Del Says His VACCINE CONFIDENCE BILL is "Too Clever" for Some

Trojan Horse, anyone?

Many of you sent me a link to Del Bigtree's episode where he played some audio clips from my videos. He mentioned my Substack and said he heard from many of his viewers who were concerned about this vaccine confidence bill that I analyzed on my show.

You can see that I did my first video two weeks ago called "Why is Del Bigtree Promoting a Vaccine Confidence Law?" Then I did a follow-up called "Boy, Did I Ruffle Some Feathers" because colleagues of Del's reached out to me, asking why I was criticizing Del publicly and why I didn't reach out to him privately with my concerns.

"Why is Del Bigtree Promoting a Vaccine Confidence Law?" and the follow-up → "Boy, Did I Ruffle Some Feathers"

In the videos, which I hope you'll watch, I explained that I tried to get clarity from Del Bigtree and his attorney Aaron Siri about this bill. My team emailed both of them a couple of months before I made this video, but we never heard back. We only heard from Aaron Siri’s assistant, who basically said they didn't have time to answer our concerns. So, I applied my critical thinking skills—what I excel in at The Healthy American, and what I've been teaching you to do for the last four years — I call it reading between the lies, and I broke down this vaccine confidence bill.

I never criticized Del Bigtree; I criticized his dreadful “Vaccine Confidence” bill and I stand by my analysis.

Del Bigtree responded to my concerns in his recent episode here, and I'm grateful that he did. I love having an open exchange of ideas.

Del said that this bill was “too clever” for some people to understand and that it was a “Trojan horse” meant to pave the way for more vaccine testing. I'm not in favor of vaccine testing at all. I'm certainly not in favor of testing childhood vaccines on children. This is what Del Bigtree stands for, and this is what RFK Jr. stands for. I hope you will watch Del Bigtree's episode 376, where he states that this bill does not override other exemptions. So then, why do we need it? That was one of my criticisms: we don't need more laws, and we certainly don't need a law that states that if a vaccine has been approved by the FDA after being tested for one year against a placebo or another vaccine it can be required, it promotes the use of vaccines and confidence in the FDA.

I've already broken down this bill in detail in two Substack posts (here and here) and in two videos. Please read my prior substacks or watch the videos linked above.

While it's true that certain states like California are violating the law and have passed illegal, unconstitutional laws to force your children into becoming human pincushions, you can still get exemptions. I have helped hundreds of thousands of people stand up for their rights and not consent to these illegal requirements.

Del was also a little concerned that I said mandates don't exist. I stand by that. I would call this an illegal requirement; only a court can mandate anyone to do anything, and that has to be in accordance with legitimate laws. Language is of the utmost importance, because so many people were bamboozled over the last several years thinking that masks, testing and vaccines were government mandates, meaning they had to comply! Del also stated that the bill would add this automatic “scientific” exemption without removing any existing exemptions. Ugh… so if the FDA “approves” a “safe” vaccine, with the other conditions met, the the exemptions do not apply. So my question is, why do we need it, especially a bill that has language that says there are no exemptions if the vaccine has been approved by the FDA, the manufacturer has liability, and the harms are published on a website? This is so concerning to me because we know these manufacturers will use their slimy tactics to not be liable, and the courts are so corrupt that it’s unlikely to get a conviction anyway. Why play Russian roulette with these poisons just because the FDA says they are “safe?” Also, the bill promotes the use of vaccines because it wants them to be tested against other vaccines. Makes zero sense.

I want you to read this carefully: what this bill actually states is that there is no exemption for any vaccines that have been approved by the FDA after they have been evaluated for safety for at least one year. There's nothing mentioned about efficacy. Then it says that they have been tested against a control group with either a placebo or another vaccine. Thus, the bill is promoting the use of vaccines. I categorically oppose that. It states that there is no exemption for a vaccine that has been approved by the FDA after one year of safety testing, and if the FDA posts on its website the injuries and diseases that could be caused by the vaccine and the rate at which they occur, the risk of permanent disability or death from the vaccine has been proven to be less than that caused by the infection it is intended to prevent, and that the vaccine's manufacturer has liability for the deaths or serious injuries.

Del said this is a “Trojan horse” and it's “so clever” that the lawmakers will sign on to it because they want to make sure there's enough safety testing of these vaccines. My friends, this has been the root of my concern from day one. I do not promote the safety testing of vaccines because people are harmed in the meantime. I certainly don't promote the testing of childhood vaccines. When you watch Del's show, he's going to show you a whole list of vaccines that have not been properly tested, as he says, on the childhood vaccine schedule. Childhood vaccines can only be tested on children. I am opposed to that.

I guess, according to Del, I'm not smart enough to understand his strategy. Then he states more than once, especially around the 41-minute mark, that there are other vaccines that didn't go through proper safety trials.

I don't care for this push for the safety testing of vaccines. How do you make poison safe?

Then he said that around the 42-minute mark that the lawmakers know that confidence in vaccines has dropped and that's why he has a bill called "Increasing Confidence in Vaccines." Then he says that the lawmakers actually believe in all the other vaccines... I don't like these phrases either; it's like subliminally stating that somehow vaccines are “safe” because those words are constantly being expressed by Del and others who believe in and push “safety testing.”. I don't believe in the other ones, and I don't know that the lawmakers believe in the other ones.

Around the 42-minute mark again, he talks about the need for proper safety testing. Around the 43-minute mark, he speaks of safety testing again. Around the 44-minute mark, he talks about safety testing again. So, in a nutshell…he wants “safe vaccines,” and I don't.

My message — which has been clear and consistent from Day One — is that you have a right of no consent to any proposed medical intervention. It doesn't matter if vaccines are deemed “safe”—that's not the issue. The issue is that there can be no requirement — or mandate, as Del likes to call it.

Then Del closed out by saying the big bad WHO is going to come and lock you down, and mentioned something about climate change and bird flu and how donations to his ICAN do not fund the work of ICAN Legislate which is creating these (horrid) bills. Del then closes the episode with a guest appearance from Dr. Malone…

I stand by my comments: we don't need a Trojan horse; we need no additional bills. I do not believe in promoting more long-term “safety trial” as Del Bigtree does. We just have a different view on this.

What happens after all the safety testing? If Del came out and said,”Great news! The FDA has followed these standards and now I present you a bon fide safe vaccine, would you take it? That's what's troubling to so many of my viewers as well… the concept that these individuals with “millions of viewers” would now “trust the science” f the FDA (and Del) tells them to.

I love that more and more people are waking up to the harms of these cocktails, and more importantly, more and more people are understanding the concept of no consent—that the government has no right, the employer has no right, the schools have no right, your doctor has no right, and certainly the WHO has no right to inflict any unwanted medical intervention upon anyone.

That's what I built my platform on, and I'm grateful for Del listening in, and for all those who are standing with me as we stand for truth and defend our freedoms and march this all the way to Heaven.

P.S. You have got to read the comments of my savvy Healthy Americans to my response to Del here, and please leave your own comment below.

Read Next:

WHY is DEL BIGTREE Promoting"VACCINE CONFIDENCE"?!