (01:28:48):

Again, the whole point of developing or doing this list, this crowdsourcing or whatever, leading a internet effort for the 661 studies was all to prove Secretary Kennedy wrong when he said that there's never been any of the vaccines on childhood schedules have had a true placebo-controlled, random controlled trial. You've just gone through the 661, and that statement's true. Dr. Scott, I mean, go ahead and I guess try and refute that.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:29:20):

So, the reason why we did this project was to, yes, directly address through systematic evidence compilation the questions around the quantity and quality of clinical data supporting vaccine safety and efficacy. We found 1,000… We screened thousands. We've extracted data from 1,088 randomized controlled vaccine trials. We started our search in 1800, and studies were published from 1941 until 2025. Of those 1,088 studies that are randomized controlled trials, 661 used what we consider an inert placebo, generally saline, et cetera. There were a number of other control groups used historically for various reasons, partly for ethical considerations and partly just because things have developed over time.

(01:30:27)
As far as this being an example of how there aren't enough data to support the safety and efficacy of vaccines, I don't see the logic there.

Senator Johnson (01:30:40):

Well, I think, Mr. Siri completely picked your 661 studies apart. You said saline, et cetera. I think I was wondering what's the et cetera. Mr. Rogers, you raised your hand. Do you want to speak to that?

Dr. Toby Rogers (01:30:54):

Yes, ma'am, please. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Look, in PhD programs, you have to read original sources, and you have to define terms. Let's be crystal clear about the definitions of these terms, because the fate of the Republic depends on getting these definitions right, and Dr. Scott is playing fast and loose with these definitions. So, let's be crystal clear about what we mean. Inert should mean that the substance does not cause a chemical or biological reaction in the body. When supporters of the status quo use the word inert, they can mean just about anything. Paul Offit routinely calls mercury and aluminum inert, even though they are known neurotoxicants. Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan published… They're the best two toxicologists in the world, and they published a study in 2014 that says both aluminum and ethylmercury are known neurotoxicants, but the supporters of the status quo say that these things are safe, and they're not. They're absolutely not.

(01:32:04)
In the context of vaccines, placebo should mean saline as verified by independent third party testing. That's not what the supporters of the status quo mean when they say placebo. The fact is the FDA has no regulations concerning the contents of placebos. So, manufacturers can put whatever they want into the comparator intervention, and can still call it a placebo by law. Furthermore, scientific journals have no regulations concerning the contents of placebos. Sometimes the manufacturers disclose them in connection with the study, and about two thirds of the time, they do not. A double-blind randomized controlled trial should have two groups, a group that receives the vaccine, that's the treatment group, and a completely unvaccinated group given a saline placebo. That's the control group.

(01:32:50)
That's not what the supporters of the status quo mean when they say randomized control trial. They compare two groups, but one group gets the new vaccine, and another group gets a shot full of aluminum adjuvants, or they compare a new shot to an older shot. But the one thing they never do is to compare a completely unvaccinated group with a vaccinated group, because everyone knows that such a trial would show harms. So if you go through all 1,704 trials in the database that Dr. Scott has put together, as Aaron Siri has done, you'll find that the inert ingredients are not inert. The placebo is not saline, and the randomized control trial does not have a completely unvaccinated control group. We know that my assertion here is correct because on page nine of his written statement, Dr. Scott states that vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies are especially prone to bias. It's hard to imagine a more Orwellian statement. Up is down. Left is right. Dogs are cats, and according to Dr. Scott, a proper vaccinated versus unvaccinated study is unethical. That's why we're in this mess. That's why we have an autism and chronic disease epidemic in this country.

Senator Johnson (01:34:09):

Dr. Scott, first, we have Dr. Scott respond to that.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:34:13):

Yeah. I'd be very surprised if you went through all 661 trials. We haven't even conducted the full analysis yet, but once-

Senator Johnson (01:34:24):

I think Mr. Siri has.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:34:24):

Yes, so he should join our team.

Dr. Toby Rogers (01:34:25):

He started.

Senator Johnson (01:34:25):

You see, he's got a pretty crack team doing that.

Aaron Siri (01:34:29):

If you let me make the decisions, I'll join your team.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:34:32):

Let's do it. Let's team up. So, first of all, this is a work in progress. Hopefully it'll be published, and once it's published, I welcome any feedback, for sure. In terms of how we defined controls, that has not been publicized yet because we haven't published this, but we did break it down between inert placebos that were biologically inert and placebos that were immunologically inert. So, biologically inert placebos primarily include saline or buffer or water. So, there are certainly many studies that met that criteria. Then there are adjuvant-only controls. So, we separated all that.

Senator Johnson (01:35:20):

But again, the whole point of the 661 studies was to prove Secretary Kennedy wrong when he never said… I don't know the exact statement, but there's never been any vaccines on the childhood schedule that have had a true random control.

Aaron Siri (01:35:34):

I have a quote here if you'd like.

Senator Johnson (01:35:34):

Yeah, go ahead.

Aaron Siri (01:35:35):

Oh, sure. So, Secretary Kennedy said this was the CNN article reported, that, "76 shots that children in this country receive," meaning routine-injected vaccines on the CDC schedule, "None of them have been safety tested in pre-licensure studies against the placebo." In response to that, the CNN article quotes Scott is saying that made Dr. Scott's ears perk up." Scott, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford University, knew that the assertions couldn't be true. Now, he says he has the proof. Meaning, Dr. Scott "knew the assertion couldn't be true before he even looked and did it." So whatever he is planning to publish, obviously, he had his a priori belief beforehand.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:36:17):

I was familiar with the body of evidence. I wasn't aware that there were going to be 1,088.

Aaron Siri (01:36:23):

Well, then why not start with the clinical trials that are actually published by the FDA and relied upon to license each vaccine?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:36:28):

We've included those as well.

Senator Johnson (01:36:30):

So again, the problem with this discussion debate is it just gets into a lot of detail, and you have accusations going back and forth and assertions made back and forth. It is very difficult to follow. Okay? Again, I personally think that Mr. Siri did a pretty good job of taking that 661 studies apart, but I want to go back to something that's, again, a little bit easier for us laypeople to contemplate, and go back to numbers. I'm an econ. I like numbers. In your testimony, you talk about the CDC estimates, where I think the final number that I'm dealing with is a study that said the CDC, between 1994 and 2023, that vaccine saved 1.1 million lives in America. So again, I'm just working with numbers here now. So, let's take the 1.1 million. I'm comparing to the 154 million. I'm trying to make sense of these numbers.

(01:37:26)
So if there's 154 million lives saved over 50 years, according to the WHO, CDC is saying, "Well, it's 1.1 million here in America over 30 years." So, I started doing the extrapolations because, again, these numbers aren't science, so just they're models. So, let me continue the model. 1.4 million or 4% of the world's population, that'd be 27.5 million lives saved according to CDC worldwide, just based extrapolating our share population. That's over 30 years. So, divide that by 30 come up per year. It's about 910,000 times 50 years. That's about 46 million worldwide. So, there's discrepancy right there between what the CDC is saying lives saved. Again, they're just making this up. They're just creating some model that is highly biased toward their viewpoint.

(01:38:21)
The World Health Organization says 154 million. Gain, I think Mr. Siri did a pretty good job of picking that propaganda apart. That's what it is. It's propaganda. It's not science. It's propaganda, but let's dig a little bit further. In that CDC study, the way they get 1.1 million lives saved is basically off of three diseases, diphtheria, hepatitis B, and measles. Mr. Siri does an excellent job of laying out some basic numbers that are hard to refute. So, let's go through them. Diphtheria, about 750,000 of that 1.1 million. By the way, those three diseases come for about 84% of the 1.1 million lives saved according to the CDC. So, how do they calculate that?

(01:39:11)
Well, they say that diphtheria, they saved about 750,000 lives over 30 years. That's 25,000 lives a year is what they're claiming to save with vaccines preventing diphtheria dips. The problem with that number is in 1948, when the first vaccine was licensed for diphtheria, the actual death was 634 per year. But let's, by the way, put up the diphtheria chart here. I think we have it on the video as well, don't we?

Aaron Siri (01:39:51):

This is the first.

Senator Johnson (01:39:54):

So, the first diphtheria vaccine was put in use in 1929, was it?

Aaron Siri (01:40:00):

It was 1926, Senator.

Senator Johnson (01:40:04):

1926. But the first licensed vaccine was 1948.

Aaron Siri (01:40:07):

Well, so between 1900 and 1926, the mortality from diphtheria.

Senator Johnson (01:40:13):

Oh, I'm getting to that.

Aaron Siri (01:40:15):

The first licensed or the licensed vaccine was in 1926, but it was rarely used. Between 1926 and the '40s, the mortality declined at the same rate in areas that used it, mostly major cities.

Senator Johnson (01:40:27):

So by the time the first vaccine was widely used to obtain licensure-

Aaron Siri (01:40:31):

1949 was the first licensure of DTP.

Senator Johnson (01:40:33):

The death rate had already declined by 97.8%.

Aaron Siri (01:40:37):

When routine vaccine really began in 1929.

Senator Johnson (01:40:41):

By '26, it already declined by about 80 some percent.

Aaron Siri (01:40:44):

Between-

Senator Johnson (01:40:45):

Well, it wasn't from a vaccine. That's from improved sanitation. We weren't living in squalor. There's better nutrition. There's a host of reasons why diphtheria dramatically was reduced in terms of race per hundred thousand. So by the time we really started widely using diphtheria vaccine in 1948, we'd already reduced the rate fatality of-

Aaron Siri (01:41:07):

Mortality had declined by over 97%, and none of that-

Senator Johnson (01:41:08):

By 98%.

