WHY is DEL BIGTREE Promoting"VACCINE CONFIDENCE"?!

I analyze this troubling bill from ICAN that I hope will go nowhere fast

Last week, I had no idea that I would set off a small tsunami when I exposed an atrocious proposed “Vaccine Confidence Bill” being promoted by Del Bigtree’s ICAN Legislate organization. You can read the bill here.

This was the video that set off the firestorm:

I highly recommend you watch the video so you can see my approach and demeanor and concern over what I call a “troubling” bill that looks to be a bait-and-switch maneuver. I said you have to “read between the lies” to see that in fact, the bill PROMOTES vaccine “mandates” (hint: there is no such thing, as you always have a right of no consent to any medical intervention) rather that stopping them.

Here is a copy of the bill, with my emphasis added in the bolded areas, and my comments added in brackets.

TITLE: An act to increase vaccine confidence.

PURPOSE: Assures the public that an exemption exists for required vaccines that do not meet certain minimal requirements.

JUSTIFICATION: Adding this exemption will increase confidence in mandated vaccines.

TEXT

Limited informed consent exemption to mandated vaccines.

A.   To increase public confidence in vaccines, the department shall publicize that an exemption exists for required vaccines that do not meet the minimal standards provided in this part.

[This promotes the idea that people can have confidence in vaccines. It also reinforces the notion of “required” vaccines. It also states that this would only be for those vaccines that do not meet the minimal standards. That means that certain vaccines would NOT allow for exemptions.]

B. Notwithstanding any other law, a person who is required to receive a vaccine for any purpose may claim an exemption from the vaccine requirement if there is not a vaccine approved by the FDA to fulfill the requirement that meets the following criteria: [again, putting forth a premise that a person can be required to get a vaccine; then, the big IF negates the statement that came before it.]

1. The clinical trial the FDA relied upon to approve the vaccine evaluated its safety for at least one year after it was administered against a control group that only received either (a) a placebo or (b) another vaccine licensed as provided in this paragraph.

2. The department posts on its website the injuries or diseases caused by the vaccine and the rate at which the injury or disease occurs from the vaccine.

3. 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. [This is what RFK Jr has stated]

4. The vaccine’s manufacturer has liability for the deaths or serious injuries, if any, caused by the vaccine.

C. 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.

D. As used in this section the term “FDA” shall mean the united states food and drug administration and the term “any purpose” shall include as a condition of employment, school attendance, license, certification or degree.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

👉 Friends, what this bill ACTUALLY states is that there is NO EXEMPTION for any “mandated vaccines” that have been shown by the FDA to be “safe” following one year of study; and if the FDA states on its website how many diseases or injuries are caused by the vaccine and at what rate; and that the vaccine manufacturer is liable for such injuries; and that the risk of the vaccine is less than the harms of the diseases or side effects it could cause.

WHAT?!?!?

Read that paragraph again, s-l-o-w-l-y.

So, suddenly we now are supposed to trust the FDA?!?!?

How could Del Bigtree be in favor of promoting this bill (which, “thanks” to ICAN, has already been introduced into several state legislatures).

Well, this is exactly what I wanted to find out, so I directed my assistant to dig into the bill and ask questions to both Bigtree and his organization’s attorney, Aaron Siri.

Siri’s law clerk answered us with a “We don’t have time to go into details” non-answer, and as far as Bigtree? Crickets…

But what really threw me for a loop was when a few of Bigtree’s associates reached out to me privately defending Bigtree saying that I, myself, was in error and that surely, Bigtree’s bill was nothing like I was making it out to be, because Bigtree is “one of us.”

Well, the thing is: I didn’t criticize Bigtree, I criticized his bill, and I stand by my analysis of it.

Take a look at my video here for my analysis and then leave a comment to let me know what you think about this horrid bill.

I also make the argument that we don’t need more laws — we need to enforce the laws that are supposed to protect our God-given rights!

And stay tuned for a “Part 2” substack post where I’ll show you my follow-up video and the exact email correspondence that was sent to Bigtree and that went unanswered.

Stay tuned for TOMORROW’s substack where we will continue the conversation and I’ll share the exact email we sent to both Aaron Siri’s law firm and the ICAN Legislate organization to get answers… which unfortunately, never came.