The LIVE event:

• 10-minute background discussion on measles

• 10-minute update on the current situation

• 10-minute Q&A, leave your questions in the comments below or on the countdown announcing this event HERE:

  Informed w/ Aaron Siri: Injecting Freedom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

  

  Thanks for reading Informed w/ Aaron Siri: Injecting Freedom! This post is public so feel free to share it.

  Share

1. One of the deaths claimed to be “measles-associated” by the state was the death of a newborn male on August 14th. The baby’s spleen was lacerated, according to county coroner Dr. Stephen Diamantoni. The coroner ruled out measles as even a contributing factor because “there was no swelling or enlargement whatsoever” of the baby’s spleen and there was “massive blood loss.”*

2. The newborn’s mother is alive, and she was not the second death claimed to be “measles-associated.”

3. The coroner has no information about the second purported “measles-associated” death announced by the state. It’s possible he has not yet received the information, but eventually will. It’s also possible the individual died in a different county. The coroner says the law requires the death be reported to his office.

Additional thought on these facts:

This is not the first time that a purposeful release of limited, misleading, and/or false information by health authorities is used to fear-monger and cast blame and judgement on those who decline one or more vaccine products.

Think back to the two claimed “measles deaths” in Texas last year, and ask yourself how much quicker we would have learned the truth there if we had someone like PA’s Commissioner, Josh Parsons, pulling back the curtain in real time. With the information we were able to eventually obtain, we concluded that neither of the Texas deaths were measles deaths. This didn’t and doesn’t stop the media or health authorities from “claiming” these two deaths as measles deaths.

Maybe this time around, with Commissioner Parsons peeling back the curtain in real time, we may get a somewhat different outcome.

RFK Jr. is correct. The fact is, there are billions of fragments of human cellular debris and DNA from the cultured cell line of an aborted fetus in every injected dose of MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), chicken pox, and hepatitis A vaccines.

Because viruses multiply in cells, living cells are used to grow viruses for vaccine production, including the cultured cell lines of aborted fetuses. Two such cell lines are MRC-5 and WI-38, which are described by a company that sells them as follows:

The MRC-5 cell line was derived from normal lung tissue of a 14-week-old male embryo…

and

WI-38 cell line is the first human diploid cell line to be used in human vaccine preparation … [and was] isolated from the lung tissue of a 3-month-old, female, embryo.

The ingredients of chickenpox, rubella, and hepatitis A vaccines each include cellular and DNA pieces from these fetal cell lines. According to the CDC’s Vaccine Excipient Table, Varivax (chickenpox) includes “MRC-5 human diploid cells including DNA & protein,” M-M-R II (which includes rubella) includes “WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts,” and Havrix (hepatitis A) includes “MRC-5 cellular proteins.”

As for the quantity of human DNA in each vial, for Varivax, as the FDA explains: “human MRC-5 cells are the substrate upon which the Oka strain of varicella is grown. In the process of isolating virus from these cells, MRC-5 derived proteins and DNA are also obtained. The nearly 2 ug [2,000 nanograms] of unmodified mammalian DNA present in each dose of VARIVAX…”

As for MMR-II, as RFK Jr. pointed out in his post above, during Dr. Stanley Plotkin’s deposition, I asked: “Isn't it true that MMR II contains approximately 150 nanograms cells substrate double-strand DNA and single-strand DNA per dose purposefully fragmented to approximately 215 base pairs in length?” Dr. Plotkin answered: “Yeah, that's probably correct, yes.” See Table 3 of this study, reflecting an average of 142 nanograms of single-stranded DNA and 35 nanograms of double-stranded DNA in the rubella vaccine component of each dose of M-M-R II; and an average of 276 nanograms of single-stranded DNA and 35.74 nanograms of double-stranded DNA in each dose of Havrix).