Aaron Siri (01:41:10):

Virtually, none of that had to do with vaccine. It couldn't have been.

Senator Johnson (01:41:12):

But again, that year, there were 634 deaths.

Aaron Siri (01:41:16):

That's right.

Senator Johnson (01:41:17):

The CDC is saying, "We're saving 25,000 deaths a year of diphtheria." So, that's the most stark example of this. Hepatitis B, they're claiming 3, 000 lives saved per year. But in 1980, when that vaccine-

Aaron Siri (01:41:35):

First vaccine, 1981.

Senator Johnson (01:41:37):

… first came about, there were about 294 deaths. It's actually increased now that we've got the vaccine out there.

Aaron Siri (01:41:41):

It's about 1,700 deaths a year now. So, the number of deaths have gone up, but they're claiming 3,000 lives saved somehow.

Senator Johnson (01:41:47):

So for measles, they're claiming about 2,700 deaths per year. 1963, prior years to the release of that vaccine, there are about 400 deaths per year

Aaron Siri (01:41:56):

About-

Senator Johnson (01:41:57):

So, in total, if you add up those three illnesses,

Senator Johnson (01:42:00):

A total of 30,700 lives claimed saved per year for those three illnesses, whereas the death rate of the year of basically use of vaccines total 1,328. So they're literally claiming a 23-fold increase of lives saved over the actual death count when the vaccines came about. So again, there's all these claims, 154 million, 1.1 million, the numbers simply don't add up. And what's very clear, we could actually put up the measles chart, you can do that in the… The same basic dynamic. By the time we actually had a measles vaccine, there was a 98% reduction in the rate of mortality with measles.

Aaron Siri (01:42:51):

With increasing population.

Senator Johnson (01:42:53):

Again, that's write in the book, Dissolving Illusions. Improved sanitation, improved nutrition, I mean antibiotics, treatment, which is a big problem with me with COVID, that we sabotaged treatment, we ignored treatment, and put everything toward the COVID injection. But anyway, I think that's a point that needs to be made. What actually brought down the rate of death in these infectious disease, sure, vaccines might've provide the tail end of that, right? But the bulk of the reduction of those diseases occurred well before vaccines ever became popularized, correct, Mr. Siri?

Aaron Siri (01:43:29):

Absolutely. And overstating the benefits of a medical product is just as dangerous as overstating its risks, and they overstate the benefits, based on this data, by numerous folds. There's a few other points regarding that, if you'd like me to address them.

Senator Blumenthal (01:43:49):

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just by way of explanation, I voted, and we have another hearing going on in the Judiciary Committee, on internet safety. For the parents in this room, when you're done here, if you want to come over to the subcommittee of the Judiciary chaired by Senator Blackburn of Tennessee, we're looking at ways that the internet and social media can be made safer for children, the kids Online Safety Act. And I say that by way of explanation for my absence, I do apologize, but I think maybe we have some common ground on stopping toxic content that's driven to children by big tech. Just as, by the way, I have urged and demanded, and taken action to stop some of the abuses in Big Pharma, and the chairman and I have talked about ways to reduce the prices of Big Pharma. I'm working with Senator Cornyn on a measure that would lower prices of pharmaceutical drugs by eliminating some of the abuses.

(01:44:57)
So I just want to make clear, I'm not here as an advocate for Big Pharma. I don't think anyone would ever say that I was. I want to come back to maybe a little bit of science here. Dr. Scott, what would happen if we stop routine childhood vaccines?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:45:21):

Well, we know that there would be outbreaks of preventable illness and death.

Senator Blumenthal (01:45:29):

And maybe you can expand a little bit. Why is it that unvaccinated children, who, say, come down with measles can lead to outbreaks in schools, in communities around the country? I know it sounds like a simple, common sense question, but I'm not a scientist, and I'm asking questions because I'm curious.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:45:57):

Yeah, so these are contagious diseases, and they can spread to people who either weren't able to get vaccinated, or who didn't get vaccinated, or who are severely immunocompromised.

Senator Blumenthal (01:46:09):

And that's substantiated by studies and by real-life experience, most recently in Texas, correct?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:46:15):

Correct. Yeah, vaccines have definitely played a role in helping to stop these outbreaks. I don't know how that could be denied.

Senator Blumenthal (01:46:28):

Correct. And you have recently launched a project to document all of the randomized control trials that have been conducted by licensed vaccines. Could you talk a little bit about what that project has revealed?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:46:43):

Yeah, I think that you might've missed some of our discussion, but-

Senator Blumenthal (01:46:47):

Again, I apologize to you, as I do to everyone here.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:46:49):

No problem. Yeah, and let me just say that the scientific evidence supporting vaccine safety and efficacy really represents one of the most extensive bodies of medical research ever assembled. And so we screened thousands of studies online, and we cataloged 1,088 randomized control trials that were published between 1941 and 2025, from around the world, covering vaccines from adenovirus to Zika virus. These are all publicly accessible, and transparency is built in by design. On our Google spreadsheet that is accessible to everyone with internet access, there are links that you can click on to see the primary source. And so across seven decades of trials, we found no evidence of suppression. And the challenge really is the sheer volume, not access to data. There are a lot of studies out there. There are a lot of poor quality studies out there that published, even no matter how bad they are. There is a massive amount of studies out there, especially around COVID vaccines.

Senator Blumenthal (01:48:05):

And the ones that are not published are available, are they not? It's available, studies are available even if they're not published.

Dr. Jake Scott (01:48:17):

Well, I mean this one wasn't.

Senator Blumenthal (01:48:20):

And others as well, correct? There are links to them. They're available to people who ask about them, who want to make them public?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:48:28):

Yeah, there are pre-prints. Yeah. But for the most part, it's not that hard to get a study published somewhere. I mean, there are thousands of vaccine studies.

Senator Blumenthal (01:48:37):

Mr. Siri, we've been talking about medical issues. You're not a medical doctor, are you?

Aaron Siri (01:48:44):

No, sir.

Senator Blumenthal (01:48:46):

And you're not an immunologist or biologist, or any kind of-

Aaron Siri (01:48:51):

Or vaccinologist, no, but I depose them regularly, including the world's leading ones, with regards to vaccines, and I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court, with regards to vaccines. I don't get to rely on titles.

Senator Blumenthal (01:49:02):

Okay. But you're not a doctor?

Aaron Siri (01:49:12):

No, I actually, I prefer not to be a doctor because I prefer to rely on the evidence, not slogans like we've been hearing.

Senator Blumenthal (01:49:19):

Okay. Let me ask you, have you spoken to Secretary Kennedy about his decision to approve COVID-19, or limit the approval and availability of COVID-19 vaccine?

Aaron Siri (01:49:39):

No, sir.

Senator Blumenthal (01:49:40):

You have not, okay. Have you spoken to him about the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program?

Aaron Siri (01:49:51):

I do not recall.

Senator Blumenthal (01:49:53):

You have represented him, correct?

Aaron Siri (01:49:55):

Yeah, I represented him when he was running for President of the United States of America. I represented him during that period, to get him off ballots across the country. I've represented him in some other capacities. I've also co-counseled with him in many cases, for almost a decade.

Senator Blumenthal (01:50:10):

Have you been under consideration to be part of his team at HHS?

Aaron Siri (01:50:14):

I have not put my name into be part of the government. I respectfully prefer to be outside of government.

Senator Blumenthal (01:50:24):

Mr. Rogers, I understand your degree is in political economy, correct?

Dr. Toby Rogers (01:50:31):

Correct. As I imagine you know, to earn a PhD, one must make an original contribution to knowledge that is verified by external peer review, that's the degree that I have. And unfortunately, these days, medical school is just a glorified trade school for people trained to obey the pharmaceutical industry. Now, trade schools can be great, but Western allopathic medicine has completely lost its way. But I'm a doctor of philosophy in social sciences.

Senator Blumenthal (01:51:03):

Okay. I guess we've established your views on the medical profession. I'm curious, I don't know the answer to this question. In some of your Twitter posts, you said, and I'm quoting, "You people are all going to spend eternity in hell. Nuremberg two first, then hell." What did you mean by that?

Dr. Toby Rogers (01:51:38):

Thank you for the question, Senator. I believe that we are in the midst of one of the greatest crimes in human history. We have a product being injected into children 70-plus times over the course of their development that's never been tested against a proper saline placebo. Over that course of that time period, chronic illness in this country has gone from 10% of children having one or more chronic conditions, to now more than 50% of children having one or more chronic conditions. Secretary Kennedy in the hearing that was last week, said that the latest data from the CDC says that 76% of Americans now have one or more chronic conditions, and I believe that lots of these chronic conditions stem from iatrogenic injury.

(01:52:37)
We have 3 million children with autism. Back in 1970, the rate was so low that it was essentially zero. I'm outraged by that, and I think every person in this room should be outraged by that. I don't know how to say it anymore clearly, that we need to change course in this country. And I am terribly disappointed by the medical profession. In the social sciences, there's this term called epistemic capture, which is when the entire knowledge production process becomes captured by one industry, and that's what's happened with science and medicine. So I think we need to change course, and I think the people who have covered up the autism epidemic, and the epidemics of iatrogenic injury, should be held to account for their actions.

Senator Blumenthal (01:53:27):

Are you comparing… Again, I'm holding up a copy of the tweet, I'm sure you recognize it. "You people are all going to spend eternity in hell. Nuremberg two." And in another tweet you made, I think, fairly clear that you thought Nuremberg two referred to executions, and then you said "If we could hit those sorts of numbers," meaning the numbers of executions following the Holocaust, "When pharma fails, we would be doing great." I think the inevitable conclusion there is that you're calling for the execution of people.

