Boy, Did I Ruffle Some Feathers!

Bigtree's "Vaccine Confidence Bill" is getting lots of feedback

In yesterday’s substack post here I shared with you the dreadful “Vaccine Confidence Bill” being promoted by Del Bigtree’s ICAN Legislate group, in association with attorney Aaron Siri.

Following my thorough analysis and criticism of this horrid bill (which I hope will go nowhere fast), a few “higher-ups” in the freedom movement, who support Bigtree, reached out to me to find out: (1) why I criticized Del Bigtree publicly and (2) why didn’t I reach out to Bigtree first before I aired this video.

Welp, I answer those questions and more right here:

The strange thing is that I guess these concerned individuals didn’t actually watch my video called Why is Del Bigtree Promoting “Vaccine Confidence” because I already mentioned in the video that my team DID reach out to both Bigtree and Aaron Siri, but neither replied with any suitable explanation.

Under my direction, my assistant drafted an EXCELLENT and THOROUGH and POLITE and PROFESSIONAL and COMPREHENSIVE and CORDIAL and LENGTHY letter to both Aaron Siri’s law firm and Del Bigtree’s ICAN Legislate organization.

Here is a copy of the communication. Take a look at it to see for yourself, and then be sure to watch the video above for my detailed analysis of the analysis!

Date: Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 10:40 PM
Subject: Questions about ICAN Vaccine Confidence Bill
To: <aaron@sirillp.com>
Cc: <info@icanlegislate.org>

Mr. Siri & to whom it may concern at ICAN,

I'm reaching out to express my questions and concerns regarding the proposed 'Vaccine Confidence Bill" and to seek clarification on certain aspects of the bill's language and its objectives.

I appreciate and admire the great work that you and your team of attorneys and paralegals are doing to fight for and preserve our rights against corporate misconduct and governmental overreach. Having had the opportunity to listen to you speak several times, I am aware of your vocal opposition to mandates, specifically mandates of medical products. I know we both agree that the erosion of individual liberty is a matter of utmost concern, and I am grateful for your advocacy.

With that being said, mandates do exist, as you've pointed out during your testimony here. We have just emerged from a profoundly challenging period of time, undoubtedly the most tyrannical time in my lifetime and I believe we face a critical choice: either we A) resist and fight against these unethical and illegitimate vaccine mandates, or B) we accept them as the new normal and proceed with caution.

The choice of resistance is clear to me, but I perceive ICAN's proposed "Vaccine Confidence Bill" as aligning more with the latter approach—accepting vaccine mandates as an inevitable part of the future and attempting to strike a balance between government interests (and the cult of scientism) vs individual freedoms. This is why I write to you today because I'm concerned about this approach and the justification to "increase confidence in mandated vaccines."

Shouldn't the primary objective be to prohibit all forms of medical mandates? I'm concerned about the normalization of vaccine mandates and the ramifications for our fundamental freedoms down the line. It's such a slippery slope, and this is why I feel that if you are going to take the latter approach and tolerate vaccine mandates, then this Bill needs to be clear in its language and committed to safeguarding the right of no consent with real enforcement mechanisms. If we allow the precedent to be set that the government (and even the private sector) can violate our rights in an emergency, we're in trouble.

To begin with, the title and its justification are puzzling to me. The focus on "vaccine confidence" suggests a different agenda, one that prioritizes public perception over individual rights.

Why was it written this way? Why do the authors and supporters of this bill want to increase vaccine confidence? What does that mean exactly and why is it relevant and important? Why place undue emphasis on promoting confidence in mandated vaccination rather than respecting individuals' right to make voluntary medical decisions? In the justification section of the bill, it states the desire is to "increase confidence in mandated vaccines." So wouldn't a more accurate title be "An Act to increase mandated vaccine confidence"? This is furthering the normalization of vaccine mandates as an acceptable requirement.

The purpose of the bill states: "Assures the public that an exemption exists for required vaccines that do not meet certain minimal requirements." I don't understand the conditional approach to consent with mandated vaccines.

What is this exemption exactly? I would think that a personal exemption should be based on individuals' right of no consent regardless of if a mandated vaccine is deemed "safe" or not by the FDA. That's not the case with this conditional exemption. And we both know the FDA approval process is flawed and compromised.

I also have a question about criteria #1 of the Bill and why it only focuses on evaluating safety and not both safety and efficacy? Mr. Siri made it very clear in his arguments that the entire underpinning of these mandates is to prevent transmission. So why (when specifically addressing an exemption to mandated vaccines) would it be logical to omit a requirement for proof of efficacy too? And what exactly constitutes sufficient evidence of safety, and what criteria are being used to evaluate it? Additionally, I'm confused about why the control group can receive a placebo or a different vaccine instead of strictly only a placebo. Can you please explain?

I also have questions about the legal obligations and enforcement mechanisms. It lacks a legal obligation on the part of employers, government entities, health departments, or whatever entity is requiring the vaccine to accommodate this exemption. It merely says that they have to "publicize that exemptions exist." Whether they are honored and accommodated is another story. While the text of the bill states "A. The public shall be informed that a person may claim the exemption in subsection b on the person's own behalf or on behalf of the person's child or dependent, and that the department or any other state agency, board, or commission may not require the person to meet any other condition or requirement to claim the exemption..." The bill does not specify any legal duty to accommodate or protect individuals from retaliation for exercising their protected right to this so-called "limited informed consent." Further, I don't know if it was intentional or not, but I noticed the use of the word "may" instead of "shall" regarding departments and agencies requiring other conditions to claim the exemption and I feel that "shall" would be a stronger approach to take.

I feel this Bill doesn't clearly define terms, it's vague and flimsy in some parts, and it lacks mechanisms for oversight and enforcement to ensure compliance and accountability. I understand this Bill is designed with the goals of more transparency, safety, and empowering individual choice, but it's only to an extent -- it's conditional. What does informed consent mean to you? It's hard to overlook these deficiencies and my biggest concern with this "limited consent" Bill is its failure to adequately safeguard individuals' fundamental right of no consent.

I don't mean to come across as overly critical, but I believe there are more effective approaches. ICAN should shift its focus away from bolstering public perception and confidence in mandated vaccines. Instead, the priority should be resisting it altogether. However, if ICAN and your firm is going to tolerate these unjust vaccine mandates for reasons unbeknownst to me, the focus then should be on safeguarding exemptions without limiting the actual ability for one to exercise their right of no consent.

Exemptions are a vital last line of defense, and we need stronger protections and robust enforcement mechanisms in place to truly safeguard our rights.

I write this email in an earnest effort to gain some understanding of where you and ICAN are coming from. I trust that this email will reach you, and I kindly request your response to my questions and concerns.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Aaron Siri’s office sent a short response saying we don’t have time to respond; and Bigtree’s groups sent nothing.

How do you like them apples?

Read next:

WHY is DEL BIGTREE Promoting"VACCINE CONFIDENCE"?!