For DNA remaining in the final formulation, assuming pharma companies follow FDA’s guidance, they would fragment “the DNA size to below approximately 200 base pairs.” Doing the math, supposing only 100 nanograms of double-stranded DNA remain, and are broken down into 200 base pair fragments, this equals approximately 463 billion pieces of human DNA from an aborted fetal cell line in each vaccine dose; double that number for single-stranded DNA. See also https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/aborted-fetal-tissue-in-vaccines/.

For those who don't know, Dr. Stanley Plotkin is the world's leading vaccinologist, whom I've had the opportunity to depose. Here are a few clips of Dr. Plotkin answering questions about vaccines and autism, aborted fetal tissue used in vaccine development, and health outcomes among vaccinated and unvaccinated children:

Who is Stanley Plotkin

Vaccines and Autism

Clinical Trials of Hep B Vaccine

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study

Full 9-hour Deposition

Here’s what we know so far about the two deaths in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania that are widely being called “measles deaths:”

1. Governor Shapiro announced, “the first two measles-associated deaths in Pennsylvania in 35 years.”* This phrasing is important. He did not say “measles deaths” or “deaths from measles” which means the facts do not allow him to say that. And just as people can die “with Covid”, as opposed to “from Covid”, people can die with measles, as opposed to from measles.

2. While claiming that, “protecting the confidentiality of residents is a core responsibility of the Department of Health” and thus, “out of respect for their privacy, [the DOH] will not be releasing additional personal details,” as they’re “protecting people’s privacy and confidentiality,” they had no issue disclosing that the two individuals were supposedly unvaccinated which is, in fact, a medical and personal detail.

3. According to the County Commissioner, Joshua Parsons, as of August 25, 2026, “The Coroner’s office indicates that it currently has ZERO reported cases where measles is the immediate cause of death.”**

4. Most critically, if these two had died of measles, the Pennsylvania Governor and health department would no doubt have been blasting out that claim, instead of saying “measles-associated deaths” and “residents with measles have died.”

5. While jumping at any chance to hopefully pin a death on a disease for which there is a vaccine, these same officials don’t give a hoot about the children and adults across this country that are killed, injured, or left with a chronic disease from their worshipped vaccine products, no matter the number. The daily, unrelenting flow of those contacting our firm about deaths and devastating injuries from vaccines are irrelevant to them. A maybe case—that measles may have caused a death—that is all they care about, even when all the facts are not in yet.

6. Ironically, Governor Shapiro preached that: “There’s real life consequences to spreading misinformation. There’s real life consequences to scaring people and not relying on actual doctors and actual medical professionals to provide unbiased information to parents…. Sharing… misinformation does not help the cause of public health.” Yet, I have not seen the Governor or the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH) correcting any of the media that is spreading misinformation, scaring people, and not relying on unbiased information in their reporting of these deaths as being “measles deaths” or “from measles.” These outlets include The New York Times, Reuters, The Guardian, USA Today, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, and many more.***

7. Governor Shapiro also identified another serious problem: “Measles has been so rare for so long that many doctors don’t know a lot about it” and explains that their DOH has had to “work[] to inform physicians of the symptoms so they can tell the difference… between the rash that appears from measles and perhaps some other rash.” When vaccination becomes the sole answer, the quality of healthcare declines.

8. Perhaps the most important thing that Governor Shapiro said is something that everyone needs to remember and respect: “Parents absolutely have the right to make their own decisions on how to best protect their kids.”

Sources:

*Gov. Josh Shapiro Press Briefing

**Statement from Commissioner Josh Parsons

***The New York Times: “Two Unvaccinated People Died From Measles in Pennsylvania, Officials Say” — uses “died from measles” and “measles deaths.”

Reuters: “Pennsylvania reports first U.S. measles deaths this year as outbreak grows” — uses “measles deaths” / “measles fatalities.”

The Guardian: “Two unvaccinated people die of measles in Pennsylvania” — uses “die of measles” / “died of measles” and “died from measles.”

USA Today: “Two dead of measles in Pennsylvania, the first in US this year” — uses “died of measles” / “dead of measles” and “measles deaths.” [Note USA Today has since changed their headline]

ABC News: “2 people die from measles in Pennsylvania, marking state's first deaths in 35 years” — uses “die from measles” / “died … from measles.”