Dr. Toby Rogers (01:54:18):

I think that's overstated. I think you're putting words in my mouth. Respectfully, Senator-

Senator Blumenthal (01:54:21):

I'm asking the question.

Dr. Toby Rogers (01:54:22):

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. I appreciate that. So look, let's put it in the context of COVID. I've already talked about autism, let's talk about COVID. The state, however you define that, the military, CDC, Tony Fauci, Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina created a weaponized virus, correct? Gain of function research. They contracted it out to China, and it caused a pandemic around the world once it was released. The government created a weaponized virus that then got out and caused a global pandemic. When are we going to have accountability for that? I generally don't understand why government officials are allowed to engage in gain of function-

Senator Blumenthal (01:55:16):

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just quoting your words.

Dr. Toby Rogers (01:55:19):

I would to have accountability for the COVID era, and I'd like to have accountability for the fact that the CDC has known since 1999 that vaccines cause autism, and they've covered it up for 26 years. How do we begin to have accountability? You want to call it something different, truth commissions, criminal trials, I would welcome that.

Senator Blumenthal (01:55:41):

You're comparing the COVID-19 vaccine to the Holocaust.

Dr. Toby Rogers (01:55:43):

Sir, respectfully-

Senator Blumenthal (01:55:52):

I will ask that these posts be entered in the record, if there's no objection.

Senator Johnson (01:55:59):

No objection. Okay, I want to move on.

Dr. Toby Rogers (01:56:05):

May I respond?

Senator Johnson (01:56:05):

Let me put up a chart to show why there are people that are horribly frustrated.

Senator Blumenthal (01:56:10):

I thought I had the floor.

Senator Johnson (01:56:11):

No, you went to over four minutes for your seven, so I already gave you like 11, 12 minutes there, so you're done.

Senator Blumenthal (01:56:17):

I thought we had all the time in the world.

Senator Johnson (01:56:19):

You can, once I do my seven minutes, then you'll get seven minutes again.

Senator Blumenthal (01:56:22):

Well, I'm going to go back, and I invite anyone who's interested in internet safety, which is harming children, to attend the hearing of the subcommittee that I'm going to return to. I want to thank the witnesses, in case I don't have the opportunity to come back, thank the witnesses for participating. Everyone who is here, thank you for being here. And I'm sure we will have additional to air the issues that we've addressed here, and I hope that the corruption of science truly will end. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Johnson (01:57:04):

Let's quick put up chart number six. Again, I'm just kind of laying out why people are outraged, because people haven't been held accountable. This is a history of autism. This is a chart showing from, again, hard to see, but with CDC numbers starting in around 2000, from one in 150, to now one in 31. According to your testimony, back in 1970, it might've been one in 10,000, a little less certain than using CDC numbers, but there's been an explosion. What are we doing about it? Who's asleep at the wheel? Who's trying to determine what caused this? As Dr. Chris Palmer said, when it comes to chronic illness, and I'd throw autism in there, they don't want the root causes discovered. That's why people are outraged. That's why people may put on Twitter things that they may regret later. Let's put up the next chart, number three. This is probably my most censored chart. Dr. Scott, were you aware that worldwide on VAERS, we've reported 38,742 deaths worldwide associated with the COVID vaccine? Were you aware of that carnage?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:58:24):

I'm not aware of that figure in particular.

Senator Johnson (01:58:27):

In America, I believe the number 19,000, correct? Again-

Dr. Jake Scott (01:58:34):

But VAERS does not prove causality.

Senator Johnson (01:58:37):

Oh, I've heard that time and time again. So let's take a look at the bottom figure down here. Of those 38,000 deaths, 9,252, 23.9%, let's call it 24%, occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days. I know that doesn't prove causation, but man, that's a correlation that we ought to look at. Do you know to what extent VAERS is reported to understate adverse events? Do you have any idea? Have you ever seen any studies on that?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:59:10):

I'm sorry, what's the question?

Senator Johnson (01:59:12):

To what extent does VAERS underreport adverse events? Again, it's a pain to report something to VAERS, okay. Doctors are busy, it takes half-hour, 45 minutes, a lot of people don't know about it, so the vast majority of adverse events from a vaccine or a drug doesn't get reported to VAERS. So again, they've actually done studies on this. Do you know what percent actually get reported versus what doesn't get reported?

Dr. Jake Scott (01:59:37):

No.

Senator Johnson (01:59:38):

Somewhere between one to 10%, correct, Mr. Siri?

Aaron Siri (01:59:41):

No, it's less than 1% according to an AHRQ-funded study of Harvard researchers and Harvard [inaudible 01:59:47].

Senator Johnson (01:59:46):

So if it's less than 1%… Let's just use US figures, okay? By the way, what is this, 17,000 or 19,000 US deaths? It's close. Okay, it's one of those, 17 or 19,000 deaths reported in the US based on VAERS. If we are only recording one out of 100, that would mean deaths from the vaccine would start between like 170,000 in the US. Again, that's out of that kind of reporting ratio. This is why people are outraged. And what people are denying, they're not denying the potential effectiveness of vaccines. I think most of us think, "Yeah, they probably work to a certain extent," okay? What they're denying are the vaccine injuries, the injection injuries. Mr. Scott, how much do you know about the mRNA technology?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:00:47):

A fair amount.

Senator Johnson (02:00:49):

So is the mRNA that's encapsulating the lipid nanoparticles, is that true mRNA?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:00:56):

Is it a true mRNA?

Senator Johnson (02:00:58):

I mean, true mRNA, you're a master in RNA, degrades very rapidly in the body, correct?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:01:05):

Correct.

Senator Johnson (02:01:06):

So the mRNA in the injection, is it true mRNA? Does it degrade rapidly in the body? Do you not know?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:01:17):

I do know. Yes it does, but it sounds-

Senator Johnson (02:01:19):

No, it does not. It's modified. It's modified mRNA, and it's designed not to degrade, and there are studies that show it sticks around the body. We don't know how long. The lipid nanoparticle, do you realize that it was designed to permeate difficult to permeate barriers, like the blood-brain, like the center barrier? Did you know that? Did you believe when Fauci told us that the mRNA shot would stay in the arm, did you believe that? It's a simple yes or no? I mean, do you believe the COVID injection stayed in everybody's arm? Do you believe that's what happened?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:02:01):

Primarily.

Senator Johnson (02:02:02):

You think so, huh? Were you aware of the Japanese FOIA of the study that was conducted at biodistribution, where in rats, it's biodistrubted all over the body, accumulate in the adrenal glands, in the ovaries? Because the lipid nanoparticle is designed to permeate difficult to permeate barriers, they knew, the designers knew, and they did a study they would biodistribute all over the body, but our CDC, Anthony Fauci, said it was going to stick in the arm. Now, do you know what the mRNA does? It's not a traditional vaccine, is it? Do you realize that? It's not an attenuated or a dead virus, it's messenger RNA, modified RNA, this encapsulated a lipid nanoparticle that distributes all over the body. And when it attaches to a cell, it unloads its mRNA into the cell, and turns the cell into a manufacturing cell of a protein that is toxic to it. Do you realize that? Are you aware of that? I mean, just yes or no? I mean, do you know that or not? Because I talked to a lot of doctors who don't have a clue.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:03:24):

I know a fair amount about the mRNA vaccines. Do I know about all of these studies that you're referring to, no.

Senator Johnson (02:03:31):

Again, this isn't a study, this is the basic operation, do you know how it works? It doesn't appear like you do.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:03:39):

Well, I just don't-

Senator Johnson (02:03:39):

So again, why would we have almost 1.7 million adverse events, dramatically understating it? Why would we have that number of deaths? It's because these little lipid nanoparticles are distributed all over the body. They're attaching to cells. They're turning cells, like a heart cell, into a manufacturing site for the lipid, for the spike protein, which is toxic, and the body attacks it. It causes inflammation, that's what myocarditis is. And the designers of the injection knew it, and Anthony Fauci knew it, and he lied. That's why somebody like Mr. Rogers, Dr. Rogers, gets so upset and is outraged by the cover-up of this. That's the problem here. I've got a lot more to say. Have you heard, do you know anything about, for example, the DNA contamination that's being reported? I want to enter into the record the McKernan study, just recently released, without objection. There's no way to object. Again, have you heard about this, that there's DNA contamination in, particularly the Pfizer? You're aware of that?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:04:55):

Yes. And the levels are-

Senator Johnson (02:04:57):

Do you know at what levels it exceeds the FDA recommended amounts?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:05:03):

No.

Senator Johnson (02:05:04):

36 to 627 times. The allowed amount is 10 nanograms per dose, and this research paper shows it's 36 to 627 times higher than that. Does that concern you?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:05:24):

Yeah. If that's a legitimate finding, yes. That's not the information that I've been aware of.

Senator Johnson (02:05:30):

But it saves 3.2 million lives. No, it didn't. It's impossible. That's entirely possible. Okay, so I got the McKernan study there. How about Dennis Rancourt's study, are you aware of that one? It's a model.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:05:51):

No.

Senator Johnson (02:05:51):

But it's a model of, I think, 17 equatorial and south hemisphere countries, whose excess all-cause mortality was highly correlated to the uptake in the vaccine. So based off that study, their data, he estimates 17 million people died of the COVID injection. 17 million. I don't know, it's a model. It's like the 154 million, it's like the 3.2 million, it's like the 2.5 million, all those numbers that are confidently spewed, this study gets no reaction. I've entered that in the record.

(02:06:34)
Mr. Siri, I want to ask you, the 1986 law set up a task force. It was disbanded in 1998. It was supposed to produce reports on how to improve vaccine safety. How many of those reports were ever produced to Congress?

