In a phone interview, Del Bigtree, a fierce advocate for medical freedom, left a New York Times reporter speechless by dismantling the claim that “the vaccine is safer than catching the virus.” His logic was unassailable.
The reporter argued myocarditis and pericarditis are more common from a live COVID infection than the vaccine. Bigtree met her on her terms, zeroing in on the spike protein—the key culprit in both. “Can we agree the spike protein causes the blood issues, myocarditis, and pericarditis?” he asked. She conceded: Yes.
Bigtree pressed: “If the spike protein in the virus and vaccine is the same, don’t they carry equal risk?” He hinted at evidence the vaccine’s spike protein might persist longer but set that aside for fairness. Assuming identical spike proteins, he delivered the knockout:
“The vaccine guarantees you get the spike protein, injected directly into your body. Catching the virus? That’s random—you might never encounter it.”
This is seismic. Vaccination ensures exposure to the harmful spike protein, bypassing natural barriers like the respiratory system. With the virus, chance plays a role—you might dodge it.
“Mandating vaccines forces everyone to take that risk, increasing myocarditis and pericarditis cases compared to randomized viral exposure,” Bigtree argued. The reporter’s response? “Oh my god.” For once, she was stunned, grappling with his clarity.
He wasn’t done: “You’re bypassing the immune system’s first line of defense—our natural barriers. Why ignore the body’s design?” This exchange is a clarion call: question narratives. Demand logic. The vaccine vs. virus debate deserves scrutiny.