The Wall Street Journal (headline and body mix): “Pennsylvania Reports First Measles Deaths of 2026” — headline uses “Measles Deaths”; body includes “died after contracting measles” (borderline but often grouped with direct phrasing in coverage).

This one email from FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock in May 2021 epitomizes everything wrong with our government’s treatment of vaccines and the vaccine injured.

Woodcock emails Fauci and Collins (head of NIH) to inform them that “a number of people” including healthcare workers she personally knows contacted her about injuries from every one of the available Covid-19 vaccines. She admits that:

(1) these injuries would not be picked up by FDA or CDC surveillance systems;
(2) there is no money set aside to study these harms (while billions are given to pharma companies for vaccines);
(3) no one will take these injured people seriously;
(4) no one knows how to treat them;
(5) there is no effort to study this serious issue; and
(6) “the industry” will not support the necessary studies.

I also agree with her sentiment that, “if you let a problem fester, then it will come back to bite you later…” Later is here.

AAP, the trade group, is back at it again with its predictable, self-interested recommendation that all children 6 months and older get a flu vaccine, announcing “flu vaccines have been thoroughly studied…”

What AAP ignores is that a Cochrane Systematic Review of flu vaccine studies concluded it “could find no convincing evidence that [flu] vaccines can reduce mortality, hospital admissions, serious complications, or community transmission of influenza.”

If AAP’s concern was about health, it would read these studies as well as those showing it increases the risk of having a respiratory infection. But we already know that AAP’s true concern is the pecuniary interest of its members.

Senator Cassidy insists that vaccines are safe. If that were true, they would not need immunity from liability for the harms they supposedly do not cause.

Cars, planes, drugs, etc., survive in the open market without immunity and so could vaccines—if they were actually safe.

If Cassidy had the courage of his convictions, he would cosponsor S.3853 (End the Vaccine Carveout Act) to repeal the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which granted that immunity.

The fact that he hasn’t, reveals all we need to know about vaccine safety and the truth of his convictions. His disregard for the reality regarding these products is, no doubt, a part of why he has now been voted out of office. I am sure there is a cushy job as a pharma lobbyist when he leaves office if he wants one!

On Friday, Aug 21, at 4 pm ET, I will be hosting Round 2 of the LIVE Q&A about President Trump’s new executive order on childhood vaccines and what comes next.

Join Round 2 HERE (Friday, Aug 21, at 4 pm ET) — free subscribers can also join!

I’ll address the questions I couldn't get to in Round 1.

If you have a question, drop it in the comments below.

Join Round 2 HERE (Friday, Aug 21, at 4 pm ET) — free subscribers can also join!

Join HERE:

Let’s do it again tomorrow, Tuesday, August 4, at 2 PM EDT.

Here’s one clip from last week’s Q&A, answering this question:

What type of scientific study design would definitely and robustly answer the question of vaccine benefits versus harm? Which type of study would leave zero questions in the scientific community?

FIRST MISTAKE

Once a witness opens the door to a topic, the witness cannot then plead the Fifth with regard to that topic. And Fauci’s opening statement opened many doors widely, including when he claimed he had a “decades-long record of cooperating with Congress,” including “during and after the COVID pandemic” when he “appeared multiple times for hearings in the Senate and the House.” That puts the question of whether he properly cooperated when responding to questions in all of those hearings, including prior questions from Senator Paul, directly at issue.

Here is his full statement, including additional areas where he opened the door broadly:

I served at the NIH for over 54 years, 38 of those as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Over that period, I proved that I believe in and respect the value of legitimate congressional oversight. In fact, I testified before and/or briefed Senate and House committees well over 200 times over those 38 years.

During and after the COVID pandemic, I have appeared multiple times for hearings in the Senate and the House, usually under oath, and sat for several days-long, transcribed sworn interviews answering questions about the very issues that are now the subject of this hearing.