Aaron Siri (02:06:56):

So the mandate for safer childhood vaccines, which you're referring to in the 1986 act, the third section, that three parts, required a biannual report to Congress that explained how HHS, in which the FDA, CDC, NIH are all located, made vaccines safer. In the prior two years, the total number of reports since 1986 are zero. Zero, never been submitted. The second part of the mandate for safer childhood vaccines creates a task force, which you just mentioned, Senator. That task force is comprised of the head of the NIH, CDC, and FDA, and they're supposed to make recommendations on how to make vaccines safer, to the Secretary of HHS. That task force made one set of recommendations in 1998, and then was disbanded, and has now been, under Secretary Kennedy, put together.

(02:07:44)
The first part of the mandate, if I may add, is what actually requires HHS to make vaccines safer, right? Because they made the pharma companies immune to liability, they took away the normal market forces that would drive them to actually engage in safety, recognizing that Congress, in its wisdom, at least in that part, was wise, it made HHS responsible for vaccine safety. And of course, if HHS is not doing the simple parts of the mandate for safer childhood vaccines, which underpins all of vaccine safety in this country, of putting biennial reports to Congress, of having a task force, you think they're doing the hard part in part one? Of course not.

Senator Johnson (02:08:26):

Talk about V-safe. Switching gears, kind of sticking to COVID. You're the one that had to sue. I think one of the interesting, I think actually, the very last sentence in Dr. Scott's testimony is, let find it, "The data are public."

Aaron Siri (02:08:52):

Yeah, the data certainly are not public. First of all, when it comes to the clinical trials for each vaccine, we've had to sue the FDA to get the underlying clinical trial reports for most of them. We've sued for the Varivax vaccine, for the hep B vaccine, for many of them, and for the COVID vaccine. That's not public.

Senator Johnson (02:09:07):

Real quick, let me go back to V-safe.

Aaron Siri (02:09:08):

Sorry, V-safe-

Senator Johnson (02:09:10):

Dr. Rogers, isn't it true that even peer reviewers don't get to look at the data of studies? That's common?

Dr. Toby Rogers (02:09:23):

Right.

Senator Johnson (02:09:24):

Generally true? I mean, what is the truth, in terms of how often researchers actually make the raw data available?

Dr. Toby Rogers (02:09:31):

I mean, a proper study should make the data available, that's a norm, but that doesn't happen in the case of vaccines.

Senator Johnson (02:09:38):

I mean, part of the problem with that, the Anderson et all study in Denmark, that's being touted that aluminum is not a problem, is people questioning cannot get the data, even though it's already been de-identified, correct?

Aaron Siri (02:09:52):

I mean, that's true of the-

Senator Johnson (02:09:54):

And by the way, the data safety link.

Aaron Siri (02:09:56):

Yeah, the VSD, the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Senator Johnson (02:09:58):

What happened to that? How available is that right now?

Aaron Siri (02:10:01):

It's not. In 2000, up until 2000, it was part of the CDC, and you could get access to it through a FOIA. A number of people did publish studies the CDC didn't like, didn't fit the policy about vaccines, and so they then shifted it over to a trade association, to get it out of the reach of the Freedom of Information Act and others, so it's been distributed. You can't. You can't get access to VSD.

Senator Johnson (02:10:24):

It's not exactly transparency, is it?

Aaron Siri (02:10:26):

It's actually literally… It's not only is it not transparent, you cannot get the data underlying VSD studies. They published like the data for two of them, which is antithetical to health science. You can't do reproducibility. Not only that, it's selection bias, because if you want to do a study, it has to go through CDC's clearing process actually, which means that only studies that conform with this policy, that vaccines are safe, are going to get published.

Senator Johnson (02:10:47):

So let's talk about the V-safe, which was established for the COVID injection. 10 million people voluntarily signed up. I mean, I think what they report is completely inadequate. But talk about how you had to sue, and how long it took you to get the data from what was supposed to be the transparent safety surveillance system, and then what the results were. Could you just quick, tell that story?

Aaron Siri (02:11:10):

Yeah. Over two years, actually collectively, almost three years of litigation it took, V-safe was a safety system rolled out in December, 2020, along with the release of the first COVID vaccine. Up until that point, CDC touted VAERS, and they said, "Well, VAERS isn't reliable, we're going to have V-safe." V safe, they said, was a robust, rapid way to identify safety issues with COVID- 19 vaccine. 10 million Americans signed up very rapidly, over about six months. These were the vaccine enthusiasts, who got the vaccine from December, 2020, and about 9 million in those first six months. And they got a form to fill out every day for seven days after the shot, then every week, for six weeks, and then three times after that. On that form, we checked the boxes. There were basically two types of check boxes. The first checked box was for symptoms, but the symptoms that the CDC chose to include were the ones that they say are normal and fine after the vaccine, and they only collect that for seven days, what they call reactogenicity.

(02:12:06)
They're good, they show the vaccine is working, you're having an immune response, so that data was completely irrelevant for assessing safety. In fact, they reported 60, 70% of people reporting having that, and the CDC said, "Great." That leaves only one other check-the-box data that was actually worthwhile, and that was folks seeking hospital care, missing school or work, and not performing normal daily activities. While what the CDC was doing, is they were pumping out study after study after study that only showed the first week after the shot for those three categories. Well, we wanted to see the full data set. My client, the Informed Consent Action Network, wanted to see the full data set, so we said to the CDC, "Hey, this stuff's totally de-identified, just release it. It's literally sitting there in files, you could release it in two minutes."

(02:12:50)
It took us almost two lost federal lawsuits, a year and a half of litigation, two years of litigation almost, to get that data. And when we did, it was clear why the CDC wanted to hide it. It wanted to hide it because what it showed was 7.7% of these vaccine enthusiasts reported needing medical care that they attributed most likely to the vaccine after getting the COVID shot. 7.7, that's one in 13. And on average, they sought medical care two to three times each. You don't go to seek medical care two to three times each. And 75% of those were hospitalization, emergency room, or urgent care. So these were serious issues. And that was the only data point that V-safe could possibly have used to actually assess safety. If one in 13 seeking medical care, on average, two to three times each of the manner I just described is not enough to pull the plug, it was clear V-safe was not designed to assess safety.

(02:13:45)
V-safe was designed to affirm its a priori belief this shot was safe. If it wanted to make V-safe actually a system that would assess safety, it would've added, for example, a check-the-box for chest pain, right, so they can assess myocarditis. It could have added a check-the-box for the numerous adverse events of special interest that its own V-safe protocol identified two months before it rolled out, including myocarditis, pericarditis, all the issues we ended up, blood clotting, we ended up seeing. From the clinical trial apparently, it knew that these could potentially be issues. It put it in the design documents, but it never made it into the actual system itself. V-safe was not designed. It's the closest thing to mens rea, purposeful intent, to design this system to assure that it would never actually show a safety issue. I don't think they expected that many people to report seeking medical care.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:14:44):

Can I add something?

Senator Johnson (02:14:45):

Sure.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:14:46):

Thanks. I just want to emphasize that the last thing I want do is cause any harm. The last thing I want to do is anyone… The last thing I want is for anyone to be harmed by a vaccine. If there is a vaccine safety issue, I want it to be detected. And there are multiple overlapping layers of monitoring systems that I do think work pretty well. Are they perfect? No. But when it comes to de-identifying data, and all that, it's a little complicated, but there are a number of other data monitoring systems. But it's just really important that we understand that there is not some grand conspiracy amongst the CDC, FDA, EMA. I mean, around the entire world, thousands of scientists and doctors and public health experts, you really believe are conspiring for the sake of helping pharmaceutical industries profit?

Senator Johnson (02:15:59):

I

(02:15:59)
I think

Senator Johnson (02:16:02):

I think-

Aaron Siri (02:16:02):

May I respond to that.

Senator Johnson (02:16:02):

I think this is a case example of why that happens is because if you conduct a study and get the results that runs counter to their interests, they'll destroy you. I mean, again, I had Dr. Peter McCullough, I had Dr. Pierre Corey had a bunch of other people come before Congress testify truthfully, their careers were destroyed. They were destroyed. It doesn't take too many people to be targeted and made an example of before everybody else kind of goes, "I don't think I'll step out of line." And so I think that's again, the sympathy shown by Mr. Bigtree and Mr. Siri in terms of the people that they convinced to do the study, they didn't basically want to rat them out. I'm the one that ratted them out, and so I forced him along here. Okay. And I hope, God, I truthfully hope because I think the people who did those studies, doctor… what is it?

Aaron Siri (02:17:01):

Dr. Zervos.

Senator Johnson (02:17:04):

Again, I don't want to see them lose their job. I'd like to pin a medal on them in terms of good, you conducted a great study. Shame on you for not publishing it. But we understand because we know you probably would've had your career destroyed all those years in medical schools. All the lives that you save when you treat patients, you won't be able to do anymore because the certification bureaus the boards. They will destroy your career. Again, I've seen it. I know the people. It happened during COVID. So yeah, I mean, is it grand conspiracy? I don't know what you call it. It's certainly what I would call the COVID cartel and the medical establishment cartel and captured agencies. Yeah. That absolutely exists. Okay. You don't think so?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:17:55):

No, I don't. I mean, I love people. I love my patients. I try to give them the best care that I can provide them. I discuss the risks and benefits. I discuss the risks and benefits of every vaccine or every intervention. I have a nuanced conversation with them. I don't shame them no matter what their views are.

Senator Johnson (02:18:16):

Do you think doctors should have been fired for prescribing ivermectin? Do you think they should have had their certification taken away from them? Do you think they should have been sued? Do you think that should happen to doctors? By the way, ivermectin hydroxychloroquine are all FDA approved and you as a physician have full off-label prescription rights, correct?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:18:35):

Correct.

