Del Bigtree, a prominent advocate for medical freedom and informed consent, recently shared his journey from mainstream media producer to becoming one of the most influential voices challenging pharmaceutical dominance in healthcare.
Bigtree’s story begins with his upbringing in a conscious, spiritually-aware family that emphasized critical thinking and personal empowerment. His parents made the pivotal decision to homeschool him after an incident where young Del changed his shirt because a classmate criticized it. His mother’s response—”I am never going to raise kids that care what other people think”—encapsulates the philosophy that would guide Bigtree’s future advocacy work.
This foundation of questioning authority and trusting one’s intuition led Bigtree to eventually walk away from his successful career as a producer on the television show “The Doctors” when he realized certain stories about vaccine safety couldn’t be told due to pharmaceutical sponsorship pressures. This decision marked the beginning of his journey into becoming a leading voice for medical freedom.
Bigtree highlights how the pharmaceutical industry has become the most powerful lobby in Washington, outspending even oil and gas industries two-to-one. This financial power translates directly to influence over media, education, and healthcare policy. With pharmaceutical companies funding 50-70% of television advertising, Bigtree describes television as essentially “an electronic billboard” where content exists primarily to hold viewers’ attention for advertisers.
The conversation explores how the education system trains children to obey rather than question, comparing it to factory worker training—teaching students to respond to bells and follow instructions without critical analysis. This conditioning, Bigtree suggests, makes it easier for medical and governmental authorities to command compliance without providing proper informed consent later in life.
One of the most compelling aspects of Bigtree’s advocacy is his focus on informed consent—the principle that individuals should receive complete information about medical interventions, including potential risks and benefits, before making decisions. He points out that vaccine mandates violate the Nuremberg Code’s prohibition against coercion in medical decisions, arguing that denying education to unvaccinated children represents precisely such coercion.
The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act receives particular scrutiny from Bigtree, who explains how this legislation shields vaccine manufacturers from liability when their products cause harm. This immunity from lawsuits, he argues, removes manufacturers’ incentives to create safer products or conduct thorough safety testing.
For parents concerned about vaccine safety but overwhelmed by conflicting information, Bigtree recommends examining FDA package inserts and specifically looking at section 6.1, which details the safety trials conducted. He emphasizes that many childhood vaccines received approval based on surprisingly small trial groups observed for very short periods.
Throughout the interview, Bigtree maintains that his goal isn’t to eliminate vaccines but to restore proper safety testing, manufacturer liability, and most importantly, parental choice. He encourages citizens to engage directly with their representatives, emphasizing that personal visits to legislators’ offices can have significant impact because representatives understand how difficult such visits are for most constituents.
As parents navigate these complex medical decisions, Bigtree advocates for trusting intuition, doing personal research, and remembering that ultimately, the human body is resilient. His message centers on empowerment: individuals have the capability to research, question, and make informed decisions about their health and their children’s health, regardless of the pressure from pharmaceutical companies, medical authorities, or educational institutions.