However, given Senator Paul’s obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and recently, his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary, aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me, the only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something – anything – that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars.’ Any reasonable person who has followed his unhinged obsession with me would readily come to the same conclusion.

Therefore, although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions.

SECOND MISTAKE

The Fifth Amendment can only be used when answering a question which would present real and appreciable danger. Thus, his use of the Fifth during the hearing for questions that clearly don’t meet this standard, including about the color of his tie and what day of the week it is, reflects its improper use during the hearing overall.

THIRD MISTAKE

Since invoking the Fifth is question-specific, announcing before even hearing the questions that he would “refrain from answering [the committee’s] questions” under the Fifth was itself improper.

FOURTH MISTAKE

Finally, ignoring the broad presidential pardon he received, as if it doesn’t exist, including for questions that would clearly fall within the parameters of that incredibly broad pardon, was a misstep that may come back to bite him later.

For years now, FDA has been dragging its feet when it comes to producing documents in response to FOIA requests. And not just dragging its feet—burying them in concrete. So much so that my firm has brought over 100 lawsuits against the federal government, on behalf of ICAN, just to get documents that should clearly have been produced. And even then, the government still drags its feet, wasting taxpayer money fighting us in court to generate more delay.

The 21-year FOIA request

Many of you are likely familiar with the FOIA case we filed for the Covid-19 vaccine licensure documents in which FDA wanted 75 years to produce the documents! Sadly, that was not an outlier. It was business as usual for the government in responding to FOIA requests.

Here is just one other example of FDA’s FOIA behavior. In a court filing on January 30, 2026, FDA told a federal judge that the FOIA request at issue, which was originally submitted on January 26, 2024, was “currently positioned 471” in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Complex Track. Meaning, it was behind 470 other requests. FDA then conceded it “cannot reasonably estimate” when that request will reach the top of the track. Let that sink in. It cannot even estimate when it will comply with the law.

It gets worse. FDA then asked the Court to pause the litigation for “at least eighteen months, through and including June 25, 2027.” By then, FDA explained, it “anticipates” that it “will be in a better position to evaluate when it might be able to respond” to the FOIA request. Read that again. It doesn’t even commit to producing the documents by 2027—instead that’s the date it will evaluate the request’s status. That is not a commitment. That is a dodge.

While FDA pretends it cannot provide an estimate, we can reasonably estimate when it will produce these documents based on recent movement in the queue. In a 6-month period, the request at issue advanced just 11 positions in the queue—from number 482 to 471. If that rate continues, it will take more than 21 years before this request reaches the top of CBER’s Complex Track.

So much for transparency. And this is a FOIA request under the jurisdiction of a federal court. Imagine those requests that are stuck at the administrative levels.

ICAN’s current FDA FOIA requests

At the time of this writing, my client ICAN has 271 outstanding FOIA requests submitted to FDA. Of those:

• 20 are in litigation

  • Of those 20 in litigation, FDA has sought and obtained a stay in 12 of them

• 18 are at the administrative appeal level

  • Of those, 8 appeals have been outstanding for more than 1 year

• 233 are at the request level

  • Of those, 67 have been outstanding for more than 1 year, 40 have been outstanding for more than 2 years, and 83 have been outstanding for 3 or more years

What the Freedom of Information Act requires

The Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to determine within 20 working days whether they will comply with a request (with defined exceptions). Twenty working days. Not 21 years.

It also requires agencies to provide meaningful, trackable status information for requests that will take more than ten days: an individualized tracking number and a phone line or internet service that provides status updates including an estimated completion date.

But when we asked how to access FDA’s portal to view the requests we submitted, the FDA merely replied: “At this time there is no public facing version of our tracking system.” FDA has such little regard for the public that it, in writing, admits it is openly violating the law by not having a publicly available tracking system.