Senator Johnson (02:18:36):

So again, do you believe, do you think it was right that doctors who prescribed ivermectin were fired, were decertified, lost their license. Do you think that should have happened?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:18:47):

I don't have an opinion about that.

Senator Johnson (02:18:48):

You really don't, huh?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:18:51):

No. I've never thought about it.

Senator Johnson (02:18:55):

Think about it now and come and by the way, I truly want you to come back.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:19:00):

I would love to. This has been a real pleasure.

Senator Johnson (02:19:03):

Okay, swear in the Bible. We're going to have you come back with Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Corey and Brian Cole. Might even have Dr. Malone, which by the way, don't leave because I think I'm going to ask consent to have you come up and defend yourself seeing as you were slandered in this hearing. I think we're kind of running the course here. I mean, I could keep going. I would recommend everybody watching the hearing. This will be posted Mr. Ceres response to Dr. Scott's testimony. I think it's important. I think it's insightful, but what I will do is I'll give all three witnesses an opportunity to just make some concluding remarks.

Aaron Siri (02:19:42):

If I may just address a number of things that were said that I think are important to address just on the record. I appreciate that opportunity. In terms of the Henry Ford study, first I'd like to just say that the scientists that engage in the study should be given incredible credit for having the fortitude to at least do the study. Now, maybe they didn't go through it at the end of the day and publish it because they don't want to lose their jobs, and it got the result they didn't expect.

(02:20:09)
But they at least went and did it, which I could say is far more than I could say for most scientists that I've tried to interact with. In terms of the claim, with regards to, somebody asks, "Well, what did any journal say about it?" No journal had an opportunity because they don't want to get fired, though they themselves have reaffirmed it. And I litigate around studies all the time. I've read hundreds, thousands. You can watch my depositions regarding specific studies. In terms of a design of this study, this is probably one of the best design studies in the area of vaccines I've ever seen by far. And it is the best study that assesses the safety in vaccine.

Senator Johnson (02:20:45):

By the way, no study's perfect, it's hard to design these things.

Aaron Siri (02:20:50):

Absolutely.

Senator Johnson (02:20:51):

Give them that credit.

Aaron Siri (02:20:53):

But what they did is that unlike some of these other studies that play games or have basically vaccinated versus vaccinated studies, that's what most vaccine science is. I'm going to compare this person that got X amount of X and this one got X amount. And that's not what you should assess the safety of any product. You got to look at folks who got it versus those that don't. The other thing is that-

Senator Johnson (02:21:14):

By the way, the analogy I use on that is kind of like saying, "Well, we wanted to study the danger of arsenic. Let's compare it against hemlock."

Aaron Siri (02:21:22):

Yeah.

Senator Johnson (02:21:22):

Maybe not a perfect analogy, but it works.

Aaron Siri (02:21:25):

I'm going to do this. I'm going to look at 17 vaccines in this group, 16 and the other, and I'm going to say, C vaccines don't cause autism, for example. That's not a good way to assess whether vaccines do or do not cause autism as an example. Now, an issue kept being raised about ADHD. How could there be zero cases of ADHD in the unvaccinated group? First of all, I'd like to point out that there are issues in the unvaccinated population in this study. There are kids, for example, 52 children had asthma who were completely unvaccinated. So obviously there are other environmental insults that can harm children, not just vaccines. But when it comes to ADHD, and I have this in my submission, the underlying science on ADHD shows that it is a result of a form of immune system dysregulation.

(02:22:08)
ADHD is blamed on something going wrong on the immune system of our kids. And there is biological plausibility for precisely how vaccines could cause ADHD and why you might've ended up zero. And if Dr. Scott ever looked at some of the other studies out there that do have Vaxx on Vaxx, then they're smaller. They have not as robust as this, but they exist, one of them. They also found far higher rates of ADHD amongst the vaccinated population. In terms of biological plausibility, I will rest on my submissions where I go through each of these conditions cite to peer-reviewed science that shows the etiology often is some form of immune system issue and they can be caused by immune system-related issues. On the autism piece, on the null hypothesis, yes, there were 23 cases of autism in the vaccinated group.

(02:22:58)
There was one case of autism in the unvaccinated group in this study, back up until basically 2012, you could not diagnose and bill under the billing codes for ADHD and autism. You had to pick, okay? So most autism cases did end up in the ADHD category. Up until that time because that's how the DSM-IV was structured at the time. The DSM-V changed that system. And so the autism is probably within the ADHD category in this study, by the way. But putting that aside, one is that you've lost those to the ADHD category. And then two, if you don't have enough power, you can't reach a conclusion. The confidence interval crosses the one line on both sides. So could it be there's an increase reach, could even be a decreased risk. This study just can't tell you. That's all.

Senator Johnson (02:23:50):

I think it's fair to say, you take a look at that Henry Ford study, it's not perfect. It's not necessarily determinative. What it says is we ought to look at this more.

Aaron Siri (02:24:01):

Absolutely.

Senator Johnson (02:24:01):

We ought to take this seriously. It's a pretty high probability that heavy vaccination might lead to higher incidence of chronic illness. I mean, it says that. I mean, that seems to be indisputable. You can't read the whole thing as everything is gospel and this is black and white. The world is gray.

Aaron Siri (02:24:22):

And you were accused earlier of being cherry-picking that Commonwealth fund study. Though I will point out that is what Dr. Scott and the only study he put in the United States for using COVID vaccines.

Senator Johnson (02:24:33):

By the way that's been quoted here in these hearings before this, I kept going, "Where they getting this 3.2, what's that all about?" Well, I found out, and like I said, did my own arithmetic.

Aaron Siri (02:24:43):

And I appreciate Dr. Scott's anecdotal experience with COVID, but that's not the way we make scientific decisions. We have to look at the data. And I think when you look at the data, not on slogans, not on what people feel about these products, he might be… I have no doubt Mr. Scott Dr. Scott's a very nice guy. I don't know him. He might be a very nice gentleman.

Senator Johnson (02:25:04):

He's been a pretty good sport.

Aaron Siri (02:25:05):

And he's been a great sport and he's endured a lot here today. He has probably not been exposed to a lot of this data, inside information. And that's true of most doctors that I depose. I mean, your typical pediatrician or an ID doctor, excuse me, infectious disease doctor, when I depose them of vaccines, they know nothing. I mean, you put them through the ringer on COVID vaccines, but that's not what he's trained to know. He's not trained. It's not within his knowledge. It's not part of his training. It's not what his typical experience is, that's my experience with most doctors. Doesn't mean they're bad. They just don't know. And at the end of the day, I know that they're taught that there's this incredible body of science that underpins the safety of vaccines. I could tell you as somebody who has to litigate these products, that is just a slogan.

(02:25:50)
It is not true. And the fact that there are so many doctors who agree that that's true is of no moment. The fact that medical organizations say it is of no moment. The only thing that matters is what the evidence itself actually shows. And you can crowdsource as many clinical trials as you want from around the world, randomly haphazardly on some Excel file list on the internet. But that does not change what the actual clinical trials were that were relied upon to license each child the vaccine. And when you look at each one of those as we have done as we need to do for our work, they are disturbing. They do not affirm the safety of these products. There is not a single routine-injected child, the vaccine that was licensed based on a trial that affirmed its safety.

Senator Johnson (02:26:40):

Okay, thank you Mr. Siri. Mr. Rogers.

Dr. Toby Rogers (02:26:43):

Thank you, Senator Johnson, for organizing this hearing. I'm so grateful for your leadership in the Senate and across America. We're deeply indebted to you for your courage in the face of the wealthiest and most powerful industry in the history of the world. So let me explain how all this works. This is right in my wheelhouse. This is what I study. I follow the money. Autism is a political economy problem. These are all political economy problems. So let me explain how this works. Thus far, government has failed in response to the autism epidemic because of regulatory capture. Rather than protecting public health, regulators have advanced the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. That's pretty straightforward.

(02:27:26)
Science and medicine have failed in response to the autism epidemic because of epistemic capture. And what I mean by that is that the pharmaceutical industry has captured every step in the knowledge production process in science and medicine. Big Pharma controls what is studied, how it is researched, and what qualifies as evidence. Now this capture permeates every level of the system. Medical textbooks and curricula are influenced by financially conflicted academics. Universities and department chairs hold substantial pharmaceutical ties. Most clinical trials are conducted by for-profit contract research organizations in China and the Third World. A large share of scientific journal articles are ghostwritten.

(02:28:10)
The pharmaceutical industry spends over $27 billion annually on drug promotion and continuing medical education. Standards of care are authored by conflicted physicians. So from the first day of medical school to the final years of practice, doctors live inside an epistemic bubble engineered by the pharmaceutical industry to increase its profits. Senator Blumenthal and Dr. Scott only pay attention to captured science. Science that's controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. The correct answers, the best science is happening outside of that epistemic bubble. The entire system of knowledge production in science and medicine needs to be overhauled to liberate it from the biases and distortions imposed by the pharmaceutical industry. So just to wrap up, an estimated 115,000 children develop autism every year in the United States.

(02:29:08)
That means that 315 children develop autism every day in the US. Now, if Dr. Sally Osinoff's work is correct, and she's at UC Davis, she shows that 88% of autism cases are characterized by regression. So if she's right about that, and I think she is, that means that 277 children regress into autism every day in the United States. Now, regression suggests an acute toxic exposure, not genetics, not better awareness an acute toxic exposure, which means that most cases of autism are preventable. Autism is not a medical or scientific mystery. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that toxicants mostly from vaccines and about a dozen additional toxicants are causing autism. If we repeal the 1980 by Dole Act, the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and the 2005 Prep Act that would remove the structural incentives that created the autism epidemic in the chronic disease epidemics in this country. Thank you.

