In the hallowed halls of the U.S. Senate, where grandstanding often trumps grilling, the recent hearing on corruption in science and vaccine policy delivered a rare spectacle: a lawyer armed with facts versus a scientist armed with... a database? Dr. Jake Scott, the Stanford infectious disease specialist and self-appointed fact-checker, strode in boasting of 661 placebo-controlled trials proving the unassailable safety of childhood vaccines. His mission? To torch U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s claim that no such inert placebo studies exist for the CDC's recommended childhood shots, except, curiously, the COVID-19 vaccine.
Enter Aaron Siri, attorney extraordinaire and vaccine sceptic extraordinaire, who didn't just poke holes in Scott's edifice; he dynamited it from the foundation up. What unfolded was a masterclass in legal precision versus scientific sleight-of-hand, leaving Scott's "transparency" in tatters and the audience, including Children's Health Defense CEO Mary Holland, "dumbfounded" by his blend of ignorance and arrogance. In the end, the lawyer won, hands down, exposing how the vaccine safety narrative relies more on smoke and mirrors than saline and scrutiny.
Scott's grand entrance was all pomp and circumstance. In April, he began compiling what he called a comprehensive database of vaccine trials, ballooning from 127 by June to 661 by September. Reading from his testimony, he proclaimed: "We've cataloged 1,088 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. This is what transparency looks like." With a flourish, he declared 661 of these used "inert placebo controls: saline, sterile water or other biologically inactive substances," directly refuting Kennedy's assertions. It was the kind of bold claim that makes headlines, and, in Scott's deleted X post from June 12, he crowed about "reviewing" and "cataloguing" these to fact-check the Health Secretary.
But transparency? More like a house of cards. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairing the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, turned to Siri for the takedown. And oh, what a takedown it was. Siri, with the methodical fury of a litigator eviscerating a witness, dissected the 661 studies like a surgeon on a good day. First whack: 567 trials were for vaccines not even on the CDC's childhood schedule, like HIV shots. "Totally irrelevant to the safety of routine injected childhood vaccines," Siri quipped.
Narrow it down to 94? Fine, 70 of those didn't involve healthy kids at all. HIV-positive adults? Again, irrelevant. Down to 24. Of those, 21 used controls that were neither inert nor U.S.-licensed. "For example, a Chinese flu shot. Stuff like that." That leaves three. Three! And even those were jokes: one chickenpox trial injected neomycin (an antibiotic that can cause reactions topically, let alone injected); a Gardasil 4 trial dosed controls with aluminium adjuvant or a cocktail of chemicals minus the antigen; and the Gardasil 9 trial? Saline, sure, but only after three doses of Gardasil 4. "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," Siri thundered.
Scott's response? A feeble deflection: "I'd be very surprised if you went through all 661 trials. We haven't even conducted the full analysis yet… This is a work in progress." Work in progress? For a guy testifying under oath to Congress? CHD's Mary Holland nailed it: Siri "decimated" the database, proving Scott hadn't reviewed his own creation. Holland and the audience were left reeling at the "slipshod" research and Scott's audacious combo of cluelessness and cockiness.
The experts piled on. CHD senior research scientist Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., called the vaccine safety literature "dismally barren" on inert placebos. Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker added that no FDA-approved childhood vaccine on the schedule had true placebo trials in their approval packages, except COVID-19, where the control group got the jab after 12 weeks, "abolishing the control group." Toby Rogers, Ph.D., another witness, accused Scott of "playing fast and loose" with "inert," noting that true inertness means no chemical or biological reaction, yet Scott's definition could encompass "just about anything."
This clash isn't just theatre; it's a symptom of deeper rot. Siri hammered the essentials of proper safety studies: effective controls, large enough groups to detect rare injuries, and long-term follow-up. None of the CDC schedule's routine injected vaccines meet that bar. Scott's database, touted as a shield against "false claims," crumbled under scrutiny, revealing how the vaccine establishment often chooses narrative over nuance. When a lawyer with no MD can shred a scientist's work in real-time, it says volumes about the fragility of the "settled science."
The lawyer won because truth doesn't care about credentials, it cares about evidence. Aaron Siri's victory lap wasn't just for show; it was a clarion call for real transparency. If 661 studies can't stand up to a single cross-examination, how many more myths are waiting to fall?