The FDA’s defense: we have no money and too many tracks (but don’t look too closely)

FDA’s court filings explain that it uses a multi-track system, describing its approach as “first-in, first processed.” Multi-track processing can be used for legitimate triage—for example, to process small simple requests without needing to wait to complete unusually large ones. But it can also function as an accountability shield when the number of tracks and the resources allocated to each one are hidden from public view.

FDA also explains that outsiders cannot reliably audit its processing practices using its published annual report data because the reports do not capture the internal multi-track details—details which FDA insists it is not required to make public.

That is the opposite of transparency. It is pretending to be transparent. Publishing a report that the agency itself admits doesn’t reflect its actual FOIA processing practices, while citing that same report when seeking delays is, at best, inept. At worst, it is deliberate obfuscation.

FDA also repeats the familiar refrain that FOIA compliance is an “unfunded mandate.” But—and here is the kicker—it also stated it “has not made a request for supplemental funding.” You read that correctly: FDA says it cannot comply with FOIA because it doesn’t have the resources, but it refuses to ask for the resources. That combination—“we cannot comply” plus “we do not request the resources to comply”—is not an excuse. It is an indictment that brings to mind this quote, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln: “Hypocrite: The man who murdered his parents, and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.”

When delays become inexcusable

Between April 2025 and April 2026, ICAN’s internal tracking shows the following: 68 FOIA requests were submitted to FDA. Determinations of denial, for various reasons, were issued for 15 of them (22%). Records were actually produced for only 7. That is 10%. And the remaining 46 requests—a full 68%—were merely acknowledged as received. Many have been pending for months with no estimated completion dates provided.

Transparency is necessary for genuine informed consent. Yet here is the reality: FDA’s position to a federal court is that a requester can be number 471 in a queue and it does not need to provide any estimated completion and the court should pause the lawsuit until 2027 so that maybe then FDA can give an estimate. That is the direct opposite of transparency.

What FOIA should look like

If the Department of Health and Human Services is serious about its promise of transparency, here is where it must start:

• Publish the data on every internal processing track used in each department. For each track, disclose when and why it was created, the criteria for assignment of requests to the track, and the resources allocated it.

• Provide requesters with the status information required by statute in a timely manner—especially a good-faith estimated completion date—and update it as conditions change.

• Stop treating litigation stays as a default safety valve for chronic noncompliance. A “stay culture” converts statutory rights into agency discretion. And “delay” becomes “denial” by another name.

• If resources are truly insufficient, request more support transparently—and do it on the record.

Because until transparency becomes more than a slogan, informed consent is illusory. And FDA knows it.

At the end of last year, the United States Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s decision that enabled New York State to persecute the Amish for refusing to inject pharma products in violation of their religious beliefs, and it remanded the case (Miller v. McDonald) to the Second Circuit to reconsider its illiberal and unconscionable decision.

Instead of abiding by the Constitution and protecting the religious freedom of the Amish, the Second Circuit again ruled against the Amish. So, we will be going back to the Supreme Court.

And yes, the 168 unvaccinated Amish children related to this case are far healthier than American children who are vaccinated. We provided sworn expert evidence attesting that among a random sample of 168 U.S. children, one would expect to find (based on the background rate of chronic disease among U.S. children) 31 cases of environmental allergies, 15 cases of ADHD, 10 cases of asthma, 9 cases of food allergies, and 4 cases of ASD. Yet, the 168 unvaccinated Amish children whose families New York wants to persecute are free from the chronic health conditions—all related to some form of immune system dysregulation—that plague the vaccinated communities in New York.

Since vaccination is supposedly about improving health, and the Amish who do not vaccinate are clearly healthier, one would expect New York to leave them alone. But that is not how this religion works. The vaccine zealots in New York cannot stand that the Amish refuse to abandon their beliefs in favor of the religious beliefs held by the New York officials regarding vaccines. These “health” officials are willing to sacrifice the way of life and belief system of these Amish children and their community (which have kept them far healthier), if they refuse to bend the knee to adopt cult-like vaccine beliefs.