Senator Johnson (02:30:25):

Dr. Rogers. Now, we'll give you the last word on this panel. And again, you weather the storm. You've been a good sport about this. Appreciate it.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:30:40):

Thank you. And no, I appreciate debate. I do. I don't appreciate intimidation. Not that you are, but there has been a very alarming degree of threats against doctors and public health experts. I mean, I think that it's very important that we recognize the CDC shooting for what it was, and I hope that we can all agree that regardless of our beliefs and opinions about vaccine safety, that we don't send mobs looking for scientists and physicians. Okay? Can we all please agree on that?

Aaron Siri (02:31:33):

We can agree that you shouldn't characterize those that don't want to vaccinate as violent.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:31:36):

What's that?

Aaron Siri (02:31:37):

I can agree with that. I believe what you're trying to say is you're characterizing those who take issue with this product as violent, which is precisely what folks do when they don't agree with another person's position, they dehumanize them in that matter. So I don't agree on that score, but I of course abhor and always condemn violence from anybody.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:31:54):

Yeah. So I certainly don't characterize people who have skepticism or whatever you want to call it,

Aaron Siri (02:32:04):

You know exactly what you accusing them of.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:32:06):

No, I'm not referring to people who are skeptical of vaccines. I'm referring to people like Dr. Robert Malone. I'm referring to people like Toby Rogers who implies that people like me should be executed.

Aaron Siri (02:32:19):

I think that's completely false. I'll ask as his counsel for a second. He said there should be a trial. That's an opportunity to have evidence, that is not execution. That is a court proceeding. Though I am not acting as Dr. Rogers attorney at the moment.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:32:35):

So 20 days after Officer Rose was killed at the CDC leaving a young daughter and pregnant wife, Dr. Robert Malone, who currently sits on the ACIP and is sitting behind me, posted on X to his one million followers. "We know Fauci is hiding out in Siena, Italy, but where in the world is Leana Wen and Rochelle Walensky. Inquiring minds want to know." A sitting ACIP member asking for officials locations after targeted violence is not criticism. That's incitement. Johns Hopkins has documented that 57% of health departments reported harassment. JAMA published data on widespread physician threats. I myself received physician threats and I imagine that those will go up after this. Many officials have resigned from their positions.

(02:33:29)
CDC staff have described working in fear since the shooting. This is not scientific debate. That is intimidation. Okay? And when someone advising CDC on vaccine policy asks where in the world officials are hiding after a deadly attack, that crosses every line. These are doctors and epidemiologists with families, not enemies of the state, and they deserve to work without fearing for their lives. Okay? So that's one thing. Going back to the Henry Ford study, I would love to see more people look at this and analyze it. Okay? So let's put it out there. All right,

Senator Johnson (02:34:13):

Well that's better than your first position.

Aaron Siri (02:34:15):

We agree on that.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:34:17):

It shouldn't be suppressed. So I don't know why it was hidden for so long.

Aaron Siri (02:34:21):

I've explained that I think numerous times.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:34:22):

Yeah, I don't really buy that.

Aaron Siri (02:34:24):

You don't buy that-

Senator Johnson (02:34:26):

Let Dr. Scott make a statement.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:34:29):

Do you accept the study's null hypothesis or sorry, null finding for autism?

Aaron Siri (02:34:33):

Absolutely. It had a null finding for autism. Clearly that's what it found. I mean it was right there in the study, said 23 cases of autism in the vaccinated. One in the unvaccinated.

Senator Johnson (02:34:44):

And by the way, Mr. Siri, provided plausible explanation.

Aaron Siri (02:34:45):

And I explained exactly what it is. And it's exactly what it says. The data should say what the data says and unfortunately that's not what typically happens with vaccine science.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:34:54):

Okay, good. All right. So I also just want to say that we should all take autism seriously and we should all do everything we can to find the underlying cause. Okay? If there is a link between an ingredient in vaccines, I want to know about it.

Aaron Siri (02:35:09):

Why don't we just start with looking at the safety of the whole schedule, which is what this study does.

Senator Johnson (02:35:12):

Mr. Siri, let Dr. Scott finish, please.

Aaron Siri (02:35:14):

I apologize.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:35:15):

I will also say that vaccines in autism has been studied more intensely perhaps than any other question in public health. There was a Danish study that followed 1.2 million children for 24 years. No autism link. There was a meta-analysis of 1.25 million children. No link. Sibling studies that control for genetics. No link. Denmark removed thimerosal in 1991. Thimerosal was supposed to be the culprit, right? And then autism rates went up. The US removed it in 2003, rates continued to rise. Autism is approximately 80% heritable and develops in utero. So the apparent timing with vaccines likely reflects when symptoms become noticeable. Typically, when children have scheduled visits, that's correlation, not causation. Every major health authority, national Academies, CDC, WHO, Cochrane has examined this evidence and reached the same conclusion.

(02:36:11)
When independent research teams across different countries, populations and decades consistently find no link. That is pretty convincing to me. But we should continue to do what we can to find the true underlying cause. Now I see a lot of patients, I'm primarily a clinician. I don't know every study out there in the world, especially animal studies on mRNA in the brain. Okay? Laugh at me if you want. But I primarily see patients and when I talk to them, I give them the best information that I have so that they can make the best decisions for themselves. I don't tell them to get a vaccine or not. I have honest conversations with them. And I think that it's important to note that a lot of the patients that I see come to me having been misdiagnosed with something. I see a lot of patients who have chronic fatigue and a number of other symptoms.

(02:37:15)
I'm one of the few who's willing to see these people because a lot of other doctors aren't, to be honest. And I have deep respect and compassion for them. There are a number of people who suffer from conditions like autism, like chronic fatigue, and we do need to find the underlying cause. And I do not dismiss those very serious issues. But if we hang our hat on one thing, because we have this confirmation bias, we run the risk of totally detracting from actually finding the underlying cause. Okay? And then these people suffer unnecessarily. So yes, we need to do everything we can to optimize vaccine safety. There are a number of things we can do to improve our vaccine safety monitoring systems. No doubt. There are a number of things we can do to investigate the underlying causes of autism and everything else. But I do just want to just end by saying we need to be civil and we need to be respectful.

Senator Johnson (02:38:28):

Dr. Scott, first of all, I think I've been civil, respectful.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:38:31):

You have, I'm not accusing you.

Senator Johnson (02:38:32):

I will say-

Dr. Jake Scott (02:38:33):

I'm not accusing you.

Senator Johnson (02:38:34):

I don't hang my hat on anything other than I know we have been lied to. I know to a certain extent science has been corrupted. Those things. I just know because I've seen it. I do ask you one question because kind of like Bobby Kennedy, I didn't come here to do this. I mean, Bobby Kennedy was environmental lawyer. He'd give talks, moms would show up with their T-shirts about their vaccine in your children. Kept him at arm's length until one mom showed up on his front step and said, "I'm not going to leave until you read this science, this research." And he did. And he knows how to read science. And once he did, his eyes were open. He couldn't close him.

(02:39:21)
Del Bigtree produced a Documentary called Vaxxed and they took it on the road and they weren't expecting this, but everywhere they premiered this documentary, literally ended up being thousands of parents showed up telling their story. We had in our hearing, the vaccine injured, we had one of the moms who lost her child to SIDS. And in her SIDS support group, what all the parents are talking about were the vaccine. So I guess the question I have to you as a clinician, because we have plenty of examples. I'm seeing one sit right behind you, others who've testified. What do you say to parents who had a perfectly healthy child at whatever age, 18 months, two years, whatever, take their child in, they get a vaccine or multiple vaccines, they come home, that child has a severe fever, seizures, never utter another word. Ends up being 20 years old, so frustrated. What do you say to those parents who have that, I know it's anecdotal, I know it doesn't improve causation, but what would you think if you were a parent, perfectly healthy child talking, developing great, vaccine? What do you say to those parents? Are they just making it up? What's being denied? That's what I've seen. As I've gotten involved in this, starting with the COVID injection injuries, they're still being denied because nobody wants to have to deal with it. Nobody wants to admit they're wrong. If you're a doctor and you suggested that injection or these vaccines, you don't want to admit that maybe that wasn't right for that person. Society, trust me, doesn't want to bear the costs. I mean, the cost of compensating vaccine and injection injured, again, I'm a fiscal hawk. We're $37 trillion in debt. That's a problem. So again, in all honesty, what do you say to those parents that have that experience?

Dr. Jake Scott (02:41:40):

Well, I certainly wouldn't dismiss their concerns. I'm a parent. If one of my children came home after having been vaccinated and had a seizure, yeah, I would be concerned. I truly sympathize with my patients and I would truly sympathize with that parent. And I would try to understand everything I could about that particular case, and I would take it very seriously and I would sympathize. Yes, I do understand why it's concerning.

Senator Johnson (02:42:20):

It sounds like you'd have an open mind.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:42:22):

Yes.

Senator Johnson (02:42:22):

And honestly, that's all I'm asking. I think that's all that anybody in this community is asking. Please God, have an open mind.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:42:33):

100%.

Senator Johnson (02:42:33):

Help us discover the cause. Help us understand this. Nobody's suggesting violence, nobody's trying to incite violence. They're frustrated. They maybe write something on Twitter that maybe they regret later on when it gets bandied out in a Senate hearing. But it's just that pent-up frustration of we've been ignored, we've been gaslit, been vilified. That's the problem. So again, truly I appreciate. I think you've been a very good witness. Obviously you're outnumbered. You've, I think as I said, weathered the storm, you've been pretty sport and it sounds like you have an open mind. So that's really all I'm asking of not only you, but everybody else's have an open mind.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:43:21):

100%. We're on the same page there.

Senator Johnson (02:43:23):

Okie doke. So again, Mr. Siri, really quick.

Aaron Siri (02:43:26):

Can respond to the point of civility. There is nobody out there that you can talk about the way that the media and the medical profession talks about people that don't vaccinate, throw them out of school, kick them out of their jobs. The way that those folks are treated. They're not to be lectured by anybody about civility. That is the height of absurdity. Absurdity. I mean truly absurdity.

Senator Johnson (02:43:48):

So actually have-

Aaron Siri (02:43:49):

It's an insult on top of injury. That's what it is.

Senator Johnson (02:43:54):

So I actually have one, and this is a genuine question because it always popped up during COVID. I have to ask the same vaccines I asked repeatedly during COVID, if these things are so effective, why do you care? Well, somebody else gets vaccinated. I think that applies, I realize there's some children, immunocompromised can't get vaccinated. I got that, but still.

Aaron Siri (02:44:17):

Well, Senator, do you know our firm has the largest practice in the country that presents children that need medical exemption. We don't have a single client who is immuno [inaudible 02:44:26]. Their neutrophil levels are such that they're only susceptible to disease that could really injure them for the few that we've vaccinated, but not the other 1400 known pathogens. It doesn't exist. It's a myth basically. But it's a way to bludgeon again the kids whose parents typically don't need these vaccines. Can I just say one thing about the autism bit? Just because it's been bandied about. We sued the CDC for the studies that support the vaccines given in the first month of life do not cause Autism. We sued them because they wouldn't give it to us. We said, "Give us the studies to show them meningococcal vaccine, the polio vaccine, the Hib vaccine and the HepB vaccine, those five vaccines don't cause autism."

(02:45:04)
You know what they provided? None. We sued them in federal court. They ended up in stipulated order. They gave us 20 studies. Not one of them has to do with those vaccines, they're all MMR, or they're all Thimerosal. This notion that there's a mountain of studies out there that show vaccines of autism is ridiculous. And I've heard the measles' death in Texas bandied about, we represent one of those families. We've seen the medical records. One of those kids, I can tell you for certain did not die from measles. He died from hospital malfeasance. That's what he died from. He wasn't even having measles when he died. And we'll be putting out his support on that. And somebody else has reviewed the medical records of a second kid.

(02:45:38)
I agree, we shouldn't engage in fearmongering. And if we were talking about the overview of the scientific literature, instead of randomly looking at studies, maybe start with the Institute of Medicine reviews of the entire body of literature from 1991, '94, 2012, the HRQ reports. And you could see how vacuous vaccine safety science is. I'll leave with labs one last point. Look, if vaccines are so safe, why are they the only consumer product where you cannot sue the manufacturer for injuries to claim it was made safe there? It's been over 30 years, they're telling you have HepB is safe, Hibs safe, these are safe. You still need immunity. Okay, let me tell you my definition of vaccine, Senator. It's a product that causes so much injury that it has to have immunity for the injuries that it's causing. That's what a vaccine is.

Senator Johnson (02:46:27):

Okay. So again, I want to thank the witnesses and again, Dr. Scott, I'd love to have you back and talk about treatment because again, that's what kind of drives me nuts. Now, Dr. Malone, I see you just standing up. I will say that the advice of my staff is let you respond to the comments made against you to the media. But if you want to, I mean, I'm going to ignore the advice of my staff here, but you'd have to be sworn in. If you want to come up here, I'll offer that opportunity. Okay, I'll dismiss the other panel.

Dr. Robert Malone (02:47:08):

Mr. Scott, I'd like to say hello. My name is Dr. Robert Malone.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:47:11):

Hello. Nice to meet you.

Dr. Robert Malone (02:47:12):

I invented mRNA vaccines. I know the answers to all those questions that you don't have [inaudible 02:47:16]

Senator Johnson (02:47:15):

No, he's not here. Close out this hearing. You want to do it? Okay.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:47:25):

Absolutely. I've been famed twice.

Senator Johnson (02:47:25):

Okay.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:47:28):

Twice during this meeting.

Senator Johnson (02:47:33):

Okay, just hang on. I've got it, there re committee rules. Hang on. Civility. So by rule, we have to allow Senator Blumenthal to come back here. Okay. So before I do any of this, we have to give him that opportunity. Is there a time limit on this? Yeah, I know. Okay, again, this panel is dismissed. I'll sit here.

Dr. Robert Malone (02:48:10):

I congratulate Dr. Scott on his ability to read minds. Now I've been trained this [inaudible 02:48:20] and I know that one of the things you cannot do is infer intent. Dr. Scott has done exactly that. He has misconstrued what I said about Rochelle Walensky and about Leana Wen. [inaudible 02:48:41]

Senator Johnson (02:48:41):

This panel, you're dismissed. Thank you again for your testimony and know Dr. Scott. We might get another invitation letter here sometime in the future. Okay. Thank you much.

Dr. Jake Scott (02:48:48):

Thank you, Senator Johnson.

Senator Johnson (02:52:04):

So while we are waiting for Senator Blumenthal to arrive, we'll just put this hearing into recess and we'll reconvene it when Senator Blumenthal comes. Okay. The hearing will now reconvene. I think Dr. Malone has been mentioned a couple times and I think I've give him the opportunity to be sworn in and defend himself. So Dr. Malone.

(02:59:23)
Do you swear the testimony you'll give before the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Dr. Robert Malone (02:59:30):

Yes, sir.

Senator Johnson (02:59:30):

I'll let you make your statement.

Dr. Robert Malone (02:59:37):

Talk. Various comments have been made about intent and meaning concerning in particular three tweets or three … They're not actually tweets. They're part of a weekly roundup of memes that my wife and I publish through our Substack Malone.news. We put out over the last four years, thousands of essays and we get a little bit of a break. We put them out seven days a week, but we get a little bit of a break on Fridays and Sundays by doing a roundup of memes that other people have posted previously. They're sourced from many different places and we typically cluster them around topic areas.

(03:00:25)
Now, unfortunately, the morning and just a little more context, of course, I speak here as a private party, even though I am appointed as a special government employee, serve at the discretion of the Secretary on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(03:00:46)
I have 30 years of experience in vaccine development. I have multiple fundamental patents and discoveries of which six have to do with mRNA vaccines. They were all filed between 1990 and 1991 that have subsequently issued. Those are the foundational documents in RNA vaccination history. They go back to my original invention disclosure about the use of RNA as a drug at the Salk Institute working in Indra Verma's lab in the Molecular Biology and Virology Laboratories of the Salk Institute circa 1987. This predates the work of Kariko and Weissman by well over a decade.

(03:01:28)
mRNA vaccines were reduced to practice at Vical in approximately 1991, again published. I hold over a hundred papers, thousands and thousands of citations. I'm recognized internationally for my work, and as I say, it goes far beyond mRNA vaccines. I've been asked to testify at the World Health Organization twice. I played a key role in bringing forward the new Public Health Agency of Canada Vaccine for Ebola and got it sold to the company Merck because I believed Merck was the most appropriate firm to further develop that vaccine. And I helped get hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding to support the development of that Ebola vaccine at Merck, which was subsequently licensed.

(03:02:23)
I am a vaccinologist. I am an immunologist. I'm trained as a pathologist. I taught in medical school pathology for decades. But when I spoke about medical ethics early on in the COVID crisis and the fact that coercion, compulsion and enticement were not consistent with the norms of medical ethics, a discipline that I've been trained in extensively because I do clinical research, that led to my being asked to comment about the technology for RNA vaccination, having developed it, and that led to an incredible wave of hate and blacklisting and defamation.

(03:03:11)
Now, among those were many articles from, say, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Atlantic Monthly, Business Insider, et cetera, et cetera. But the consequence of this was that my consulting business that had been operating for over 20 years was destroyed. It's not the first time that had been a whistleblower and had my profession destroyed. Unlike some of these folks as physicians that were unwilling to speak out, I have spoken out. I spoke out in particular about the death that occurred at UPenn having to do with Jesse Gelsinger and the use of adenovirus-vectored gene therapy. And when I did that, I destroyed my academic career, which is why I transitioned to working primarily with the US Army, particularly working in biodefense. I have many friends within the biodefense sector, have worked in there for years, have secret clearance from the Department of Defense, have been involved in virtually every major biodefense vaccine product that has been developed for the US military. But I destroyed, again, my consulting business by speaking out about what I was observing, particularly about the bioethics of the mandates, the coercion and enticement that occurred.

(03:04:33)
And since then, I've had to find some way to make a living. And the way that I make a living as a licensed physician is to publish a Substack essay once a day, day after day after day, year after year after year. And as I said, every Friday and every Sunday, my wife and one of our associates pulls together memes from the prior week, assembles them around topic areas and publishes them.

(03:05:07)
Unfortunately, the morning and your initial statements conflated this, the timeline, the morning of Friday when this unfortunate event occurred at the CDC, we published one of the memes of many, including one that referenced you and your attacks on Jeanine Pirro accusing her of being a conspiracy theorist. But in that collection of memes, there was one that used a metaphor for random chance with severe outcomes. That metaphor was Russian roulette.

(03:05:49)
Russian roulette is a metaphor. It is just like any form of roulette, only it has a very severe outcome. And that particular meme meant to make a point that when you have a random event with a severe outcome, it can appear statistically to be inconsequential, but in fact it has a major impact. Hence, the chamber with one bullet in a revolver and the statement that five out of six would agree that Russian roulette is safe. It is a metaphor. It is not a violent indication. It had no indication of any weapon being pointed at anybody.

(03:06:36)
Then on the following Sunday, after the event that occurred approximately 5:00 PM at the CDC, and I concur with you, and I have expressed as a member of the ACIP to CDC, my deep regret about what transpired. But the following Sunday, two of the memes in the collection referenced Elizabeth Warren's statement that one doesn't need 20 rounds to be a hunter. If you need 20 rounds, you're not a good hunter. And that provoked a lot of response from Second Amendment supporters. And two of those responses we happened to collect and post together.

(03:07:18)
One of them specifically referenced the senator and made a statement that the meme went. "Well, she's saying if you need 20 rounds to be a hunter, you're not a very good hunter." And the response was, "If you need to disarm the population, then you're not a very good governor."

(03:07:39)
The other one was the one that you've posted. I don't believe that's an automatic weapon, but I'm not a specialist. I don't actually own any guns except for a couple pellet guns that I used to kill rodents on my horse farm in Central Virginia, about 10 miles from the home, former home of James Madison that was cited earlier as a strong supporter of an armed populace and the Second Amendment.

(03:08:05)
But I'm not a gun nut. I don't carry guns. The meme was referring to the Senator's facetious statement, and it was poking fun back at her. And I think most would agree that humor is a very effective way to resolve tension and to discuss sensitive political topics. And our Friday funnies and Sunday strip are probably what is paying most of the bills now and allowing me to buy hay for my horses because my audience really enjoys them. That's all they were was meme collections, humor, by the way, free speech. And none of those were ones that we originated, by the way, and none of them had anything to do with inciting violence.

(03:09:01)
You made a statement earlier that I have advocated violence against scientists. I object to that. I haven't advocated violence for anybody. And those memes do not advocate violence. The first one refers to basically a quirk in statistics, and the second one refers to a political statement from Senator Elizabeth Warren, which was intended on her part to be humorous, and the responses were also intended as humor.

(03:09:36)
Thank you for allowing me to comment on your, let's say, and by the way, I think you also said on MSNBC that I was unqualified to serve on the ACIP. When I heard that, it was brought to my attention moments after you said it, I called up your office and I said, "The senator probably has never read my CV. Can I come in and talk to one of your staff at your office and go over this," thinking that there must be a misunderstanding, and I was given the number, the contact information email to set up a meeting with one of your staffers. And I would've been glad to drive up here from my farm in Central Virginia and meet with one of your staffers, go over my CV and discuss your concerns. Unfortunately, they never got back to me. So for me, by the way, Senator Blumenthal, I used to be a registered Democrat. I grew up in the central coast of California. What I've observed during the Biden administration completely turned me around like many people, like Sasha Stone, like many people in this audience.

(03:10:53)
Regarding the statements that were made earlier by the young doctor in which he cited a tweet that I put out, actually, my wife reprimanded me. She thought that was a little too edgy, where I commented on Anthony Fauci seeking refuge in Siena, Italy. Now, how do I know about that? Because I go to Italy a lot, and I was approached by two whistleblowers, including one from the Policeman's Union that has been tracking Anthony Fauci's movements within Italy and told me about a number of things that he has been doing and asked me to get that information back to the government. So I was aware of his movements in Italy. Hence, the comment.

(03:11:38)
And regarding my comment about Lena Nguyen and the former director of the CDC, former director has repeatedly lied to the American public and then after resignation or whatever we want to call it, has gone completely silent, not to be heard of, no testimony, no request for forgiveness, no acknowledgment of those lies,. And more about those lies I suspect may come out soon. I speculate because I'm not able to speak about what we know at the ACIP.

(03:12:13)
Regarding Lena Nguyen, she made a series of statements about what is essentially violence that she believed should be done to the unvaccinated during COVID. I'd like Lena Nguyen to apologize. I'd like to know where Lena Nguyen is. I'd like to know what she's doing right now, not because I want to cause her any violence or harm, but I'd like her to be held accountable. I'd like both of them to be asked, "Why did you say these things during this crucial time? These things that cause so much pain, that cause so much harm, that was so divisive that politicized public health during the COVID crisis unnecessarily, why did you say those things? Do you regret them now? Do you have any sense of what you did?" That's why I'd like to know where they are. I'd like to have them stand up and acknowledge to the American public that they did wrong.

(03:13:14)
Thank you for the opportunity to speak and to address these comments, and I'm glad to respond to any question you happen to want to ask, Senator Blumenthal, recognizing that I am under oath.

Senator Johnson (03:13:26):

Dr. Malone. Senator Blumenthal, do you have any questions?

Senator Blumenthal (03:13:30):

Just a couple of questions. I just want to make sure I have the facts right here. First of all, let me say I was unaware that you called my office. If you want to sit down, I'd be happy to do so.

Dr. Robert Malone (03:13:41):

And I'm glad to do so anytime. Thank you.

Senator Blumenthal (03:13:44):

Second, you are a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in the CDC, correct?

Dr. Robert Malone (03:13:53):

Correct, sir.

Senator Blumenthal (03:13:53):

You were appointed by Secretary Kennedy after he fired all 17 of the previous members, correct?

Dr. Robert Malone (03:14:00):

Which I had no role in doing.

Senator Blumenthal (03:14:04):

My view, tell me if I'm wrong, is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices also known as ACIP, is a position of immense public trust?

Dr. Robert Malone (03:14:18):

That's your opinion. Personally, I think the ACIP is a federal FACA committee, which should be immune from intimidation, and which has had mission creep. That's my opinion. I think that this committee and the sense of importance attributed to this committee is grossly overplayed. The committee's role-

Senator Blumenthal (03:14:38):

But the committee has responsibility for deciding …

Dr. Robert Malone (03:14:41):

No, it doesn't. The committee has responsibilities for advising the director of the CDC only.

Senator Blumenthal (03:14:47):

Deciding in its view what vaccines should be recommended, and then providing that advice to the Secretary or to the CDC, correct?

Dr. Robert Malone (03:14:58):

That is one interpretation. I take a much narrower view of the charter of the ACIP having had to study it.

Senator Blumenthal (03:15:04):

So let me just say, I view this committee as one of public trust. I view it as seriously responsible for providing advice to the Secretary, and that's the reason why he wanted you there.

(03:15:28)
I have no quarrel with your expressing your views as a matter of First Amendment rights, whether they were intended for humor or some other reason. But in a position of public trust, you have a responsibility. Consider the practical effect of your words beyond just your personal consideration. And you may have a First Amendment right to say what you wish, and you do. I would defend that right. But as a matter of a public official in a position of public trust, the posts that you did had consequences.

Dr. Robert Malone (03:16:23):

In your mind.

Senator Blumenthal (03:16:25):

I'm sorry?

Dr. Robert Malone (03:16:26):

In your mind.

Senator Blumenthal (03:16:26):

In my mind?

Dr. Robert Malone (03:16:27):

You made an interpretation about that.

Senator Blumenthal (03:16:28):

Let me just say-

Dr. Robert Malone (03:16:29):

The bulk of Americans recognize humor.

Senator Blumenthal (03:16:32):

Your comment is that on the morning of August 8th, hours before a gunman fired 200 rounds at the CDC.

Dr. Robert Malone (03:16:43):

All true.

Senator Blumenthal (03:16:47):

You put up a post with a gun, and we had it here.

Dr. Robert Malone (03:16:53):

Yes, it was posted. You shared it with us at the beginning of the meeting.

Senator Blumenthal (03:17:00):

And that's a pretty threatening post, I would say.

Dr. Robert Malone (03:17:05):

If you believe that's threatening, then clearly you haven't watched Netflix. We are constantly bombarded by violent images. They are part of our culture. That is not a threatening post, in my opinion.

Senator Blumenthal (03:17:19):

And unfortunately, we are also all too commonly experiencing gun violence in this country, which does not condone-

Dr. Robert Malone (03:17:27):

And that's a fascinating point because of the linkage between gun violence and certain medications.

Senator Blumenthal (03:17:32):

Which does not condone any person in a position of public trust doing something that could in some way normalize it or make it okay. Let me just ask you-

Dr. Robert Malone (03:17:46):

So you infer that that normalizes gun violence, that post about random chance?

Senator Johnson (03:17:52):

We're going to have-

Senator Blumenthal (03:17:53):

Let me just, Mr. Chairman, I want to finish.

Senator Johnson (03:17:55):

Let's wrap this up. Let's wrap this up.

Senator Blumenthal (03:17:56):

I'll end it with this question.

Senator Johnson (03:17:57):

Wrap it up.

Senator Blumenthal (03:18:02):

48 hours after that gunman killed a police officer guarding the CDC, as a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for the CDC, you posted that second one here.

Dr. Robert Malone (03:18:23):

Together with another one that made it very clear that both were about Elizabeth Warren's statement, which is the one at the top of that meme.

Senator Blumenthal (03:18:31):

So my question to you, Dr. Malone, is as a member of that advisory committee to the CDC, did you think about how the dedicated employees of the CDC, the scientists and researchers and public health advocates, would take that kind of post given that they had just been through one of the most traumatic experiences of their lifetime, their building under lockdown because there was an armed gunman firing at them and killing a police officer? Did you consider how they would react?

Dr. Robert Malone (03:19:08):

And Senator Blumenthal, I'm under oath, and the truth is no, I didn't. I had to go feed the horses, take care of the farm. My wife put together the memes. I looked through them and I said, "Go ahead and post it." Now, in terms of the traumatization of CDC members, they live in Atlanta. I used to live in north Atlanta. Gun fire is normal in Atlanta. It happens all the time.

Senator Blumenthal (03:19:34):

Don't you regret those posts?

Dr. Robert Malone (03:19:37):

I don't.

Senator Blumenthal (03:19:38):

I have no further questions.

Senator Johnson (03:19:39):

Okay, thank you. Probably wouldn't even notice if you wouldn't have blown it out of proportion. But anyway, the record for this hearing will remain open for 15 days until Wednesday, September 24th, 2025 at 5PM for the submission of statements and questions. For the record, this hearing's adjourned.