These “health” officials also apparently cannot stand that the Amish children are healthier and are even willing to wage war against them until they submit and receive every vaccine New York demands—so they can be just as “healthy” as all the children outside the Amish community.

The Amish earnestly seek to avoid conflict but because violating their sincerely held religious beliefs is not an option, they have been placed in an impossible position. We, along with co-counsel, intend to continue to litigate on behalf of the Amish to defend their freedom to practice their religion in peace.

Bring your questions and join me at 2:00 PM EDT.

Join HERE!

I more than welcome that debate and publicly accepted her invitation and offered to book a ballroom in DC for a full day of “open and transparent debate.”

Will she accept? Doubt it. And that is because, like Dr. Monarez before her, she is saying what she thinks will help her get confirmed. But I sure hope she proves me wrong and keeps her word of actually having an open and transparent debate with me about why parents have vaccine hesitancy.

That said, I am not holding my breath because it is impossible to defend vaccines in an open and transparent forum. Each time this occurs, whether in a deposition, congressional hearings, etc., the “experts” fail to defend their beliefs against facts.

And each time that occurs, the legacy media ignores the evidence and instead repeats the industry’s talking points—which is why publications on this platform are so important to disseminating the reality regarding vaccines.

By the way, if you didn’t catch it, here is what I wrote about Dr. Schwartz when she was first nominated:

As you will see, I dubbed her the “Queen of Mandating Vaccines” and her testimony before Congress this week did nothing to change that well-supported and fully cited opinion.

If you missed the hearing, here is the video link, in which you can also catch her saying “I do believe that MRNA technology is safe and effective.”

I explain how the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday basically made it so that the chemical industry can kill, maim, and injure you and your children with effective impunity.

In this clip, I cover what the FDA relied upon to license the Hep B vaccine before unleashing this product for injection into newborn babies in America—and then administering it again, and a third time, before six months of age.

Here, I explain that because of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, vaccines are the only product in America for which you can never sue a vaccine company—Pfizer, Moderna, GSK, or Sanofi—and say, "Had you made your product safer, my child would not have been injured, would not have developed a chronic disease, or would not have been killed."

Watch the full episode HERE:

In this clip, Dr. Hazan explains how she helped two nonverbal autistic twins regain speech.

In this clip, we discuss how the FDA has a monopoly within healthcare and the enormous amount of money and resources required for a treatment to become the standard of care—which only large pharmaceutical companies or well-funded biotech firms can realistically afford.

In this clip, Dr. Hazan shares her research, stating: “I started looking at the bifidobacteria before and after vaccination and discovered that there was a killing of bifidobacteria from the COVID vaccine.”

In this clip, Dr. Hazan addresses her approach to treating COVID: “So think about, you know, the whole pandemic people said treatment didn’t work, but yet I lost no one during the pandemic. No one died on my shift. And I’ve treated thousands of patients.”

Different admin, same nonsense. After 4+ years and numerous follow-up letters asking FDA to explain why nearly 32 million Americans did not take their second dose of COVID vaccine—was it because they were injured after their first dose?—FDA’s response is the same game it’s played for years. It sent us to CDC for a response and assured us FDA “takes vaccine safety monitoring seriously.”

Of course, if FDA actually did take safety seriously, it would have a fulsome and substantive response to our question, not more empty words and finger-pointing at CDC. By the way, we did ask CDC numerous times and it has not responded.

Here is FDA's response to our letter submitted on behalf of our client, ICAN:

The Supreme Court just denied cert to review New York's categorical rule that allowed medical but not religious exemptions for healthcare workers—a policy that made it virtually impossible for those with religious objections to Covid-19 vaccines to keep their jobs. This was not a Siri & Glimstad case, but one that we were watching closely.

Since only 3 justices wanted to take the case, and 4 justices are needed to grant cert, the DOJ's decision to jump in and argue that the Supreme Court should deny cert may have been the fatal blow that ensures the healthcare workers' religious freedoms now cannot be vindicated.

Shame on the DOJ.

SCOTUS order denying cert: