Do you have something important to say about an issue that matters to society? The Gazette of Medical Sciences welcomes such submissions to its Department of Public Interest. Submit your voice here: https://www.thegms.co/manuscript-submission-form/

🎯 They’re Watching Everything You Do. Unless They Don’t Want To.

Author: Michael Kirk Moore, MD Publication: G Med Sci. 2026; 7(1):60-69 Published: August 24, 2026

📡 The Surveillance State: Three Tiers of Selective Justice

We’ve been told how this works. A crime is committed. Law enforcement deploys its tools — cameras, databases, license plate readers, cell tower dumps — to find the perpetrator. Technology serves the investigation. Evidence leads to the suspect. Justice is served.

That’s the social contract. That’s what we pay for.

But the alternative — that the surveillance net is cast first, and the crime is found later, or invented, or ignored depending on who the target is — is too ugly to look at directly.

So let’s look at it directly.

🔍 Tier One: Milwaukee — Find the Person, Invent the Crime

The Milwaukee Police Department has 31 Flock Safety cameras. Over 200 across the county. These cameras photograph every license plate that passes, log the time and location, and dump it all into a searchable database. Officers are supposed to use this system for “bona fide law enforcement purposes.” They’re required to enter a reason for each search.

Here’s what happened anyway.

Officer Josue Ayala used the Flock system to search his ex-girlfriend’s license plate 55 times. He searched her new boyfriend’s plate 124 times. Combined: 179 searches over two months in spring 2025. Each time, he typed “investigation” into the reason field. He was on duty. He was protecting and serving. He was stalking his ex.

The victims discovered this because one of them went to HaveIBeenFlocked.com — a website built by private citizens, not the government, not the police department, not the Flock corporation — that lets you check whether your plate has been run through these databases. The only reason these victims know they were stalked is because some civic-minded programmers built a tool the system itself never provided.

Ayala cut a deal. He resigned. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor — misconduct in public office. The prosecutor agreed to recommend a fine. For 179 counts of using government surveillance equipment to stalk two people. If you or I put a tracking device on an ex-girlfriend’s car, we’d be looking at felony stalking charges. But when a cop does it with taxpayer-funded equipment while on the clock? That’s a fine. Maybe.

Then it gets worse.

The detective assigned to investigate Ayala’s misconduct was Tehrangi Chapman — 22-year veteran, Internal Affairs Division. Chapman reviewed the audit trails. Chapman saw exactly what happens when an officer abuses the Flock system. Chapman saw the 179 searches, the fake “investigation” labels, the two traumatized victims.

And then, according to a criminal complaint, Chapman did the same damn thing. Twenty searches on two victims. Logged as “test” and “training.” And — because why stop at license plate readers — Chapman also planted a physical GPS tracking device on one victim’s vehicle without their knowledge or consent. When that victim found the device and confronted Chapman, they tried to make an anonymous report. They were, according to prosecutors, “visibly shaken” and “upset that their identity was discovered during the investigation.”

Chapman now faces felony misconduct in public office and misdemeanor misuse of a GPS device. He faces up to three and a half years.

The Milwaukee scorecard:

• Officer #1 stalks his ex 179 times. Resigns. Gets a fine.

• Detective #2 investigates Officer #1, then gets caught doing the same thing — plus a GPS tracker. Faces felony charges.

• The department responds by “increasing audits” and “trimming down access.”

The system works. The policies are robust. The oversight is vigilant. The people in charge can absolutely be trusted. They’ve told us so. Repeatedly.

🎪 Tier Two: Utah — Find the Crime, Then Find the Perpetrator (Unless You Don’t Feel Like It)

Now let’s look at how this technology is deployed when it actually matters — when there’s a real crime, a real victim, and a real need to find the perpetrator.

Tyler Robinson stands accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September 2025. The highest-profile murder case in Utah history. Death penalty on the table.

The prosecution presented grainy, spliced campus surveillance footage, sometimes not even in chronological order. DNA evidence — a screwdriver, a towel, possible contributor matches. Videotaped testimony from Robinson’s former roommate about an alleged confession note. Photographs of the rifle. Engraved bullet casings. A Chick-fil-A receipt.

Here’s what they didn’t present:

No Flock Camera Data

Utah is blanketed with these things. Conservative estimate: well over 60 Flock cameras in Utah County alone, all feeding into a shared, searchable database with 30-day retention. That’s not counting UDOT cameras, private business feeds shared with law enforcement, or neighboring county data accessible through Flock’s networked architecture.

The UVU campus sits at the intersection of University Parkway and I-15 — one of the most heavily surveilled corridors in the state. A vehicle approaching UVU from any direction will pass multiple cameras.

If Tyler Robinson drove to UVU on September 10, 2025 — and the prosecution’s own narrative, backed by doorbell camera footage, says he parked his vehicle and walked to campus — then his license plate was captured. Multiple times. By multiple cameras. At multiple locations. With time stamps and GPS coordinates.

Where is that data? The prosecution didn’t present it. The defense apparently hasn’t received it.

No Cell Phone Tower Pings

The prosecution has Robinson on campus for hours before the shooting. They showed surveillance footage of someone they say is him — walking around, buying Chick-fil-A, changing clothes, making contact with Kirk’s staff. Hours of alleged presence. And yet: no cell tower data. No location pings. No digital confirmation that Robinson’s phone was anywhere near UVU during the time in question. In any modern investigation, this is standard. It was notably absent.

No Mention of the Panguitch Debit Card Transaction

Robinson allegedly had a witnessed debit card transaction in Panguitch, Utah — roughly 200 miles south of Provo — between 9:00 and 9:50 p.m. on the night of the shooting. That’s nearly a four-hour drive from UVU. If that transaction is real and verified, it raises serious questions about the timeline. The FBI was notified but never followed up. At the preliminary hearing, it was never mentioned. Not once.

The Body Camera That Conveniently Died

UVU Police Officer Chris Bagley was the first officer to reach the roof of the Losee Center after the shooting. He spotted the screwdriver that would become central to the prosecution’s DNA case. He observed the “sniper pad” disturbance in the gravel. He was the first set of official eyes on what the state alleges was the sniper’s nest.

And his body camera stopped recording. Right as he reached the roof.

Bagley testified that his battery died. “I think my battery died. I don’t know,” he said. He had approximately 27 minutes of footage from that day. He did not recharge his body camera because, he said, “it was too chaotic.”

Axon body cameras — which both Provo PD and UVU PD use — are designed to operate for a full shift. A standard Axon Body 3 or Body 4 camera provides 12 to 14 hours of battery life under normal operation. Bagley’s camera recorded 27 minutes before dying on the roof of the most important crime scene in Utah history.

Axon body cameras generate a comprehensive device audit trail that logs, at minimum:

• Every power-on and power-off event, with date and time stamps

• Battery percentage at the time of each event

• Recording start and end events, with time stamps

• GPS coordinates added to recordings

• When the camera was docked or undocked

• When video was accessed or streamed

• Sleep mode entry and exit (a distinct event from power-off)

• Firmware version and device status changes

• Remaining storage capacity at each event

• A loud audible notification when battery reaches 10%, then an even louder one at 5%

This audit trail is exportable as both PDF and CSV. It cannot be altered by the officer. It is stored on Axon’s servers, not on the camera itself. Every event, every action, every change is logged — including battery percentage at the moment of shutdown.

The audit trail would answer every question:

• What was the battery percentage when Bagley started his shift?

• What was the battery percentage when the camera shut off on the roof?

• Was the camera manually powered down or did it shut off due to low battery?

• If low battery, why was a camera with 14-hour battery life dead after 27 minutes?

• If manually powered down, who did it and why?

• Where are the GPS logs showing the camera’s location throughout the shift?

• Was the footage accessed, reviewed, or altered after the fact?

None of this was presented at the preliminary hearing. The officer’s explanation — “I think my battery died. I don’t know” — was accepted without follow-up.

⚖️ The Comparison: Kouri Richins

Now let’s compare. Kouri Richins, convicted of murdering her husband in Park City. Her trial was a festival of surveillance-state evidence:

• Cell phone records — including sensor data showing she was holding the phone to her ear during the 911 call

• GPS data

• Digital forensic analysis of deleted text messages

• Financial records

• Body camera footage

• A private investigator who logged 936 hours and over $100,000 in billables

The state threw every piece of technological evidence they had at her. They convicted her.

So here’s the question:

Why does one Utah defendant get buried in digital evidence — cell towers, GPS, deleted texts, financial forensics — while another defendant, in a case with national implications and the death penalty, gets a prosecution built on a roommate’s recorded statement, some inconclusive ballistics, and a body camera that mysteriously died after 27 minutes on the most important roof in the state?

The technology exists. It’s deployed. It’s operational. We know this because:

• A Wayne County triple-homicide suspect was tracked across southern Utah and into Colorado using Flock cameras and GPS — just months ago. The system worked.

• Kouri Richins was convicted on a mountain of digital evidence from the same systems that are apparently silent in the Robinson case.

• Milwaukee police officers can apparently search anyone’s license plate 179 times without breaking a sweat — the data is there, it’s accessible, it’s comprehensive.

So either the 60-plus Flock cameras that blanket Utah County all happened to be looking the other way on September 10, 2025 — and the Axon body camera with 14-hour battery life just happened to die after 27 minutes at the exact moment the first officer reached the sniper’s nest — or the data exists and the prosecution chose not to present it.

Draw your own conclusions about why.

📜 The Fourth Amendment: Still on the Books (If That’s Any Comfort)

These are not traffic cameras. They are automated license plate readers that photograph every single vehicle that passes — not just suspect vehicles, not just stolen vehicles. Every vehicle. Every plate. Every time. They log the image, the plate number, the time, the GPS coordinates. They store this data — typically for 30 days, sometimes longer. They share it across jurisdictions, creating a searchable, networked database of vehicle movements across entire metropolitan areas.

In Wichita, Kansas, a defendant challenged the warrantless use of Flock data under the Fourth Amendment. The court acknowledged he had standing. The court acknowledged the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The court then ruled that nine Flock captures of his vehicle over a single day did not constitute a search because — and this is the legal reasoning — it wasn’t enough surveillance to reveal “the whole of his movements.”

So the constitutional protection isn’t based on whether you’re being tracked without a warrant. It’s based on how many times you’re being tracked without a warrant. A few times? Perfectly fine. A lot of times? Maybe a problem. The threshold is undefined. The courts will let you know when you’ve crossed it. Probably after you’ve already been convicted.

In Norfolk, Virginia — 176 Flock cameras — a federal judge tossed a lawsuit challenging the system, ruling that the plaintiffs “failed to demonstrate that Norfolk’s Flock cameras capture enough data to reveal the whole or virtual whole of their or other citizens’ movements.”

Notice the circular logic. The cameras don’t violate the Fourth Amendment because there aren’t enough of them yet to track your “whole movements.” But every year, more cameras are installed. Every year, the net tightens. Every year, the database grows. And every year, the courts say: still not enough. Check back later.

The Fourth Amendment says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

It does not say: “Unless the search is done with a camera instead of a GPS tracker.”

It does not say: “Unless the search only captures some of your movements, not all of them.”

It does not say: “Unless the officer logs the search as ‘training’ and hopes nobody checks.”

It does not say: “Unless the body camera battery just happens to die at the crime scene.”

But that’s where we are.

🎭 The Real Purpose of the Surveillance State

The sales pitch is always the same. Public safety. Crime-solving. Protecting communities. Finding the bad guys.

And sometimes that’s true. The Wayne County triple-homicide suspect was caught with Flock data. Real crime, real victims, real perpetrator. The system worked as advertised.

But the Milwaukee cases reveal what happens when the system is working as designed, not as advertised. The design is simple: give people with badges and passwords access to a database of everyone’s movements, tell them to behave, and hope for the best.

The Robinson hearing reveals the other side. When the surveillance state has data that might complicate the prosecution’s narrative — cell tower pings that don’t place the defendant at the scene, 60-plus Flock cameras that somehow didn’t capture his vehicle, a debit card transaction 200 miles away, a body camera that died after 27 minutes — that data becomes mysteriously irrelevant. Not exculpatory, exactly. Just... not presented. Not followed up on. Not disclosed.

This is the three-tiered reality:

TierDescriptionExampleOneTechnology deployed aggressively against defendants the state wants to convictKouri Richins gets the full digital autopsyTwoTechnology deployed recreationally by the people who operate itMilwaukee cops stalk exes, log it as “investigation”ThreeTechnology deployed selectively — or not at all — when evidence might point away from the state’s preferred narrative60+ cameras silent, body cam dies at 27 minutes, cell towers empty

This is not a bug. This is the feature. The surveillance state exists to serve power, not truth. It exists to build cases the state wants to build and to ignore evidence the state wants to ignore. The “public safety” framing is the marketing copy. The reality is what you see in Milwaukee and Provo.

🏛️ This Is Not a Democracy Anymore

Tucker Carlson has been saying it plainly, and he’s right: we don’t live in a democracy. Not in any meaningful sense.

A democracy is a system where the government acts in the interests of the governed. Where our elected leaders make laws that benefit the people who sent them there — not themselves, not their donors, not the surveillance contractors pitching the next camera network. Where the institutions exist to serve the public, not to manage it. Where the technology serves the investigation, not the other way around.

What we have instead is a managerial state. A surveillance apparatus. A legal system that deploys its full technological weight against some defendants while mysteriously finding its hands empty against others. A police force where officers use license plate readers to stalk their ex-girlfriends, and the detective assigned to investigate them turns out to be doing the exact same thing.

Nothing is being done for our benefit. That’s not an opinion — it’s the definition of the absence of democracy. When the government ceases to act in the interests of the governed, the governed no longer live in a democracy. They live in something else. Something that still holds elections and still flies the flag and still uses the old vocabulary but is no longer answerable to the people it pretends to serve.

The Founders gave us a remedy for this. It’s in the Declaration of Independence:

“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

That’s not radical. That’s not fringe. That’s the founding document of the United States of America. The right to overthrow a government that no longer serves the people isn’t some internet conspiracy — it’s the entire premise of this country. It’s the escape hatch the Founders built into the system because they knew, from hard experience with the British Crown, that power doesn’t self-correct.

We’re not there yet. But we’re closer than most people care to admit. When police officers stalk citizens with surveillance tech and just get fines. When prosecutors bury exculpatory evidence while building death penalty cases. When the courts rule that photographing every vehicle on every road doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because it only captures a few of your movements — for now. When the same government that tried to put a doctor in prison for 35 years suddenly decides, mid-trial, that it was all “in the interests of justice” to walk away.

That’s not justice. That’s not democracy. That’s power protecting itself and using every tool at its disposal to do so.

The Flock cameras are just the most visible piece of it. They’re the part you can see from your car window. But behind them is an entire architecture of surveillance, classification, selective prosecution, and narrative management that has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with control.

The question isn’t whether the system is broken. The question is whether enough Americans still remember what it feels like to be free — and whether they’re willing to demand it back.

Noli Parere.

👤 About the Author

Dr. Michael Kirk Moore is an ex-board-certified plastic surgeon in Utah. In 2023, he was indicted on federal charges related to his COVID-19 vaccine clinic. All charges were dismissed by Attorney General Pam Bondi in July 2025. His forthcoming book is OATH: Truth, Medicine, and the Price of Integrity.

Source: Moore MK. They’re Watching Everything You Do. Unless They Don’t Want To. G Med Sci. 2026; 7(1):60-69. https://www.doi.org/10.46766/thegms.pubi.26120802

I want to tell you about Dr. Ron Elfenbein.

Not because his story is unique. But because it’s a flashing red warning light about what happens when a physician dares to speak truth to power in modern America — and because I’m done self-censoring, worrying about what others think. Hence this.

During the darkest days of COVID, while most doctors kept their heads down and followed the script, Dr. Elfenbein was actually saving lives. A Maryland emergency medicine physician, he built one of the state’s largest COVID testing and treatment networks — seven sites serving communities that desperately needed help. He operated Maryland’s largest monoclonal antibody treatment program. He partnered directly with HHS and the Maryland Department of Health. He literally invented the “Test to Treat” model that became the national blueprint for monoclonal antibody sites. This man donated PPE nationwide, including to federal agencies. He was honored by the Governor. The State Legislature recognized his work. The Maryland State Medical Society — his peers — named him “Physician of the Year.”

They gave him that award after he was indicted. Let that sink in.

Dr. Elfenbein committed one unforgivable sin: he went on Fox News and Newsmax and told the truth. The Biden administration was systematically shutting down monoclonal antibody treatments — treatments that were working, treatments that were saving lives. He went on national television and said the quiet part out loud: “People are going to die.” That was it. No conspiracy theories. No wild accusations. Just a frontline physician warning the public that a political decision would cost lives.

Four months later, almost to the day, the DOJ indicted him. (Fox News covered it here.)

Here’s where the story goes from concerning to outright terrifying. The DOJ filed criminal charges against Dr. Elfenbein before ever reviewing a single patient chart. They charged him with healthcare fraud without looking at the medical records that would prove or disprove their case. The government alleged “upcoding” on COVID-19 test visits. A billing dispute. The total amount in question? Approximately $250. Two hundred and fifty dollars. For this, the DOJ pursued up to 50 years in prison and millions in penalties.

But here’s the kicker: the prosecution never used a single medical coding expert. Not one. Throughout the entire case, the government could not define how Dr. Elfenbein’s clinic supposedly coded “wrong,” could not identify what “correct” coding would have looked like, and could not produce any expert testimony supporting fraud. The case was built on patients who weren’t even treated by Dr. Elfenbein. The charging documents contained errors — including misidentifying Dr. Elfenbein himself.

The Chief Federal Judge in Maryland saw what was happening. In a pre-trial conference, he castigated the government, stating: “This is a case of shoot first and ask questions later.”

And here’s something you need to understand about how extraordinary this case is: the American Medical Association — the AMA — filed an amicus brief in defense of Dr. Elfenbein. Think about that. The AMA wrote the very coding guidelines the government claimed Dr. Elfenbein violated, and they told the court this prosecution was wrong. The Maryland State Medical Society filed in support. The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons filed in support. Every qualified coding expert who testified confirmed the same thing: the coding was accurate and justified. An independent expert who literally trains government investigators in medical coding reviewed the case and found no fraud whatsoever.

After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict. But the Chief Judge of Maryland did something rare and remarkable. He issued a 93-page judicial opinion overturning the jury verdict. He acquitted Dr. Elfenbein completely. He additionally guaranteed him a new trial if the government appealed — a procedural protection that speaks volumes about what the judge thought of the prosecution’s conduct. (You can read the full 93-page opinion here.)

So what did the Biden DOJ do? With mere weeks remaining in the administration, they appealed.

Dr. Ron Elfenbein — fully acquitted, vindicated by a 93-page judicial opinion, supported by the AMA itself — now faces a second criminal trial in August. He’s got a website where you can follow the case and support his defense: DroptheCase.com. (You can also watch him tell his own story here.)

Maybe some of you know this about me, but I’ve been disillusioned with medicine and the brain-washing we’ve all been subjected to for decades. We were taught that vaccines are the safest and most effective interventions in history. Not really taught — we were informed, and none of us ever questioned it. Pure dogma. We trusted our professors, our education. But here’s what they didn’t tell us: Big Pharma owns the medical school education system. Up to 90% of funding for medical education comes from the pharmaceutical industry. And they own the media too — upwards of 70% of media funding comes from Pfizer, Merck, GSK, AstraZeneca, and the rest.

The Elfenbein case isn’t about a $250 billing dispute. It’s about what happens when a physician steps outside the approved narrative. A decorated physician speaks publicly about policy endangering patients, and the full weight of federal law enforcement comes down on him. He faces half a century in prison over what amounts to pocket change, and even after complete vindication, the government won’t let go.

What doctor will speak out now? What physician will criticize public health policy? What citizen will step up in the next emergency?

The Vaccine Fraud

The same corruption that targeted Dr. Elfenbein is the corruption that gave us a vaccine schedule with zero long-term placebo-controlled trials. Not one childhood vaccine has been studied against a true placebo control. Not one. (ICAN has the full chart — go look at it yourself.)

Stanley Plotkin — the “godfather of vaccines,” developer of the rubella, rabies, and rotavirus vaccines, all of which he receives royalties for — has now admitted what many of us have known for years: vaccine safety has never been robustly studied. The 1986 Vaccine Liability Act demanded epidemiological studies and commission meetings to review safety data. That commission has never met once. Not once.

And the adjuvants? The stuff they inject alongside the antigens to “stimulate the immune response”? Here’s what the scientists themselves admit in Nature: “despite their widespread use, the molecular mechanisms by which the available adjuvants — including alum, MF59 and the Adjuvant Systems AS0 adjuvants — actually work in humans is not well understood.” (That’s straight from the peer-reviewed literature.) We’re injecting aluminum, squalene emulsions, and TLR agonists into infants, and the scientists themselves admit they don’t understand how these substances work in the human body. Does anyone ask why anymore? Does anyone have any discernment, skepticism?

A frontline, decorated, and courageous COVID physician was targeted, prosecuted without evidence, and fully acquitted — and now faces a new trial anyway. This is federal law enforcement weaponization against a whistleblower. Dr. Elfenbein fits squarely into the DOJ Weaponization Task Force’s mandate — specifically category #7, whistleblower status. (That’s per AG Bondi’s memo establishing the Weaponization Working Group.) He publicly spoke out about the Biden administration putting lives at risk, and the system tried to destroy him for it.

The judge’s 93-page opinion is public record. The AMA’s amicus brief is public record. None of this is conspiracy — it’s documented, judicial, indisputable.

The question isn’t whether the system is corrupt. The question is what you’re going to do about it.

We have to stop abdicating our own well-being and that of our friends and families to a government agency or institution. None of them have a care in the world about us. They only care about where and how to get more money and power.

NOLI PARERES. Think for yourself. Do not let what others might think of you determine your life.

No one looks out for you like you.

— Dr. Robert Zeppa

July 14, 2026

I haven't written about this case publicly yet because frankly, I've been too disgusted to put words to it. But watching what the federal government just did to Dr. Sanjeev Kumar — a Memphis gynecologist now serving 20 years for the crime of... cleaning his medical devices the CDC-approved way — has pushed me past disgust into something closer to rage.

No, I'm not exaggerating. Twenty years. For a doctor who harmed zero patients. Let that sink in.

The Charges That Made the Headlines vs. The Charges That Stuck

When the FBI raided Dr. Kumar's Poplar Avenue clinic in April 2024, the press had a field day. Indictment in February 2025 was even more sensational. Sexual misconduct! Human trafficking! A doctor luring women across state lines for illegal sex acts! The indictment was a prosecutor's dream — 46 federal counts dripping with the kind of salacious detail that guarantees wall-to-wall coverage and destroys a man's reputation before he ever sees a courtroom.

Those charges? All dismissed. Every single one of them.

What remained was a regulatory dispute dressed up as a criminal case: the FDA alleged Kumar "adulterated" and "misbranded" single-use medical devices. The government's theory? He reused them on patients.

Now, you'd think proving reuse would require, I don't know, evidence of actual reuse. Silly me. Thinking like a doctor, not a federal prosecutor.

The Evidence the FBI Refused to Test

Here's where it gets good. The FBI's own forensic laboratory — the Evidence Management Unit and Trace Evidence Unit — refused to test the devices for DNA.

No, really. They issued a "Discontinuation Report." Translation: "We're not touching this."

Why? Because the devices were sitting in cleaning solution. The FBI's own forensic examiners said the presence of those solutions made DNA analysis impossible. The Laboratory Physical Operations Unit also refused, noting the equipment had been handled by Kumar and his staff.

Think about the logic here: the FBI wouldn't test the evidence because it wasn’t going to show contamination— too compromised to yield results — but the DOJ still used that same evidence to put a man in prison for two decades.

These devices remained with the FBI in filthy conditions for months, literally biting dust.

If that doesn't make your blood boil, check your pulse.

What the Trial Actually Showed

A microtrace expert and multiple witnesses testified there was zero evidence any single-use device was ever reused on a patient. Blood was tested three times and returned negative.

Some devices — like the Endosee hysteroscope — have a built-in kill switch that physically prevents a cannula from being reused. You literally cannot reuse it. The thing bricks itself.

Other devices seized by investigators were found in a cupboard without a battery. Inoperable. Not touching any patient.

Forceps and graspers cited by the FDA didn't even fit the scopes they were allegedly associated with.

Many items had been staged for disposal, not for use. Per CDC’s own guidelines to dispose of biomedical waste.

Dr. Kumar conducted a live in-court demonstration showing the devices were inoperable and couldn't be used on patients.

The devices that were in use? Sitting in CDC-approved high-level disinfectant solution — exactly what the CDC guidelines say you're supposed to do.

And the kicker: Zero patients contracted an infection. No disease outbreak. No injury. No harmed patient. Out of over 9,000 women treated. The clinic conducted over 40,000 visits without hysteroscopy. 3800 patients never had hysteroscopy but the DOJ conveniently excluded them to paint a picture that everyone had hysteroscopy!!

A Tennessee Department of Health panel investigated Kumar and found no wrongdoing. The FBI never wanted to interviewed her. Funny how that works — when a witness doesn't fit the narrative, you just... don't call them.

The Patients Who Testified — Both of Them

The prosecution paraded some former patients in front of the jury.

Patient 2: Said she never felt tricked or misled. Only stopped going to Kumar's clinic because she found one closer to home. That was the prosecution's witness.

Patient 9: Had multiple biopsies she found uncomfortable. Admitted on cross-examination she failed to take her prescribed medication. Felt the procedures were excessive. That's it. That's the sum total of patient "harm."

No patient testified to being injured by a reused device. No patient testified to contracting an infection. No patient testified to any physical injury whatsoever.

Thousands of patients benefitted from the services. Countless of cancers were diagnosed. 

One patient took the stand and said Dr. Kumar was nice and that his patients loved him. 

How They Got the Conviction Anyway

Enter Judge Sheryl Lipman — Barack Obama appointee, Western District of Tennessee.

If that name sounds familiar, it should. This is the same judge who was kicked off a case by the Sixth Circuit for outright defiance. The case: Dane Schrank, a man who downloaded nearly 1,000 images of babies and toddlers being violently, sadistically raped. Federal sentencing guidelines called for 97–120 months. Lipman gave him 12 months of home confinement.

The Sixth Circuit reversed her. She reimposed the exact same sentence and publicly mocked the appellate judges' "computer sophistication." The Sixth Circuit reversed her again and removed her from the case entirely. That's about as harsh a judicial rebuke as exists short of impeachment.

So the judge who bent over backwards to keep a child pornography offender out of prison is the same judge who presided over Kumar's trial. And what did she do?

She allowed jury instructions under which prosecutors did not have to prove actual reuse of a device on a patient. Criminal liability could attach if a device was merely present in a medical office — even if inoperable, never used, never touched a patient. Next time a medical student uses a device to learn in a clinic; be watchful. The physician can go to jail for that!!!

Let me say that again: under this legal theory, having a medical device in your clinic that the FDA says is "single-use" is a crime — even if you never used it, even if it literally cannot be reused, even if it was sitting in a disposal bin.

Every physician in America should be terrified.

The Agent Who Deleted His Phone

Lead FDA agent Brian Kriplean deleted the contents of his phone and failed to disclose key investigative materials until after witnesses had testified. That's a Brady violation. That's a Giglio violation. That's the kind of thing that gets cases thrown out — unless, apparently, the judge has somewhere else to be.

Post-verdict, the defense raised claims of juror misconduct — a juror may have had outside contact during deliberations. Sentencing was delayed, then proceeded anyway. Twenty years.

The FDA lead reviewer; Poulomi Nandy, lied under oath

Lead FDA device reviewer, Poulomi Nandy testified under oath that FDA has never cleared a hysteroscope that can be used with high level disinfection. Never ever!! Then she was shown the product IFU cleared by her own agency-FDA which said repeatedly-“use with either high level disinfection or sterlization.” Repeatedly. She lied under oath, mislead the jury and has since been fired from the FDA.

The Playbook

This case is a masterclass in how the system destroys someone:

1. Charge them with the most salacious crimes imaginable — sex trafficking, sexual misconduct. Let the media run wild. Destroy the person's reputation before trial.

2. Drop those charges when they don't hold up. By then, the public has already made up its mind. "Where there's smoke, there's fire," right?

3. Pursue conviction on the regulatory charges using novel legal theories that criminalize normal medical practice.

4. Suppress exculpatory evidence, delete phone data, ignore witnesses who don't fit the narrative.

5. Stack the deck with jury instructions that don't require proof of actual harm.

And the result? A doctor who served over 9,000 mostly low-income, minority women — a doctor who harmed nobody — is doing 20 years in federal prison.

Why This Matters to Every Doctor

If the FDA can criminalize the mere presence of a single-use device in your office — even if it was never reused, even if it was in a disposal bin, even if it has a built-in mechanism preventing reuse — then no physician is safe.

The FDA doesn't have jurisdiction over the practice of medicine. That's supposed to be a state matter. But the feds have figured out a workaround: use the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's adulteration and misbranding provisions — statutes designed for regulatory enforcement — as criminal weapons against individual doctors.

Stanley Plotkin and his ilk have spent decades building a medical establishment that serves industry, not patients. The Kumar case is what happens when that establishment decides to make an example of someone.

What You Can Do

Dr. Kumar is appealing. The Brady violations, the juror misconduct, the legally novel jury instructions — there's substantial ground for appellate scrutiny. But appeals take years, and he's already lost his practice, his reputation, and his freedom.

Share this. Talk about it. The same DOJ that prosecuted Kumar is the DOJ that told us the Trump shooter was a "lone gunman" within 48 hours. The same institutions that lied about the Wuhan lab leak. The same FDA that approved vaccines for newborns with five days of follow-up. The same agencies that have never conducted a single randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for any childhood vaccine.

They don't care about us. They care about power, money, and control.

NOLI PARERES.

I hereby request the immediate removal of my name from the list of signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration.

When I endorsed the Declaration, I did so under the impression—based on the information publicly available at the time, as well as knowledge imparted during my original medical school training—that a novel pathogen had been identified and that a specific protective strategy was being proposed to mitigate its spread. I now know that those assumptions were false.

After thorough independent study of the primary evidence, and through the detailed analyses presented by researchers and clinicians such as Drs. Michael Yeadon, Thomas Cowan, Mark and Sam Bailey, Andrew Kaufman, as well as Jamie Andrews, and many others, I have reached the unequivocal conclusion that the entire Covid-19 pandemic narrative rests upon fraudulent science, data manipulation, and false attribution of disease causation.

No verified, purified, or characterized viral entity meeting any valid standard of isolation has ever been produced. SARS-CoV-2 is a computer-assembled consensus sequence, not a biological discovery. The claim of a novel pathogen rests entirely on in silico construction and circular validation through meaningless PCR testing.

As Drs. Bailey and Kaufman have documented, no specimen containing purified virus has been demonstrated to cause illness in any host, human or animal. This means the central premise of contagion driving global mortality was never substantiated; it was asserted through media repetition and institutional amplification rather than demonstrable scientific evidence.

The events beginning in 2020 were largely a bureaucratically generated phenomenon. They arose from the misuse of PCR testing at non-diagnostic thresholds, the reclassification of common illnesses and deaths, suppression of appropriate medical care, and sustained institutional messaging designed to enforce compliance through fear. These practices produced the illusion of a viral pandemic while concealing the real harms—iatrogenic injury, psychological trauma, economic collapse, and widespread violations of civil liberties.

The Great Barrington Declaration begins with and upholds the assumption that a novel viral pathogen existed and required containment through “focused protection.” While opposition to mass lockdown policies was justified—and certainly preferable to the policies adopted by most governments—the Declaration’s framing nonetheless reinforced the underlying virological premise upon which the broader pandemic narrative depended.

By legitimizing that premise, the Declaration inadvertently strengthens the pandemic preparedness industry, which continues to profit from fear narratives such as the prospect of “the next lab leak.” Unless society confronts and dismantles the foundational assumptions of modern virology that enabled this crisis, humanity remains vulnerable to repeated cycles of manufactured health emergencies.

Accordingly, I formally and permanently withdraw my name from the Great Barrington Declaration. I request written confirmation within fourteen (14) days that my name, credentials, and any reference to my prior endorsement have been removed from all records, publications, and websites associated with the Declaration. I further request assurance that no statement or document suggests my continued support for the Declaration or its premises.

For reasons of scientific integrity, medical ethics, and professional responsibility, I hereby disavow and formally withdraw my support for the Great Barrington Declaration in its entirety.

Sincerely,

M. Kirk Moore, MD

I watched your performance before Senator Johnson’s committee, and let’s be clear — it cannot even be called “misinformation,” it was outright lying. You lied on national TV.

You paraded around “661 placebo-controlled studies” as proof for your position. You claim to have reviewed 1088 studies from 1800-2025. But you knew full well those studies were not supportive, and when Aaron Siri dismantled them one by one in front of you, essentially your only response was: “How could you have read them so quickly? I only gave them to you at 2 AM.” That wasn’t a rebuttal. That was an admission you had no defense — and it exposed the tactic for what it was: a desperate bluff.

Did you even compile that list yourself? Or did Big Pharma hand it to you? Did you actually review those 1,088 studies before culling them down to 661? Or did you just submit them blindly, hoping the volume alone would intimidate? Did you even read one of them? How could you present a list of wholly irrelevant articles as “support” for your position when you clearly hadn’t even examined them?

On top of that:

1. You claimed the mRNA was “true” mRNA that degraded rapidly. False. It is nucleoside-modified mRNA, specifically engineered not to degrade. There are numerous studies that have determined that.

2. You acted unaware that lipid nanoparticles were designed to cross biological barriers, including the blood–brain barrier. That’s basic pharmacology. That’s what the original patents for the LNP’s were issued for. Have you not even looked at the basics of the science you were brought in to testify about?

3. You stumbled over VAERS, the most fundamental vaccine safety surveillance system in the U.S. Any resident should know it — yet you weren’t even aware of it, except you could claim that ‘correlation does not mean causation’. Does that mean you did know of it, as you were perfectly capable of parting the mainstream narrative deriding its pertinence? Or were you just lying again?

4. You couldn’t even articulate the difference between how an mRNA “vaccine” functions compared to a traditional vaccine — a question so elementary a first-year medical student could recite it. That level of ignorance was on full display for the entire country.

You weren’t just out of your depth. You were humiliated on national television. And worse, you embarrassed Stanford — an institution that claims to uphold the highest academic and ethical standards. They should be mortified to see one of their own so thoroughly exposed for dishonesty and incompetence.

You embarrassed the entire medical profession.

You chose to step into that seat. You chose to posture as an expert. And in doing so, you revealed yourself to be neither. If you still have any professional integrity, you will retract your false statements, apologize to the committee, and to the public you misled.

Sincerely,

M. Kirk Moore, MD

The Week at a Glance

1. President Trump’s Truth Social Post Questioned the Crown Jewel of His First Term: Operation Warp Speed.

"It is very important that the Drug Companies justify the success of their various Covid Drugs. Many people think they are a miracle that saved Millions of lives. Others disagree! With CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer, and I want it NOW,"

2. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo Announced a Firm Stand Against Vaccine Mandates.

"Who am I as a man standing here now to tell you what you should put in your body? Who am I to tell you what your child should put in your body? I don't have that right. Your body is a gift from God... what you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and your God. Government does not have that right".

3. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Marched into the Senate Hearings, Representing the Victims of the Failed US Pandemic Response.

“The recent shakeups at CDC…were absolutely necessary adjustments to restore the agency to its role as the world’s gold standard public health agency. The CDC failed [in its responsibility] miserably during Covid-19 with its disastrous, nonsensical policies. We were lied to about everything [during Covid-19].”

“The whole process was politicized….and my job is to eliminate the politics from science”

4. President Trump Retreats - Loss of Courage?

“You have to be very careful when you say some people don’t have to be vaccinated…look, you have vaccines that work. They’re not controversial at all. [Polio] And I think those vaccines should be used otherwise some people are going to catch it and they endanger other people…”

Just when it seemed like the ground might finally be firming beneath the vaccine safety narrative, The President himself opens a sinkhole.

This issue is not a political football but rather a moral test for America.

Trump’s Post Forces the Vaccine Debate to the Surface

I had to read it twice to believe it!

Here was the man who had worn Operation Warp Speed like a badge of honor, and is finally daring to question it. The same Trump who once bragged about bringing vaccines to market “faster than anyone in history” now hinted, however faintly, that maybe we had been misled. Was he really calling out “Big Harma” (Big Pharma)—the same people he once hailed as saviors of humanity? It wasn’t a complete reversal. It wasn’t even an apology, but it was enough to ignite the grassroots and send a shiver down the gelatinous spines of legacy bureaucrats, Big Harma, and their lackies in the mainstream media.

For those of us who have lived through censorship, career destruction, criminal prosecution, and daily slander as “anti-vaxxers,” this wasn’t just a post. It was oxygen! It was the faintest acknowledgement from the man in the Oval that perhaps we were not crazy, not fringe, not wrong. For one brief moment, hope crackled like static in the air.

Florida Takes a Stand

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo delivered the words we’ve been waiting to hear for years: no more vaccine mandates. Period. Ladapo didn’t hedge with disclaimers or bury his point in technocratic jargon. He drew a line in the sand: Florida will not force its people to sacrifice their bodies on the altar of pharmaceutical power!

Florida has become more than a state—it is a sanctuary for common sense and decency, and Ladapo, whatever one thinks of his politics, has shown the rarest of qualities: Courage. His action prioritizes public health over partisan politics.

Jeff Childers observed, Ladapo “ripped out the hidden utilitarian premise and held it up to the light.” He leapt right over the scientific jargon and even the legality of the mandates, and grabbed the issue of morality by the necktie.”


Utilitarianism argues that the “greater good” justifies coercion—that if forcing one person to take a shot might supposedly save many, then compulsion is acceptable. That has been the unspoken moral shield behind every vaccine mandate.

Ladapo rejected it, and his message is simple:

“It is wrong to coerce a human being into taking an injected substance they don’t want.” Not because of data or legal loopholes, but because freedom and bodily autonomy are moral absolutes.

Ladapo’s position lays the ethical foundation for a rebellion against Big Harma tyranny.

RFK Jr. Storms Washington

Secretary Kennedy has long carried the torch for those who cannot afford attorneys or lobbyists. He represented parents who buried children and other victims gaslit by media who insisted side effects didn’t exist.

This week, in the formal halls of Congress, his presence meant something different. He spoke not only for the vaccine-injured but for the American soul—our right to question, to demand transparency, and to resist capture by corporate interests. His words shattered the false narrative and exposed the truth. The vaccine debate can no longer be dismissed as “conspiracy.” The scientific evidence, conflicts of interest, and lies are now being revealed and the open testimony is damning.

He supported his position with startling statistics:

- In 1950, 3% of Americans suffered from chronic illness. By 1963, when John F. Kennedy was president, the number had risen to 11%, and today, despite all the money spent in medicine, over 76% of Americans suffer from chronic illness.

- Eight out of ten of young adults cannot meet the minimal physical requirements for military service.

- Infant mortality as reported by the CDC, has risen year over year since 2021.

- Over 60% of young women and pregnant mothers now openly question vaccines. Think about that. These are not hardened activists. These are mothers—the most instinctual defenders of life, and they are saying “something doesn’t feel right.” This shift is seismic—once mothers doubt the system and default to protect their children, they cannot and will not be silenced.

In this moment, it felt like the tide was turning.

Political Slither

Then—like a cruel rhythm we know too well—Trump spoke again. Instead of pressing forward and building on the courage he demonstrated in his earlier post, he softened, reframed and pivoted. Warp Speed was again a triumph; vaccines are “so amazing”, and our “Commander in Truth” casually morphed back into a politician heralding his own successes.

The air was sucked out of my lungs.

What or who changed his mind? For those of us who know what it costs to resist, this was the heartbreak we should have expected, but still weren’t ready for. We should have known that despite his “everyman” rhetoric, President Trump had become that which he abhorred: a politician, drunk with power, who cares only of “his” truth.

Is There a Bigger Picture?

I think so. What do we make of this whiplash week?

First, it proves the narrative is cracking. The dam is breaking. When Trump flirts with criticism, when Florida draws a red line, and when RFK Jr testifies, the flood is coming.

Second, it reminds us that the battle is not about policy alone—it is about courage and ethics. Politicians will always waver. They will test the winds, sniff the polls, and trade truth for applause. We cannot entrust truth to politicians. We must be the guardians.

Third, Big Harma corruption is not theoretical—it is well documented. From 2020 to 2022, medical reviewers for the four major medical journals were paid a combined $1.06 billion by Big Harma. That’s not oversight, it’s bribery disguised as peer review. It makes every glowing headline of “safe and effective vaccines” and rushed FDA approval not just questionable but contaminated.

The system was never neutral. It was bought.

Carrying the Torch

If this week taught us anything, it is that our movement cannot be built on politicians, but on us. Not Trump. Not DeSantis. Not even RFK. Leaders can amplify and validate, but they will always be flawed, tempted, and capable of retreat. No politician can grant truth, nor take it away. Truth is a patient hunter, that needs no permission to strike.

The truth is:

- Vaccines were rushed without long-term data, and people died

- Pharmaceutical companies shielded themselves with legal immunity provided by our government, and raked in billions of dollars

- Regulators became marketing arms instead of watchdogs

- Censorship silenced doctors, scientists, concerned citizens, and mothers crying out for help

This week began with fire, swelled with hope, and ended with disappointment. Yet zoom out, and the trajectory is unmistakable: the vaccine debate is no longer confined to whispers. It is breaking into the open, carried forward by ordinary people who refuse to be silenced. Mothers are questioning. Young women are saying ‘No’. Journal corruption is being dragged into daylight. And citizens are refusing to let their stories be erased. That is the real movement that cannot be bribed, bought, or silenced.

History will not remember these weeks—not as simple wins or losses, but as tremors before the quake. When the reckoning comes—and it will—it won’t be because politicians found courage. It will be because we the people refused to surrender. Our task now is clear but hard: carry the torch higher, hotter, and longer than any political cycle.

Truth is not a political strategy. It’s a moral obligation.

For me, that moment didn’t arrive in a courtroom, or on social media, or even in a medical journal. It came in my own exam room. A man I had never met, tears in his eyes, short of breath, scared out of his mind—not of the virus, but of the system. OUR system that had turned its back on him, and I was complicit.

That’s when it hit me: the practice of medicine is dead. It is an illusion: a corrupt system of control, disguised as care.

And I couldn’t pretend anymore.

Let me back up.

I am not a writer. I’ve spent most of my adult life wielding a scalpel, not a pen. However, my experience during the COVID-19 “plandemic” compels me to tell my story not for vindication or fame but rather for my patients and our children.

Before COVID-19, I was a Navy vet and a single Dad busy raising teens. Professionally, I was a successful plastic surgeon with over two decades of practice in Salt Lake City. My life was often chaotic but anchored in purpose. I had no grand desire to challenge the medical system. I trusted it and I believed that we, as physicians, were all rowing in the same direction.

Then came the winter of 2020.

Like everyone else, I watched the videos from Wuhan, China—the heat maps over crematoriums and people collapsing in the streets. It didn’t sit right with me, but I kept watching. Then came Italy, Spain, and Seattle; the daily COVID-19 status briefings; New York Governor Cuomo’s ventilator theatrics, and Drs. Fauci and Birx on every channel. We were told this was the modern-day Black Plague and that doing nothing was tantamount to murder.

So, like a good soldier, I shut down my clinic. Not out of fear for myself, but for my kids. Their mom had already passed. I wasn’t going to gamble with their only remaining parent.

But I’m not one to idle.

With my office closed, I had time. I read. I studied. I listened. I followed the data—what little there was. It didn’t take long to see the cracks, the fissures, even huge crevasses, in the narrative.

First, it was Dr. Zelenko. Then Drs. Fareed and Tyson. I saw what they were doing. I understood the mechanisms. I began prescribing the same protocols—Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, Z-Pak, Vitamins C & D. People were getting better. Fast. Some of them severely immunocompromised. Not one ended up in the hospital. Not one died. I didn’t bill a single patient. I didn’t want to. Most were desperate, terrified, and out of options. They weren’t just sick—they were abandoned. Hospitals were refusing to treat them. Pharmacies were refusing to fill scripts. One even told me I had no authority to prescribe HCQ because I was “just a plastic surgeon.” That’s when I realized—I wasn’t fighting a virus. I was fighting an ideology.

Then came the monoclonal antibodies. The government was rationing them and applying race-based criteria for treatment. One of my own patients—a nurse’s husband—was denied therapy because he was “not sick enough” and didn’t meet “the demographic.” He was white. When he worsened, he went to the ER again. They finally offered treatment—without oxygen, because his sats were still above 85%. His wife gave him oxygen anyway, then called me. I met them at their home and started the FLCCC protocol—high-dose steroids, ivermectin, everything. Three days later, he was up and about, in the kitchen cleaning up after breakfast.

My efforts in aiding those in need became my renewed purpose. No one else would help them. I wasn’t chasing attention; instead, I was answering calls for help from friends, patients, and strangers. Once I saw the system fail—again and again, I couldn’t unsee it.

Then came the censorship.

First, YouTube took down videos by America’s Frontline Doctors, followed by Facebook’s “fact checks” and Twitter bans. I tried to repost the “Supreme Court Steps” video—but it was cancelled in minutes. This wasn’t just Big Tech overreach; this was coordinated suppression of truth, reason, and the destruction of hope.

I saw the same fascist strategy play out across the country: doctors silenced, licenses threatened, hospital protocols enforced like dogma, and the propellant: FEAR. Courageous physicians were performing as they should by saving lives. They refused to send patients home to just “monitor symptoms” until the virus progressed to the point where they received the “kill switch”: intubation and remdesivir.

Ah yes, remdesivir. The only hospital-sanctioned treatment. A drug pulled from Ebola studies for killing more people than it saved. And yet, here it was, touted as our savior. Thank you, Dr. Fauci! Hospitals were given a 20% bonus for using it. Why bribe providers to use a treatment if it works? Shouldn’t the outcomes speak for themselves?

But the powers-that-be didn’t want outcomes. They wanted obedience and profits.

That’s when I learned about Event 201. Then Clade X, Lockstep, and Bill Gates’ TED Talk. I went down every rabbit hole I could find. I double-checked sources. I read the papers. I pulled up archived articles, watched scrubbed videos, and found cached studies that had vanished from search engines. It wasn’t paranoia, it was passionate purpose.

By the time the vaccines hit the market in December 2020, I was already wide awake. A “95% effective” injection developed in under a year, authorized in less than 24 hours, and distributed by the billions? The virus hadn’t even been isolated yet! The PCR test that drove the entire pandemic was built on computer-generated models from older SARS sequences, and yet, it was peer-reviewed in 48 hours and published without actual virus isolates. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. But there it was—in black and white.

I watched the propaganda grow louder. “Get vaccinated and you’ll save lives.” “Get vaccinated and you’ll keep your job.” “Get vaccinated or you’re a danger to society.” It was emotional blackmail, dressed up as public health. It was pure fear-driven propaganda.

And all the while, the clinical trial data was shaky at best. Two-month endpoints. Unblinded participants. No long-term safety data. Package inserts that literally said “intentionally left blank.” Brook Jackson blew the whistle on Pfizer’s data collection process—and they fired her. No investigation. Just deletion.

I couldn’t look my patients in the eye and pretend the vaccine was safe.

We’re told to trust the science. But science isn’t a decree. It’s a process. A living, breathing debate. It requires disagreement. It requires curiosity. And above all, it requires transparency. What we got instead was a cult—a blind faith system with no room for questions. And in medicine, that’s not just dangerous—it’s deadly.

I’ve always believed in informed consent. Always. I’ve spent my career counseling patients about implants, scars, anesthesia risks—things far less impactful than an experimental biologic that had never before been used on humans and had killed all the animals in all studies to date. And yet suddenly, people were being coerced into taking something with no long-term studies, no clear benefit for the young and healthy, and no liability for the manufacturer. What could go wrong?

And if you didn’t comply? You were vilified. Ostracized. Labeled anti-science. Even if you had antibodies. Even if you had valid concerns. Even if you were, say, the most published cardiologist in the world—like Dr. McCullough, or a leading ICU expert like Dr. Marik. These weren’t fringe physicians. They were giants. And they were crushed.

I was warned to keep my mouth shut, that I had too much to lose. That my career, my reputation, even my freedom was at stake. And maybe they were right. But I had already seen too much. I had seen mothers hold their children’s hands as they wept with gratitude because someone—anyone—had finally listened. I had seen patients survive when the hospitals told them they wouldn’t. I had seen hope return to eyes that had only known fear.

I have no regrets. Not because this hasn’t cost me dearly, because it has. However, I gained conviction, clarity, and peace in the process, and it has been worth it.

Catharsis. Not comfort, nor vindication. Simply the soul-cleansing release of truth. The exhale after holding your breath for too long.

It’s not over. They may take my license and drag my name through the mud, but the lives I saved will never be silent. They will carry the flame farther and more effectively than I can, and their stories can never be cancelled. This was never about politics. It was about humanity. Yes, I would do it all again, because now I know exactly what I was fighting against.

I sat in a courtroom and listened as a CDC official, Chris Duggar, under oath, described the American people as “the enemy.” His exact words were: “No plan survives contact with the enemy.”

He meant us—those who wouldn’t roll up their sleeves for a first, fourth, or tenth shot.
He meant me, a doctor who refused to violate his conscience.
He meant you—parents, workers, truth-seekers who said “enough.”

They thought they could mandate, threaten, and coerce their way to obedience.
But they forgot that real Americans don’t break easily.

They had a plan.
We didn’t comply.
Their plan failed.

I didn’t flinch. I didn’t fold. If that makes me the enemy—I’ll fly that flag.

If standing for truth, freedom, and the right to choose makes me the enemy of this government, then it’s a badge of honor I wear proudly.

To every American watching this unfold: now more than ever:

Be that enemy,
Be loud,

Be brave,

Be unmovable,

The only thing standing between tyranny and liberty is you!

TODD C. BOUTON, Assistant United States Attorney (#17800)

JACOB J. STRAIN, Assistant United States Attorney (#12680)

SACHIKO JEPSON, Special Assistant United States Attorney (#17077)

Attorneys for the United States of America

111 South Main Street, Ste. 1800, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Telephone: (801) 524-5682

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PLASTIC SURGERY INSTITUTE OF ·

UTAH, INC.; MICHAEL KIRK MOORE

JR.; KARI DEE BURGOYNE; KRISTIN

JACKSON ANDERSEN; AND SANDRA

FLORES,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cr-00010-HCN

UNITED STATES’MOTION IN LIMINE

TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM

RAISING A NECESSITY DEFENSE

AND ANY VARIANTS THEREOF

Judge Howard C. Nielson Jr.

To raise a necessity defense, a defendant must establish that he faced “an unlawful

and present, imminent, and impending [threat] of such a nature as to induce a well-

grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury.”1

The defense of necessity is “based on a real emergency” and “may be asserted only

by a defendant who was confronted with a crisis as a personal danger.”2

Even in the face of a real emergency, “if there was a reasonable, legal alternative

to violating the law . . . the [necessity] defense[ ] will fail.”3

1 United States v. Vigil, 743 F.2d 751, 756 (10th Cir.1984).

2 United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121–22 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Lewis, 628 F.2d 1276,

1279 (10th Cir.1980)).

3 United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 409-10 (1980).

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.619 Page 1 of 212

1. INTRODUCTION

This is the kind of case where the Court’s decision on a key motion in limine—this motion—is likely to definitively shape, if not outright decide, the case.4The defendants are charged with (1) Conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; (2) Conspiracy to Convert, Sell, Convey, and Dispose of Government Property in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 641; and (3) Conversion, Sale, Conveyance, and Disposal of Government Property in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2. These charges are based largely on the defendants’ scheme to destroy COVID-19 vaccines and to unlawfully distribute COVID-19 vaccination record cards to at least 1,000 persons who never received a COVID-19 vaccine. They did this so that the card recipients could pass themselves off as having been vaccinated in order to avoid having to comply with then-current health-and-safety restrictions for the unvaccinated. Based on multiple public statements and admissions made by Defendant Dr. Michael Kirk Moore, Jr. (“Dr. Moore”) and on statements made by his current counsel, Dr. Moore (and/or his codefendants) intend(s) to assert a bastardized version of the “necessity defense” at trial. In essence, they intend to argue that Dr. Moore and his codefendants were justified in breaking the law to protect others from having to either (a) be vaccinated for COVID-19, or (b) suffer the consequences and temporary restrictions attendant to their choice not to be vaccinated.

This pseudo-“necessity defense” cannot, however, meet the required elements of a true necessity defense. A true necessity defense requires the defendant to show (1) that the defendant

4 See, e.g., Copar Pumice Co. v. Morris, No. CIV 07-0079 JB/ACT, 2009 WL 2424567, at *1 (D.N.M. July 6, 2009) (district courts may entertain motions in limine to exclude evidence “at the heart of th[e] case”); see also United States v. O’Dowd, Case No. 2:20-cr-00332, 2022 2022 WL 4448309 at *3-5 (D. Utah Sep. 23, 2022) (Mag. J. Oberg)(unpublished) (granting in part motion in limine and precluding defendants from raising a necessity defense at trial).

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.620 Page 2 of 213

was under an unlawful and present, imminent, and impending threat of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury; (2) that the defendant had no reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law—that is, a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm; and (3) that a direct causal relationship may be reasonably anticipated between the criminal action taken and the avoidance of the threatened harm.5 The defendants’ quasi-“necessity defense” cannot meet these elements.

Because defendants cannot meet the standard for a true and legally recognized necessity defense, the Court should preclude the defendants from wasting the jury’s time and confusing the jury with this legally unrecognized and politically charged defense. FRE 401-403 (precluding irrelevant evidence and even relevant evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time).

Equally important, the defendants should be precluded from introducing such an improper defense or argument—with no legal basis—to invite jury nullification over a politically charged issue. Id.

Simply put, defendants should not be allowed to taint the jury with a pseudo “necessity defense”.6 5 Vigil, 743 F.2d at 755. There is a fourth element for the legally recognized necessity defense that sometimes applies in other cases—namely, that the defendant had not recklessly or negligently placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be forced to choose the criminal conduct. Id. This element appears to be inapplicable here. 6 See United States v. Patton, 451 F.3d 615, 619-20, 638 (10th Cir. 2006) (district court did not abuse its discretion in granting government’s motion in limine to preclude defendant from asserting a “modified necessity defense”); United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270, 1271, 1273-1275, 1277-78 (10th Cir. 1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1147 (1983) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting motion in limine to preclude necessity defense to defendants who criminally trespassed on federal land to protest at a nuclear plant site); United States v. Aguirre-Torres, 3 Fed. Appx. 852, 853-854 (10th Cir. 2001) (unpublished) (trial court did not err in granting government’s motion in limine to preclude defendant from raising necessity defense based on his subjective belief that he needed to illegally reenter the United States in order to assist his ailing, wheelchair-bound mother who was on dialysis).

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.621 Page 3 of 214

2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2.1. There appears to be little, if any, dispute as to the key facts that will establish whether the defendants committed the crimes charged in this case.

The evidence will establish that the defendants conspired to obstruct a lawful government function of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. More specifically, the evidence will show (a) that they did so by knowingly distributing fraudulently completed COVID-19 vaccination record cards to unvaccinated persons, and (b) that they did so with the intent to obstruct the CDC’s efforts to provide a reliable means of verifying vaccination status through the controlled distribution of COVID-19 vaccination record cards to only those persons who had actually been vaccinated. Among other things, text messages between the defendants and others will establish this. The testimony of Defendant Sandra Flores (Dr. Moore’s former receptionist) and others will establish this. The testimony of two separate undercover agents will establish this. And, perhaps, most damning, Dr. Moore seems to have essentially admitted as much in his post-arraignment public pronouncements. (See infra § 2.2).

The evidence will also establish that the defendants conspired to convert, sell, convey, and dispose of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 641, and did, in fact, convert, sell, convey, and dispose of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2. Among other things, the relevant evidence will show that:

(1) Dr. Moore signed a CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program Provider agreement so that his medical practice Plastic Surgery Institute of Utah, Inc. (“PSI”) could receiveCOVID-19 vaccines;

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.622 Page 4 of 215

(2) Approximately 2,200 doses of the vaccine were received by the defendants and then destroyed or otherwise discarded;7

(3) The defendants knowingly worked together to provide fraudulently completed COVID-19 vaccination record cards to individuals who had not received a COVID-19 vaccine (“unvaccinated card recipients”);

(4) At some point, these unvaccinated card recipients were generally directed to donate and show they had donated $50 to a specified “charitable organization” before scheduling an appointment to come to PSI to receive a fraudulently completed COVID-19 vaccination record card without first (or ever) being vaccinated;

(5) In some cases, minor children were injected with saline shots so that they would think they were receiving a COVID-19 vaccine or so they could technically claim they had been “vaccinated” with something;

(6) Although the COVID-19 vaccinations never took place, the defendants worked together to report false vaccinations to the Utah Statewide Immunization Information System.

Admittedly, as a whole, the defendants have neither stipulated to nor admitted all the key facts in the foregoing paragraphs. But documentary evidence, witness testimony, and other evidence will establish as much. And, equally if not more important, in public statements, the main defendant, Dr. Moore, has, at least on his own behalf, essentially owned many if not all of these facts—at least in general terms.

7 Depending on which version of the COVID-19 vaccine a recipient received, they needed to receive either one or two doses of the vaccine to be considered fully vaccinated. This suggests that at least approximately 1,000 persons, if not more, received fraudulent COVID-19 vaccination record cards from the defendants.

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.623 Page 5 of 216

But regardless of whether and to what extent any substantive factual dispute(s) need be and remain to be tried to a jury in this case, Dr. Moore has made it clear that he intends to present (either directly or through his counsel) a pseudo “necessity defense” at trial. The United States maintains that Dr. Moore’s variant of a necessity defense is flawed and inadmissible.

2.2. Despite appearing to admit he committed the charged crimes, Dr. Moore has indicated that he intends to assert a pseudo-“necessity defense” based on his perceived obligation as a doctor to resist COVID-19 vaccinations and mandates.

Defendants seek a jury trial8 because according to Dr. Moore, “I’ve been indicted for not murdering and not maiming people.”9 Dr. Moore’s assessment is inapt. The defendants actually have been indicted for deception, conversion and destruction of government property, and for purposeful efforts to defraud and impede a lawful government function. But Dr. Moore’s statement, and many others like it, are de facto admissions of his guilt for the indicted conduct and reveal his intention to present—or have his counsel present—a pseudo-“necessity defense” at trial.

Indeed, after being indicted, Dr. Moore took to social media to argue his case in the public square.10 He has spoken at length about his criminal case, about his conduct, as well as the conduct of his staff, and about his anticipated defense(s).

On February 15, 2023, defendant Dr. Moore posted to his X account “Stand_For_Moore” the following: “After he stood by his Hippocratic Oath to ‘first, do no harm’ helping thousands of

8 With the exception of defendant Sandra Flores who is now cooperating against her co-defendants.

9 Social media post on April 21, 2023 (available at https://x.com/Stand_for_Moore/status/1649459127725465601).

10 Post-indictment, Dr. Moore has posted to a Twitter account called “Stand_For_Moore”https://twitter.com/Stand_for_Moore.

He has appeared on Rumble.com (https://rumble.com/v2k8lkg-blood-money-episodes-79-and-80-with-domenico-cocchella-and-dr-kirk-moore.html) (https://rumble.com/v29molo-february-15-2023.html).

He has appeared on Facebook live (https://fb.watch/rg5dROdZzh/).

He has been interviewed on YouTube (

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.624 Page 6 of 217

individuals being forced to get the experimental Covid vaccine, Dr. Kirk Moore and his staff now face federal charges. @elonmusk #standformoore https://tinyurl.com/MooreGiveSendGo.”11

On April 26, 2023, defendant Dr. Moore appeared on a YouTube video interview throughthe channel MSCS MEDIA. The video is entitled, “Dr. Kirk Moore Indicted on Covid Mandate, Breast Augmentation Plastic Surgeon | Mscs Media *299”12 In that interview, Dr. Moore made the following admissions:

“I was told this by a friend um and he said uh you know ‘Kirk you got to realize that um you are actually being indicted for not murdering people and not maiming people.’ That’s, that's really what it comes down to…”

“I think that if we lose this fight, if we lose the medical Freedom fight, um, we’ve lost it. I mean, that's the, that’s the next domino in this whole, you know, in this whole sphere and this whole scheme.”

“I’m gonna go down kicking and screaming um, and make sure that my message is out there.”

“I want the government out of our medical system . . . medical care is supposed to be between a doctor and a patient.”

“They have no right to mandate anything. They have no right to tell you that you need to have a treatment that can participate in society, and they have no right to tell a doctor that he needs to provide this particular treatment for this patient.”

“[T]hey couldn't have a kidney transplant unless they had a vaccine. Wow, um, and you know, military, you know, military personnel people that, whose job depended on them traveling, I mean, even somebody who worked in Salt Lake City that was traveling back and forth to Seattle, you know, um, they couldn’t keep that job. So, uh, you know, that was that was where we kind of, you know, we stepped in we, you know, provided vaccines [sic] for those people that, you know, were going on.” (emphasis added).

“My requirement as a physician is the first ‘do no harm’ um, and so I’m, I, you know, that’s a higher calling, a higher, you know, a higher objective than, you know, abiding by, by, you know, some legal, whether it’s lawful or unlawful, um let some, you know, quote unquote legal requirements.”

11 available at https://twitter.com/Stand_for_Moore.

12 available at

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.625 Page 7 of 218

“There is absolutely zero reason why everybody on this planet needs to have a needle in their arm.”

“Thousands upon thousands the hundreds of upon hundreds of thousands of people that are vaccine injured that are coming out in the public.”

“If they get to this point where they can demand and mandate that we have a medical procedure and injection, take a pill, take a tablet, um, you know, get this spray, go through, you know, this medical intervention, whatever it is; if they have the ability to do that, we’ve lost any other level of freedom that we could ever possibly think of having. So, you know, this is kind of the, the, the end, uh, the beginning of the end.”

“We just we need all the support we can get, um, and, uh, try to, you know, try to just fight and, and stand up against our federal government, um, and their ability to tell people what they need to have done in order to be contributors to society.”

“If we can’t keep a needle out of everybody’s arms now, we’re not gonna be able to keep, you know, any other intervention that our government says is going to be required in order to be, you know, like I said, contributors to society.”

On May 2, 2023, Defendant Dr. Moore was interviewed in a Facebook video on the “Crashing Justice Show” and also made the following admissions:

“It’s a lot of really smart doctors and a lot of really smart scientists and everybody else that bought this whole thing, hook line and sinker, how they can say that, you know, they’re reading the science or reading the data, when there is no science, and there is no data, and then the only stuff that is out there is all bad: myocarditis, strokes, um, cardiovascular disease, uh, people dying from aortic aneurisms . . . all the vaccines . . . all of them . . . not one of them is better than the other. It’s just, they’re all bad.”

“We’re looking to get as much information and data as we can . . . trying to put together an exhaustive list of discovery questions and data that we want to get out of the federal government. You guys know enough about what’s going on with Sasha Latypova and some of the information she’s put out with the Department of Defense. . . .”

“They have to prove to me that I committed fraud and so one of my arguments potentially is that, you know, I didn’t commit fraud because the fraud was started with this vaccine. So, I’m going to request all the science and all the data and everything behind all the contracts and everything they’ve had with the Department of Defense and that they’ve had with any third party” (emphasis added).

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.626 Page 8 of 219

2.3. Dr. Moore’s defense counsel has also specifically indicated that they intend to present a “necessity defense” on his behalf.

In conversations with the United States’ counsel, Dr. Moore’s defense counsel has indicated that they believe Dr. Moore (and by extension, his codefendants) may have a viable “necessity defense” to the crimes with which they are charged. The United States apprised Dr. Moore’s counsel that it intended to file this motion in limine to preclude such a defense. Dr. Moore’s counsel indicated that they would oppose the motion.

In a recent status conference on April 18, 2024, Dr. Moore’s counsel also indicated on the record that they intended to call “many witnesses” at trial. The United States anticipates that defense counsel may thus intend to call numerous unvaccinated card recipients who were, to a lesser degree, complicit with the defendants in their efforts. The United States posits that this testimony would focus on personal, medical, or other perceived challenges or inconveniences that these as-yet-unidentified unvaccinated individuals faced and the introduction of justifications as to why these persons “needed” the defendants’ help to obtain fraudulent vaccination record cards.

3. LEGAL ARGUMENT

Simply put, the defendants did not agree with a government program, so they engaged in criminal conduct designed to undermine, defraud, and impede it. The defendants are, in essence, impassioned protesters who chose to commit federal crimes instead of seeking lawful recourse through the political process. Instead of contenting themselves with publicly expressing their opinions, exploring legal remedies, writing their representatives, running for office, or contributing to political affiliates with whom they were aligned, they chose to break the law. They anointed themselves as defenders of medical freedom and saviors of common, but, in their view, deluded Americans—and determined, wrongly, that they could declare themselves to be above the law.

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.627 Page 9 of 2110

The defendants are entitled to their opinions and to express them. Indeed, the First Amendment protects the fundamental and cherished value of freedom of speech.

The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.13

However, the defendants cannot raise a quasi-“necessity defense” in a protest case like this one. Nor can they raise a “necessity defense” because (1) they cannot show they acted under an unlawful and present, imminent, and impending threat of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury; (2) they cannot show they had no reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law; and (3) they cannot show that there was a direct causal relationship between their criminal actions and the avoidance of any imminent bodily harm.

Moreover, a federal criminal trial is not the venue to protest or to debate the efficacy or wisdom of a lawful government function such as the CDC’s vaccination program and attendant, controlled distribution of COVID-19 vaccination record cards to only vaccinated persons. Rather, a federal criminal trial is a highly regulated environment where the primary focus is to establish relevant—and only relevant—facts so that a jury can determine whether the elements of specific, charged crimes have been committed. To maintain order and respect for the process, the courtroom operates under strict procedural rules; and therefore, it must necessarily limit certain freedoms including aspects of free speech.14 While the defendants have a right to resolve disputed factual

13 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24 (1971).

14 See Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 719 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[A]n attorney’s job in the courtroom, although it necessarily includes speech, is fundamentally inconsistent with the basic concept of ‘free’ speech.”).

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.628 Page 10 of 2111

issues before a jury,15 if a proffered legal defense fails to establish the elements of an actual defense, the Court need not, and should not, submit it to a jury.16

3.1 The necessity defense is legally unavailable in protest cases like this one.

The necessity defense is a concept from common law that is, in essence, an appeal to utilitarianism—meaning, the social benefits of the crime outweigh the costs of failing to commit the crime. The Supreme Court has assumed, without deciding, that a common law defense of necessity is available in relation to a federal statutory crime.17 So has the Tenth Circuit.18

The Tenth Circuit has explained that “[t]he defense of necessity does not arise from a ‘choice’ of several courses of action. . . . It can be asserted only by a defendant who was confronted with . . . a crisis which did not permit a selection from among several solutions, some of which did not involve criminal acts.”19 Most important, in cases similar in context to this one, the Tenth Circuit has specifically excluded protests from the necessity defense, noting: “It is obviously not a defense to charges arising from a typical protest.”20 This protest-exclusion standard has been adopted by at least four other circuit courts.21 This makes sense, of course. “The necessity defense

15 See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 523 (1979).

16 See United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 416-17 (1980) (holding—in a case concerning prisoners who escape or attempt to escape custody under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a)—that the trial court and jury “need not be burdened” with testimony concerning elements of an affirmative defense that is insufficient to sustain that defense, because “[with]ere we to hold . . . that the jury should be subjected to this potpourri even though a critical element of the proffered defenses was concededly absent, we undoubtedly would convert every trial under § 751(a) into a hearing on the current state of the federal penal system”).

17 Dixon v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 2437, 2445 (2006).

18 See United States v. Patton, 451 F.3d 615, 638 (10th Cir. 2006) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the government's motion in limine to exclude Mr. Patton's modified necessity defense.”).

19 United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270, 1276 (10th Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1147 (1983); see also United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1991), as amended (Aug. 4, 1992) (“the necessity defense is inapplicable to cases involving indirect civil disobedience”).

20 Seward, 687 F.2d at 1276.

21 United States v. Maxwell, 254 F.3d 21, 26-29 (1st Cir. 2001) (necessity defense barred in prosecution of offenses originating in naval base protest); United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 101-102 (4th Cir. 1979) (anti-nuclear war protest offenses at Pentagon not justified by necessity defense); United States v. Quilty, 741 F.2d 1031, 1032-1034 (7th Cir. 1984) (anti-nuclear war protest offenders not allowed to present necessity defense at trial); United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193, 195-200 (9th Cir. 1992) (obstructive protestors at IRS office could not, by law, avail themselves of necessity defense); United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430-434 (9th Cir. 1985) (necessity defense disallowed in prosecution stemming from MX missile protest); United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 564-567 (9th Cir. 1981) (no

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.629 Page 11 of 2112

was never intended to excuse criminal activity by those who disagree with the decisions and policies of the lawmaking branches of government.”22 And if the law allowed protesters to commit crimes based on ethical, moral, or religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, it “would not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy.”23 For example, the defendants in this case might arguably hold anti-vaccine beliefs just as fervently as anti-pollution protesters who destroy and deface priceless works of art by da Vinci, Monet, and van Gogh. But just as case law would not support making the necessity defense available to anti-pollution protestors who engaged in such behavior, it does not support making the necessity defense available to the defendants in this case.

In Seward, the defendants were protestors who were arrested and charged as trespassers at the Rocky Flats nuclear facility in Colorado where they sat down or laid across the roadway in protest of the facility.24 The prosecution filed a motion in limine seeking to bar the defendants from presenting necessity defenses at trial. The trial court ordered the defendants to provide offers of proof in advance of trial regarding their proposed necessity defenses. The defendants’ offers of proof proposed that “various witnesses would have testified to the effects of radiation, risks of accidental leakage, soil contamination in the land surrounding Rocky Flats, and lack of viable political alternatives.”25 The trial court ruled that their offers of proof fell short of the necessity defense requirements, and all necessity-related evidence and arguments were barred from trial. The Tenth Circuit ruled the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the pretrial consideration and necessity defense available in prosecution of protestors of nuclear submarine base); United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1002-1004, 1008-1010 (9th Cir. 1980) (Trident missile protestors at naval installation failed to satisfy requirements of necessity defense).

22 United States v. Kabat, 797 F.2d 580, 591-592 (8th Cir. 1986).

23 United States v. Turner, 44 F.3d 900, 903 (10th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).

24 Seward, 687 F.2d at 1271-72.

25 Id. at 1273.

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.630 Page 12 of 2113

bar of the defense, as “the defendants failed in their offer of proof to meet several of the requirements necessary to permit the trial court to submit the necessity defense to the jury,”26

As outlined in Dr. Moore’s commentary on various social media platforms, this case involves a form of civil disobedience in protest of a government program that the defendants sought to frustrate through criminal activity. Notably, the Defendants’ protest-crimes carried less moral authority than more traditional forms of civil disobedience, because the Defendants’ crimes were done in secret—without daring to openly defy or protest the CDC’s vaccination and vaccination-card-distribution program, which Dr. Moore now claims was unlawful. Indeed, it can be argued that “[t]he political power of civil disobedience stems in part from the fact that those who engage in it are willing to face being punished for their actions. John Rawls, for example, claimed that civil disobedience could be accepted as a source of change within a democratic legal system because ‘fidelity to law is expressed by the public and nonviolent nature of the act, by the willingness to accept the legal consequences of one’s conduct.’”27

Even though the defendants may have sincerely believed they were saving lives by destroying over 2,000 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and distributing fraudulently completed vaccination record cards to the unvaccinated, necessity can never be a defense to the type of protest-driven crimes that the defendants have committed. Accordingly, as a matter of law under Tenth Circuit precedent, the necessity defense is legally unavailable to them.

3.2 The defendants cannot meet the elements of a necessity defense.

Even if the necessity defense were not precedentially unavailable to the defendants, the defense would still fail because the defendants cannot meet the elements of a bona fide necessity

26 Id. at 1273-76.

27 Nick Robinson, Elly Page, Protecting Dissent: The Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, Civil Disobedience, and Partial First Amendment Protection, 107 Cornell L. Rev. 229, 281–82 (2021) (citing JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE 320, 322 (rev. ed. 1999)).

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.631 Page 13 of 2114

defense. In cases where a defendant seeks to raise a necessity defense, a pre-trial offer of proof is required as to each element, so that the trial court may duly consider whether the defense should reach the jury before exposing the jury to it. To prevail on a necessity defense, the defendants must prove that: “(1) there is no legal alternative to violating the law, (2) the harm to be prevented is imminent, and (3) a direct, causal relationship is reasonably anticipated to exist between the defendant’s action and the avoidance of harm.”28 This Court need only find that the defendant fails to meet just one of the elements to bar the necessity defense from finding its way to the jury. Nevertheless, given the nature of the case, the defendants cannot meet any of the elements.

3.2.1 The Defendants cannot show that they had no available legal alternative(s) to violating the laws they are charged with violating.

“The sine qua non of [the necessity] defense is a lack of a reasonable, lawful alternative.”29 Even in a true crisis, there are almost always legal alternatives that do not involve criminal conduct. In Turner,30 a “sidewalk counselor” scaled a fence surrounding an abortion clinic and “entered the clinic in order to pray and place her body in front of a woman who was attempting to enter the clinic.”31 Turner was arrested and subsequently convicted of obstructing a federal court order not to trespass. Following a successful appeal, Turner was retried and again convicted. Turner appealed again claiming that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the necessity defense. The Tenth Circuit determined that the district court properly refused to instruct the jury

28 United States v. Patton, 451 F.3d 615, 638 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Unser, 165 F.3d 755, 764 (10th Cir. 1999) ("[T]he defendant at least must bear the initial burden of producing evidence which could support a finding in his favor on each element of the defense.”). see also United States v. Turner, 44 F.3d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Schoon, 955 F.2d 1238, 1239–40 (9th Cir.1991)).

29 United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1170, 1179 (10th Cir. 2018).

30 United States v. Turner, 44 F.3d 900 (10th Cir. 1995).

31 Id. at 901.

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.632 Page 14 of 2115

on the necessity defense because, among other things, there were legal alternative means available to the defendant to accomplish her objectives.32

In DeChristopher,33 the defendant protested an auction by the Bureau of Land Management for oil and gas leases on parcels of public land in Utah. He did this by bidding on the leases that he did not have the means or intention of purchasing. He was indicted and ultimately convicted at trial for violating the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act and for providing false statement(s). The trial court (Judge Dee Benson) granted the United States’ motion in limine to prevent the defendant from raising a necessity defense. The Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to allow a necessity defense to be raised to the jury because it determined, among other things, that there were legal alternative means available to the defendant to accomplish his objectives.34 Here, as in Turner and DeChristopher, there were legal alternative means available to the defendants to accomplish their objectives—to help many individuals avoid the restriction associated with choosing not to be vaccinated. As mentioned above, the defendants had several lawful means to respond to the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccination and vaccination-record-card-distribution program: The defendants could have filed a civil lawsuit requesting that a court enjoin vaccine mandates, requirements, or restrictions; they could have contacted their elected representatives; they could have organized or participated in rallies, parades, and the like; they could have engaged the print and broadcast media to cast their message to the masses; they could have enlisted celebrities to champion their cause; they could have recruited prominent members of the legal community to act as spokespersons; and so on. “There are thousands of opportunities

32 Id. at 903.

33 United States v. DeChristopher, 695 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2012).

34 Id. at 1096 (“Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the evidence was insufficient to support a necessity defense. We need go no further than the first prong—the absence of a legal alternative.”)

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.633 Page 15 of 2116

for the propagation of [a] message: in the nation’s electoral process; by speech on public streets, in parks, in auditoriums, in churches and lecture halls; and by the release of information to the media, to name only a few.”35

Perhaps, most important, here, where the unvaccinated persons that the defendants sought to help were in no imminent danger of seriously bodily harm or death, the defendants could have simply allowed the unvaccinated card-seekers to continue to remain unvaccinated and to comply with the temporary health-and-safety restrictions placed on them based on their voluntary choice to remain unvaccinated. Or, had they desired, the unvaccinated card-seekers could have complied under protest or waited to comply until they had exhausted all legal remedies. But in any event, the defendants always had the legal alternative not to distribute fraudulently completed vaccination record cards and to allow others to comply with the law. Had they done so, neither the defendants nor the unvaccinated card-seekers would have faced any real emergency or imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death that required them to break the law. (See infra § 3.2.2). Because the defendants faced no imminent threat to themselves or others, the defendants could have simply not responded to the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccination- and vaccination-record-card-distribution program. In the absence of an emergency, doing nothing was always a viable legal alternative.36 But despite having many legal alternatives, the defendants chose to do what they were not at liberty to do—to break the law. And they did it in secret, without any of the moral authority that generally attends an honest, sincere, and public act of civil disobedience.37 Instead, the defendants in this case chose the less patient and knowingly criminal route to protest the government program. As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, “[t]hose who wish to protest in an unlawful manner frequently

35 United States v. Quilty, 741 F.2d 1031, 1033 (7th Cir. 1984).

36 See Vigil, 743 F.2d at 755 (A reasonable legal alternative can include “a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened [imminent] harm.”)

37 Supra n. 27.

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.634 Page 16 of 2117

are impatient with less visible and more time-consuming alternatives.”38 However, “[t]heir impatience does not constitute the necessity that the defense of necessity requires.”39 Moreover, a defendant’s subjective belief as to available legal alternatives should not be determinative.40 Rather, the defendant’s belief that there were no other legal alternatives must be reasonable.41 Accordingly, the defendants cannot bring a necessity defense, here, because they had several objectively reasonable, legal alternatives open to them.

3.2.2 The Defendants cannot show they reasonably acted to avoid an imminent threat of bodily harm or injury to themselves or others.

To avail themselves of the necessity defense, the defendants must establish that “the harm to be avoided [was] so imminent that, absent the [] criminal acts, the harm [was] certain to occur.”42 “Although some leeway needs be given to individuals responding to an emergency, they must still act in the most responsible manner available under the circumstances.”43 The term “imminent harm” connotes a real emergency or crisis.44 Therefore, to raise a necessity defense, a defendant must establish that he faced “an unlawful and present, imminent, and impending [threat] of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury.”45

Here, the defendants cannot make the required showing needed to support a “necessity defense”—namely, that they reasonably acted to avoid a well-grounded apprehension of an

38 United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 431 (9th Cir. 1985).

39 Id.

40 United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1170, 1181 (10th Cir. 2018); United States v. Saldivar-Munoz, 439 F. App'x 730, 735 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (“[A] defendant’s subjective belief that he has no available legal alternatives is insufficient to submit the question to a jury.”) (citing U.S. v. Meraz-Valeta, 26 F.3d 992, 995 (10th Cir. 1994) overruled on other grounds by U.S. v. Aguirre-Tello, 353 F.3d 1199, 1207-1208 (10th Cir. 2004)). United States v. Aguirre-Torres, 3 F. App'x 852, 854 (10th Cir. 2001) (unpublished) (citations omitted)

41 See id.

42 United States v. Kabat, 797 F.2d 580, 591 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing Bailey, 444 U.S. at 410) (emphasis added).

43 United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1123 (10th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1170, 1179 (10th Cir. 2018).

44 See Seward, 687 F.2d at 1276.

45 United States v. Vigil, 743 F.2d 751, 756 (10th Cir.1984).

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.635 Page 17 of 2118

imminent and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or other persons. In Dr. Moore’s words, the defendants were purportedly acting to avoid “murdering and [] maiming people” by helping unvaccinated persons, who did not want to comply with then-current health- and-safety restrictions for the unvaccinated, receive fraudulent vaccination record cards.46 However, the defendants had no reasonable basis to conclude that these other unvaccinated persons, to whose aid they purportedly came, were, in fact, facing an imminent and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves. These persons may have been facing employment, educational, or other consequences based on their decision not to be vaccinated. In some cases, they could have been facing termination from their employment, work and schooling restrictions, travel restrictions, restrictions on entering public and private venues, and even delays in receiving some medical procedures. But these persons were not facing an imminent and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Even if the Court were to determine that the defendants reasonably and sincerely believed that the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine could have caused an unvaccinated card-seeker to die or to suffer serious bodily injury, the unvaccinated card-seekers never had to take the vaccine.47 Nor were the defendants saving any unvaccinated card-seekers from being potentially injured by the vaccine. No one was standing next to the unvaccinated card-seekers ready to imminently and forcibly inject them with a COVID-19 vaccine against their will. Defendants were not swooping in at the last minute or second to swat an arsenic-filled syringe out of the hand of a government agent attempting to forcibly inject an unwilling and helpless unvaccinated card-seeker. By definition and inclination, these unvaccinated card-seekers never intended to be vaccinated. And no one was forcing them to be. The unvaccinated did face some restrictions consistent with public-

46 Supra nn. 9 and 12 and page 7.

47 By raising this argument, the United States by no means concedes that such a belief would have been reasonable.

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.636 Page 18 of 2119

health-and-safety measures enforced by democratically elected leaders. But no one was imminently threatening them with death or bodily injury from compelled vaccination. Therefore, the defendants cannot show that they acted in response to a well-grounded apprehension of an imminent and impending threat of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others.

Because the defendants cannot establish that they violated the law in response to a “real emergency” that threatened “imminent” serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others, the Court should preclude them from raising a “necessity defense” at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.

3.2.3 The defendants cannot show that there was a direct causal relationship between their actions and their stated goals to protect persons from being forcibly vaccinated or to stop the CDC’s vaccination program.

“A defendant must demonstrate cause and effect between an act of protest and the achievement of the goal of the protest by competent evidence. He cannot will a causal relationship into being simply by the fervor of his convictions (no matter how sincerely held).”48

The goals outlined by Dr. Moore in his public statements were to get “the government out of our medical system”; to “keep a needle out of everybody’s arms”; and to stop the federal government from telling “people what they need to have done.”49 In essence, the defendants sought to avoid COVID-19 vaccination and to stop the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccination program. But the defendants cannot show that they reasonably anticipated that their criminal actions would directly bring about the ends they claim to have sought, much less to avoid a bona fide, imminent and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury.50

In fact, the opposite is true. The defendants cannot show that by distributing fraudulently completed COVID-19 vaccination record cards, administering saline shots to minors, and

48 United States v. Maxwell, 254 F.3d 21, 28 (1st Cir. 2001).

49 See supra section 2.2.

50 Vigil, 743 F.2d at 755 (noting this required element to support a necessity defense).

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.637 Page 19 of 2120

fraudulently uploading the names of unvaccinated persons to the Utah Statewide Immunization Information System, they reasonably anticipated that they could stop “compulsory vaccination” and the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccination program or avoid an imminent threat of bodily injury or death. Rather, by secretly and fraudulently distributing COVID-19 vaccination record cards to unvaccinated persons and allowing them to pass themselves off as vaccinated, the defendants were only fostering the policies that existed to encourage and incentivize COVID-19 vaccination.

In reality, their paradoxical clandestine civil disobedience created the impression that unvaccinated persons were, in fact, vaccinated and that the CDC’s vaccination program was legitimate. By fostering the appearance that more persons were being vaccinated and by tricking minor children into thinking they had been vaccinated, the defendants were not calling attention to their issues with what they deemed to be “compulsory vaccination” and the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccination program. All they were doing was facilitating the evasion of public health-and-safety measures imposed by democratically elected government officers.

As for the unvaccinated card-recipients, they were likely never going to be vaccinated in the first place. So, the defendants cannot even take credit for saving them from “compulsory vaccination.” Nor could the defendants have reasonably anticipated that distributing fraudulently completed and illegally issued COVID-19 vaccination record cards would stop the CDC’s vaccination program. If anything, distributing these additional, fraudulently completed vaccination record cards only fostered a public sense that the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccination program was legitimate. Therefore, the defendants’ criminal actions actually undermined their stated goals.

Perhaps most important, as noted above in Section 3.2.2, the defendants cannot show, in the first place, that they were responding to a legitimate, well-apprehended, imminent and impending threat of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or other persons. Therefore, as a

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.638 Page 20 of 2121

matter of law, they cannot show that they reasonably anticipated a direct causal relationship between their criminal actions and the avoidance of a cognizable threatened harm.51

Because the defendants also cannot show that they could reasonably anticipate a direct causal relationship between (a) their criminal actions, and (b) the avoidance of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others, the Court should preclude the defendants from raising a necessity defense. Their pseudo “necessity defense” is invalid.

4. CONCLUSION

Defendants’ pseudo-“necessity defense” should never be presented to the jury. The necessity defense is legally unavailable to these protest-type defendants, and they cannot satisfy the elements of that defense. For the reasons above, the United States asks the Court to rule on this motion in limine far in advance of trial and to preclude the defendants from raising an improper and invalid “necessity defense.” The Court should also specifically exclude any proposed defense witnesses who are expected to testify that they “needed” the help of the defendants for medical or other reasons. For the same reasons, the Court should likewise exclude any defense witness who would testify to “vaccine injury” or “vaccine harm.” Such a ruling would streamline the jury trial, filter out the defendants’ improper “necessity defense,” and avoid wasting the jury’s time, misleading the jury, or confusing them with an irrelevant, unavailable defense.

Respectfully submitted,

TRINA A. HIGGINS

United States Attorney

/s/ Todd C. Bouton

TODD C. BOUTON

Assistant United States Attorney

51 See Vigil, 743 F.2d at 755.

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 148 Filed 04/24/24 PageID.639 Page 21 of 21

DAVID O. DRAKE, ESQ. (USB# 0911)
6905 South 1300 East #248, Midvale, UT 84047 (801) 601-9049

JEFFREY A. BRONSTER, ESQ. (JB/2620)
17 Wendell Place, Fairview, New Jersey 07022
(201) 945-2566 ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH ______________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs.

|
| Case No. 2:23-cr-00010-HCN
|
| DEFENDANT MOORE’S MOTION TO | DISMISS THE INDICTMENT

PLASTIC SURGERY INSTITUTE OF |

Count One must be dismissed because the CDC lacked the authority to promulgate the requirements that defendant Moore is charged with violating

Count One must be dismissed because the documents necessary to obtain a conviction fail to comply with the federal Paperwork Reduction Act, and must therefore be suppressed.

Counts Two and Three must be dismissed because the property that the defendant is accused of converting did not belong to the federal government at that time

The Government should be barred from presenting its theory as to the value of the vaccine reporting cards, which does not comply with any of the statutory criteria for the calculation of loss.

| Judge Howard C. Nielson Jr.
|
| ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

UTAH INC., et al., ____________________________________|_________________________________________

Defendants.

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.758

Page 2 of 40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT................................................................................

LEGAL ARGUMENT............................................................................................... POINT I

THE CDC LACKED AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE
THE REQUIREMENTS THAT DEFENDANT MICHAEL
MOORE IS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING, AND
COUNT ONE MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED.................................

A. The Role of the CDC in this Prosecution...................................... B. The Eviction Moratorium.............................................................. C. The Raimondo Decision and Administrative Law........................

1. The Passing of the APA.................................................... 2. The Chevron Decision........................................................ 3. The Effect of Raimondo.....................................................

D. The CDC's Lack of Authority........................................................

POINT II

THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT REQUIRES
SUPPRESSION OF THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO PROVE
COUNT ONE, WHICH ACCORDINGLY MUST BE DISMISSED............

POINT III

COUNTS TWO AND THREE OF THE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S INABILITY
TO PROVE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE ..................

Page 1

3

3 3 5 7 7 8

11 12

15

23

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.759

Page 3 of 40

POINT IV

THE CDC'S COMPUTATION OF LOSS SHOULD BE
STRICKEN FROM THE INDICTMENT, AND THE
PROSECUTION SHOULD BE BARRED FROM
PRESENTING ANY ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF IT
AT OR AFTER TRIAL..................................................................................

CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................

Page

30 34

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.760

Page 4 of 40

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Ala. Ass'n of Realtors v. HHS,

Page 5, 6

26

7-11

7, 10-11

11

26

18

18

18

26-28

594 U.S. 758, 141 S.Ct. 2485, 210 L.Ed.2d (2024) ................................................

Borman v. United States,

262 F. 26 (2d Cir. 1919)...........................................................................................

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.,

467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)............................................

Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo,

- - U.S. - -, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882 (2024)...............................................................

Perez v. Mrtg. Bankers Ass'n,

575 U.S. 92 135 S.Ct. 119, 191 L. Ed. 2d 186 (2015).............................................

United States v. Anderson,

45 F. Supp. 943 (D. Cal. 1942)................................................................................

United States v. Chisum,
502 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2007), cert. denied,
552 U.S. 1211 (2008)...............................................................................................

United States v. Gross,

626 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2010)....................................................................................

United States v. Hatch,

919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990)..................................................................................

United States v. Hartec Enterprises, Inc.,

967 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1992)....................................................................................

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.761

Page 5 of 40

United States Morton Salt Co.,

338 U.S. 632, 70 S.Ct. 357, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950) ...................................................

United States v. Robie,

166 F.3d 444 (2nd Cir. 1999)...................................................................................

United States v. Sasser,

974 F.2d 1544 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
506 U.S. 1085 (1993)...............................................................................................

United States v. Smith,

866 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1989)..................................................................................

Page 8

28, 29

18-19

18

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.762 Page 6 of 40

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This prosecution is the first of its kind in the United States. The Government makes a valiant effort to manipulate traditional theories of fraud and criminality to fit some of the complex issues arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is therefore not surprising that case raises issues of first impression. This is not a traditional indictment alleging the defrauding of the government for the purpose of profit; it is more an allegation of “fraud” through the frustration of the CDC’s intent in putting a vaccination plan into action. While such a theory is not unprecedented, its use is understandably rare.

In Point I, the defendant will argue that Count One of the Indictment must be dismissed because of the illegality of the CDC plan that Dr. Moore is charged with violating. He maintains, supported by decisions of the United States Supreme Court, that the CDC far exceeded its authority, and that the conspiracy to defraud claim asserted in Count One therefore cannot be sustained.

In Point II, the defendant will argue that the CDC engaged in violations of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and that such violations require the suppression of documentary and testimonial evidence without which the Government cannot hope to even establish a prima facie case under Count One.

-1-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.763 Page 7 of 40

Counts Two and three relate to theft of government property, with one count being a substantive charge and the other being a conspiracy charge. In Point III the defendant will argue that the property in question - - the Covid vaccine and the vaccination record cards obtained by Dr. Moore - - were, at the relevant times, the property of the State of Utah rather than the federal government, and that the counts must accordingly be dismissed.

In Point IV the defendant will demonstrate that even if theft of property counts are permitted to go forward, the valuation in the Indictment is fatally flawed, and simply cannot be sustained under any reasonable interpretation of the evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government. The defendant therefore is seeking to strike that valuation from the Indictment, and to prohibit the Government from arguing it either at trial or at any hypothetical future sentencing.

-2-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.764 Page 8 of 40

POINT I

THE CDC LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT DEFENDANT MICHAEL MOORE IS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING, AND COUNT ONE MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED

The primary governmental role in regulating public health matters lies with the states, acting within their general police powers.1 While the federal government does have a role, it is a specific rather than a general one, and is limited to those powers granted in the Constitution. The criminal charges brought by the federal government against Dr. Moore are based on actions by the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) and the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) that exceed that constitutional authority, and hence the charges cannot stand.

A. The Role of the CDC in this Prosecution

According to the Indictment, the CDC and HHS “developed rules and protocols” for the administration of the Covid vaccine (“the Vaccine”).2 But the Indictment lacks the specificity to determine what those rules and protocols were,

1 See Elizabeth Y. McCuskey, Body of Presumption: Health Law Traditions and the Presumption Against Preemption, 89 TEMPLE LAW REV. 95, 113-20 (2016).

2 Whether or not the Covid vaccine even meets the definition of a vaccine was called into question by a Ninth Circuit decision. Health Freedom Def. Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, - - F.4th - -, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 13910 (9th Cir. 2024). However, that issue is beyond the scope of this brief, and Defendant will concede that it is a vaccine only for the limited purpose of this particular motion.

-3-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.765 Page 9 of 40

although they constitute an element of the necessary proofs. What the Indictment implies is that the CDC came up with a plan that it then imposed on states and medical providers. But the source of its authority to do so is never explained.

It bears noting at the outset that the CDC is not a regulatory agency, but rather an advisory one. It does purportedly have certain regulatory powers (infra). But even the United States government, in a publication made available by the National Institute of Health, acknowledges the limitations of CDC authority under the currently- existing scheme:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) exercised broad regulatory authority throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with many of its actions challenged in, or even blocked by, the courts. The committee believes that the CDC should be afforded ample legal authority to carry out its mission using evidence-based measures to reduce the interstate or international spread of infectious diseases. This would require legal reforms, including modernizing the Public Health Service Act of 1944 (PHSA), which was enacted well before major societal changes—including globalization—that can amplify the threat of rapidly moving infectious diseases.

See Improving the CDC Quarantine Station Network's Response to Emerging Threats, Ch. 6, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, et als. (2022).

HHS has sometimes cited as a source of statutory authority the following section of 42 USC § 264:

-4-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.766 Page 10 of 40

(a) Promulgation and enforcement by Surgeon General. The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Administrator [Secretary], is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.

Although the statutory authorization is given to the Surgeon General, he has delegated that authority to the CDC pursuant to C.F.R. § 70.2. The phrase “such regulations as in his judgment are necessary” would seem to suggest broad, almost unlimited discretion; but that is not the case.

B. The Eviction Moratorium

In Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS, 594 U.S. 758, 141 S.Ct. 2485, 210 L.Ed.2d (2024), the Supreme Court considered a nationwide moratorium on the eviction of certain tenants in counties with high levels of Covid-19. Although HHS defended the moratorium on the basis of its authority under 42 USC § 264, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting: “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority it asserts.” 594 U.S. at 760. The Court did not dispute that Congress could have authorized such an action by the CDC, but such approval “has not happened.” Id. at 759-60. Despite the fact that Covid had been declared a

-5-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.767 Page 11 of 40

national emergency, the CDC still lacked the authority to exercise power that had not been granted to it by Congress.

Because of its implications to the HHS/CDC actions at the heart of the criminal charges against Dr. Moore, the details of the Supreme Court’s holding in Ala. Ass’n of Realtors merits quotation here at significant length. The following paragraphs go to the very heart of the matter:

The applicants not only have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits—it is difficult to imagine them losing. The Government contends that the first sentence of §361(a) gives the CDC broad authority to take whatever measures it deems necessary to control the spread of COVID-19, including issuing the moratorium. But the second sentence informs the grant of authority by illustrating the kinds of measures that could be necessary: inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of contaminated animals and articles.

Id. at 763. The Court went on to state:

Even if the text were ambiguous, the sheer scope of the CDC’s claimed authority under §361(a) would counsel against the Government’s interpretation. We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance . . . . That is exactly the kind of power that the CDC claims here . . . .

Indeed, the Government’s read of §361(a) would give the CDC a breathtaking amount of authority. It is hard to see what measures this interpretation would place outside the CDC’s reach, and the Government has identified no limit in §361(a) beyond the requirement that the CDC deem a measure “necessary” . . . . This claim of expansive authority under §361(a) is unprecedented . . . .

Id. at 763-65 [emphasis added, internal quotation marks and citations omitted].

-6-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.768 Page 12 of 40

The court’s rejection of the CDC interpretation, even if the statute was deemed to be ambiguous, was a sign of what was to come. The limitations on the CDC’s authority are now even clearer after the recent decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, - - U.S. - -, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882 (2024).

C. The Raimondo Decision and Administrative Law

In 1984, the Supreme Court dramatically changed the regulatory landscape of the country. Although it is unlikely that the justices who decided Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. meant to usher in the dramatic overhaul in administrative jurisprudence that followed, the decision began a juridical revolution that saw the court system become subservient to agencies of the executive branch.3 It is unlikely that any agency has taken greater advantage of this realignment of traditional constitutional power than the CDC. Now, forty years later, the Supreme Court has been forced to deal with Chevron’s unintended consequences, in a decision that reclaims for the judicial branch the role that the Founders intended for it.

1. The Passing of the APA

The abuse of administrative power is not a new threat. Almost 80 years ago Congress passed The Administrative Procedure Act (“the APA”) with a single

3 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).

-7-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.769 Page 13 of 40

overriding purpose: to act as “a check upon administrators whose zeal might otherwise have carried them to excesses not contemplated in legislation creating their offices.” United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 644, 70 S.Ct. 357, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950). The gravity of the threat presented is reflected in the fact that Congress actually found it necessary to codify a basic legal concept: that a court reviewing an administrative decision “shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning and or applicability of the terms of an agency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 706. In other words, legal decisions are made by judges, not by bureaucrats.

For 36 years, courts implemented the APA by doing what they had always done: serving as the ultimate interpreter of legislative intent determining the boundaries of congressional delegations of authority. While a court could certainly consider the judgment of a regulatory agency, it had no obligation to defer to that judgment. As had always been the case, the intent of the APA was that courts were to continue relying on their own judgment, a function that had always been the very essence of the American judicial system.

2. The Chevron Decision

In 1984, the Supreme Court was called upon to rule on a somewhat obscure question of law: the interpretation of the term “stationary source” as used in the Clean

-8-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.770 Page 14 of 40

Air Act. At issue was an EPA regulation treating “all pollution-emitting devices within the same industrial grouping” as though they were part of a single “bubble.” See, Chevron, supra, 467 U.S. at 840. In deciding in favor of the EPA, the court took a step off of the well-worn path of interpreting legislative intent.

The court started with the fundamental concept that if Congress addresses an issue directly, such that its intent is clear from the legislation itself, an administrative regulation or interpretation that deviated from that intent was void. That much of the court’s ruling was compelled by the Constitution itself, and was a necessary safeguard to the constitutional authority granted to the legislative branch.

The court then turned to the question of what would happen when legislation was either ambiguous or simply silent on a matter under regulatory consideration. In the normal course the appropriate agency would regulate based upon its interpretation of the legislative intent. But what impact did that interpretation have if a regulation was subsequently challenged through a lawsuit? Under the APA, which had codified a legal concept that had stood for more than a century, the deciding court was not required to give any deference to the agency’s interpretation of congressional intent. By constitutional fiat, the law was to be decided by judges, not regulators. And yet, with no attempt whatsoever to reconcile its decision with the APA, the Chevron court abandoned all precedent.

-9-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.771 Page 15 of 40

The Supreme Court went on to hold that if the regulatory agency’s interpretation of the law was “a permissible construction of the statute” - - not the only possible construction, not even the most reasonable construction, but simply one of however many “permissible” constructions there might be - - the courts had to defer to the agency. Chevron, supra, fn. 11. There was nothing new in a court givingconsideration to an agency’s interpretation, or even going so far as to give it “considerable weight.” But Chevron announced a new rule of law, one found nowhere in the APA, and in fact wholly inconsistent with the APA: that in filling the statutory “gaps” that were created when Congress did not address a specific issue, the courts were required to defer to the agency, even if the Court disagreed with the agency’s interpretation.

Some legal scholars believe that the Chevron court neither foresaw nor intended the sea change in regulatory jurisprudence that resulted from the decision.4 As more and more cases came before the courts, the concept became more deeply imbedded that in the case of ambiguity or even mere silence on a particular issue in legislation, the interpretation of the regulatory agency was entitled to deference. Courts were no longer to decide what was correct, only what was “reasonable.”

4 See Raimondo, supra at *41, citing T. Merrill, The Story of Chevron: The Making of An Accidental Landmark, 66 ADMIN. L. REV. 253 (2014).

-10-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.772 Page 16 of 40

3. The Effect of Raimondo

Almost a decade ago, some members of the Court were already sharply criticizing the Chevron test, noting its patent inconsistency with the APA. See Perez v. Mrtg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 109, 135 S.Ct. 119, 191 L. Ed. 2d 186 (2015) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Finally, in June of this year, the court officially announced what had already become apparent: that “ambiguity [in a statute] is simply not a delegation of law-interpreting power.” Raimondo, supra at *43. The court went on to expressly overrule Chevron, restoring the very concept that the APA was intended to codify in the first place: that courts interpreting congressional intent should rely on their own interpretation of that intent, even if it conflicts with that of a regulatory agency.

The Chevron doctrine has not merely been wounded; it is dead and buried. In deciding on the issue of legislative ambiguity, the Supreme Court could not have been any less ambiguous:

Chevron has proven to be fundamentally misguided . . . . For its entire existence, Chevron has been a rule in search of a justification . . . if it was ever coherent enough to be called a rule at all.

Raimondo, supra at *54-55 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]. With its hands untied by the overruling of Chevron and the reinstatement of the original intention of the APA, the Court must now turn its attention to how this rule of law

-11-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.773 Page 17 of 40

impacts the case before it. The Court will now be asked to invalidate the CDC regulations at the heart of this prosecution - - regulations that perverted congressional intent and undermined constitutional principals - - and to accordingly dismiss the charges against Dr. Moore.

D. The CDC’s Lack of Authority

Returning to the Indictment in this case, Count One alleges a conspiracy by the defendants to impede, impair, obstruct, and defeat “the lawful government functions of the CDC in administering authorized COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-19 Vaccination Record Cards through approved vaccine distributing entities.” By virtue of this wording, the Government itself has acknowledged that for the defendant to be guilty, the CDC requirements must be “lawful.” Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine how the Government could ever argue otherwise.

As discussed earlier in this brief, under our constitutional system law-making is the province of the Legislative Branch, and agencies of the Executive Branch have only such authority in that area as is statutorily granted to them by Congress. And, as recent Supreme Court decisions have reflected, such grants of authority are to be narrowly interpreted; the mere existence of a statutory ambiguity or legislative silence on a specific issue does not operate to give the Executive Branch broad power to regulate matters that fall within the gaps.

-12-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.774 Page 18 of 40

The CDC plan that is the subject of the Indictment is a massive abuse of the limited regulatory power of that agency, even with the powers delegated to it by the Surgeon General. Indeed, both the Surgeon General and HHS itself lack the statutory authority to promulgate such a plan. A discussion of all of the various ways that the CDC exceed its authority is beyond the scope of this discussion; the defendant will focus on those that most directly demonstrate why Count One must be dismissed.

Preliminarily, it should be noted that even the Indictment does not allege that a single person was deprived of being vaccinated because of Dr. Moore. Taking all of the Government’s allegations as true for the limited purpose of this discussion, it has not alleged that there was ever a shortage of vaccine for people who wanted it because of Dr. Moore. Nor did Dr. Moore through his actions deprive even a single one of his patients of the ability to be vaccinated. As the Government’s own evidence corroborates, none of the people who received vaccination cards from Dr. Moore ever wanted to be vaccinated. What the defendant did was at their request, and was consistent with their own wishes.

The only real issue, then, is Dr. Moore’s purported submission to a state agency of vaccine information relating to his patients that was not truthful. It is particularly in regard to this requirement that the CDC most notably exceeded any authority granted to it by Congress.

-13-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.775 Page 19 of 40

The information-reporting to the state served no necessary purpose. What it in fact did is create a de facto “database” of people who could be discriminated against, i.e., all those as to whom vaccinations had not been reported. The Court can take judicial notice that different agencies in different states through different means put social, educational, and employment restrictions on those who were not vaccinated. The CDC requirement of reporting vaccinations to the state was an easy, albeit unconstitutional method of identifying those who for religious, ethical, medical, or other reasons relating to personal choice and personal liberty chose not to be vaccinated. Nowhere in any piece of legislation ever passed by the Congress of the United States has HHS or the CDC been granted such rule-making power.

In summary, the CDC did not have the statutory power to require Dr. Moore to vaccinate his patients, or to require him to assist in the creation of a state database of those who chose to remain unvaccinated. What the Government’s motives were in creating the vaccination plan are a subject of debate even today. Some believe that it was a good faith effort to deal with a health crisis; others believe that the Government had other motives in promoting the wide-scale use of a potentially dangerous vaccine that had escaped the usual rigorous testing process because of public fear. But this motion is not about motives, it is about law. And under the law, the CDC lacked the necessary authority, and Count One must be dismissed.

-14-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.776 Page 20 of 40

POINT II

THE GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT REQUIRES SUPPRESSION OF THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO PROVE COUNT ONE, WHICH ACCORDINGLY MUST BE DISMISSED

In 1980 Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), which was later amended in 1995. The PRA requires that an information-collection form be subjected to a regulatory approval process before it can be used to gather information from the public. A failure to abide by the PRA carries consequences. In the present case those consequences should be the suppression of the use, or even the reference to documentary evidence that violated the PRA.

44 U.S.C. § 3507(a) sets out a fairly rigorous process that must be abided by for a form to

receive approval for distribution:

(a) An agency shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless in advance of the adoption or revision of the collection of information—

(1) the agency has—

1. (A)  conducted the review established under section 3506(c)(1) [44 USCS § 3506(c)(1)];

2. (B)  evaluated the public comments received under section 3506(c)(2) [44 USCS § 3506(c)(2)];

3. (C)  submitted to the Director the certification required under section 3506(c)(3) [44 USCS § 3506(c)(3)], the proposed collection of information, copies of pertinent statutory authority, regulations, and other related materials as the Director may specify; and

   -15-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.777 Page 21 of 40

(D) published a notice in the Federal Register—

(i) (ii)

stating that the agency has made such submission; and

setting forth—

(I) (II)

(III)

(IV)

(V) (VI)

a title for the collection of information;

a summary of the collection of information;

a brief description of the need for the information and the proposed use of the information;

a description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of response to the collection of information;

an estimate of the burden that shall result from the collection of information; and

notice that comments may be submitted to the agency and Director;

2. (2)  the Director has approved the proposed collection of information or approval has been inferred, under the provisions of this section; and

3. (3)  the agency has obtained from the Director a control number to be displayed upon the collection of information.

The statute goes on to contain extensive provisions for public notice and the ultimate approval of a form.

Under 44 U.S.C. § 3502, there can be no doubt that both HHS and the CDC are subject to the PRA:

-16-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.778 Page 22 of 40

(1) the term "agency" means any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency,

Nor can there be any doubt as to the broad range of forms that are covered by the statute, some of which apply to this case (infra):

(3) the term “collection of information”—

(A) means the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format, calling for either—

(i) answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or record-keeping requirements imposed on, ten or more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States; or

(ii) answers to questions posed to agencies, instrumenta- lities, or employees of the United States which are to be used for general statistical purposes . . . .

Congress was so intent that executive agencies comply with the requirements of the PRA that it built into the statute a provision for the protection of the public, embodied in 44 U.S.C. § 3512:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if—

(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or

-17-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.779 Page 23 of 40

(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

The “public protection” provision has rarely been raised in the context of a criminal prosecution, but such use is not without precedent, and courts have at times gone so far as to dismiss such prosecutions. See United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Hatch, 919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990). A marked exception, however, has been made for federal tax prosecutions, with multiple courts, including the Tenth Circuit, finding that there is an independent statutory basis for tax prosecutions that renders the PRA inapplicable. See e.g. United States v. Chisum, 502 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1211 (2008); United States v. Gross, 626 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2010).5

There is one other relevant Tenth Circuit case which at first reading appears to defeat Dr. Moore’s PRA argument. United States v. Sasser, 974 F.2d 1544 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1085 (1993). But the timing of that decision is

5 The Tenth Circuit also denied a taxpayer’s appeal in Springer v. Comm'r, 580 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1017 (2010). However, the specific grounds for the denial were that the taxpayer had waived the defense as to taxes assessed by not raising it in the tax court, and that penalties assessed did not arise out of the challenged documents, and hence the PRA was not applicable to them.

-18-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.780 Page 24 of 40

crucial. The case was decided under the PRA as it was first passed by Congress in 1980. At that time, Paragraph (b) of the statute did not exist.6 It was not until 1995 that Congress strengthened the statute by adding: “(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.”

The imposition of the rules attendant to the CDC vaccination scheme in general, the Government’s investigation of Dr. Moore in particular, and the decision to prosecute and indict him were all part of the administrative process of agencies of the Executive Branch. This criminal action is a “judicial action relating thereto”, and accordingly Dr. Moore is entitled to raise the Government’s breaches of the PRA as “a complete defense, bar, or otherwise.” Paragraph (b), which memorializes his right, did not exist when Sasser was decided, and in effect supercedes it.

¶ 17 of the Indictment alleges that providers were required to sign a CDC Covid-19 Vaccination Program Provider Agreement.7 The Government alleges that Dr. Moore did so, and this document is critical to the Government’s fraud theory in Count One. Importantly it is, by its very nature, an information-collection document.

6 Solely for the purpose of preserving the issue for appeal, Defendant also maintains that Sasser was incorrectly decided, and should be reconsidered by the Tenth Circuit.

7 Dr. Moore denies submitting anything to the CDC. To the best of his knowledge his dealing with the vaccine were entirely between him and the State of Utah.

-19-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.781 Page 25 of 40

To the best of Dr. Moore’s knowledge and belief, he never signed a Provider Agreement that displayed a valid control number assigned under the PRA, or that informed him that he was not required to respond to the form unless it displays such a control number. This is an outright violation of 44 U.S.C. § 3512, and Dr. Moore is entitled to the protection of having any evidence, documentary or testimonial, as to the Provider Agreement suppressed.

The Indictment, in that same paragraph, states that Dr. Moore was required “provide a completed COVID-19 vaccination record” to each vaccine recipient. That requirement would require from him “the disclosure to third parties or the public” of information. Furthermore, the vaccine card required “answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or record-keeping requirements imposed on, ten or more persons.” Thus, the vaccine cards were, by statutory definition, information- collection forms.

Here again, to the best of Dr. Moore’s knowledge and belief, he never authored a Vaccine Card Provider Agreement that displayed a valid control number assigned under the PRA, or that informed him that he was not required to respond to the form unless it displays such a control number. Furthermore, his research has failed to turn up any sample of the vaccine card form that contains that information. This is another violation of 44 U.S.C. § 3512.

-20-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.782 Page 26 of 40

Finally, Dr. Moore is not aware of any forms used for reporting patient vaccinations to the State of Utah that contained a PRA control number. The CDC claims that the requirement of providing such information to the State was part of its requirements as part of its master plan; thus, a PRA control number should have been required on any applicable forms, yet another violation.

As a result of the various violations, virtually all of the significant documentary and testimonial evidence that the Government seeks to rely upon must be suppressed. Without it, the Government cannot possibly hope to even establish a prima facie case of fraud.

Parenthetically, it bears noting that Paragraph 10 of the Indictment states that the CDC’s intent - - the “frustration” of which is the very basis of Count One, being the supposed object of Dr. Moore’s conduct - - “was to make a COVID-19 vaccine available to all authorized adults in the United States who wanted to receive a vaccine.” With or without the documentary evidence referred to above, the Government has no evidence of the frustration of that intent. The Indictment does not allege that Dr. Moore’s actions created a shortage of the vaccine or frustrated its receipt by any adult who wanted it. As to Dr. Moore’s own patients, by their very actions they were expressing that they did not want to receive the vaccine.

-21-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.783 Page 27 of 40

Paragraph 20, somewhat contradicting Paragraph 10, states that Dr. Moore committed fraud by attempting to defeat the CDC functions of “distributing and administering authorized COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-19 Vaccination Record Cards” through approved distributors.8 But the Government’s proofs, even taken in their best light, fail to prove both.

As noted, the Indictment does not claim that distribution and administration of the vaccine to anyone who wanted it was impeded by anything, much less by anything that Dr. Moore did. Furthermore, nothing that Dr. Moore did interfered with the CDC goal of distributing Vaccination Record Cards. Every patient who was vaccinated by anyone presumably received a card. What Dr. Moore allegedly did may have increased the universe of who received such cards, but it did nothing to interfere with the distribution of vaccine cards to those people who did receive the vaccine.

All of the foregoing demonstrates that even with the benefit of all of its evidence, the Government cannot hope to prove the allegations of Count One. It is therefore self-evident that without that evidence, which must be suppressed because of the CDC violations of the PRA, there is no excuse for the Government to burden Dr. Moore any further with this accusation, and Count One must be dismissed.

8 While both “distributing and administering” apply to the vaccine itself, the second part of the sentence only alleges frustration of the distribution of Vaccination Record Cards.

-22-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.784 Page 28 of 40

POINT III

COUNTS TWO AND THREE OF THE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S INABILITY TO PROVE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE

Counts Two and Three of the Indictment are similar in nature, the distinction being that one charges a substantive offense, while the other charges a conspiracy to commit that offense. 18 U.S.C. § 641 states as follows:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

The 2021 Edition of the Tenth Circuit’s Criminal Patter Jury Instructions, defining the offense set out in § 641, states as follows:

2.31 The defendant is charged in count ______ with a violation of 18 U.S.C. section 641. This law makes it a crime to [steal] [embezzle] [convert] government property.

-23-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.785 Page 29 of 40

The defendant is accused of [stealing] [embezzling] [converting] [name property]. To find the defendant guilty of this crime you must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: the [name property] belonged to the United States government [if lack of knowledge is asserted, add: It does not matter whether the defendant knew that the [name property] belonged to the United States government, only that he knew it did not belong to him.];

Second: the defendant [stole] [embezzled] [converted] the [name property] intending to put it [to his own use or gain] [to the use or gain of another] or the defendant took the [name property] knowing it was not his and intending to deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the [name property]; and

Third: the value of the [name property] was more than $1,000.

"Value" means the face, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

The substantive count of the Indictment describes the conduct that Dr. Moore and other defendants supposedly engaged in and/or conspired to engage in, alleging as follows:

. . . defendants herein, did embezzle, steal, purloin, and knowingly convert to their use or the use of another, and without authority, sold, conveyed, and disposed of a thing of value of the United States or of a department or agency thereof and of property made or being made under contract for the United States and a department or agency thereof, that is, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, namely approximately 1937 doses of COVID-19 vaccines and corresponding COVID-19 Vaccination Record Cards . . .

The Covid vaccine and the vaccination record cards that are the property in issue were not the property of the United States at the time that Dr. Moore acquired them; hence, these two counts cannot be sustained.

-24-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.786 Page 30 of 40

The defendant does not dispute that at one point in time the vaccine and the record cards constituted “a thing of value of the United States . . .” However, that was not the case when Dr. Moore received them. He did not receive them from the United State government or the CDC.

Pursuant to its own plan, the CDC had already distributed the items to the State of Utah (as it had to each of the 50 states). It was the State that then exercised possession, dominion, and control over them, and made the decisions as to when and to whom to distribute them. Dr. Moore dealt only with the State of Utah in obtaining the vaccine and record cards. Although he does not concede having committed a “theft” at all, as a matter of law the only possible “victim” of such an act would have been the Utah Department of Health & Human Services, not the CDC or the federal government itself.

The very first element to be proven as per the Pattern Jury Charge is that the property “belonged to the United States government.” Inasmuch as the Government cannot prove something that is factually untrue, there is no basis to subject Dr. Moore to a trial on Counts Two and Three, which accordingly should be dismissed.

Defendant anticipates that the Government will try to circumvent this issue by invoking the statutory language, “or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof . . .” But the clear meaning of that

-25-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.787 Page 31 of 40

statutory language is that it refers to property that ‘belongs’ to the United States, even though it may still be in the process of production, or in the hands of a manufacturer with whom it has contracted. See. e.g. United States v. Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 943 (D. Cal. 1942). See also Borman v. United States, 262 F. 26 (2d Cir. 1919) [holding that contractor violated predecessor statute to 18 USCS § 641 by converting materials furnished by the government to be made into a final product].

While modern case law on point is sparse, United States v. Hartec Enterprises, Inc., 967 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1992) is instructive. Hartec manufactured wire mesh panels under a government contract. After it was discovered that Hartec sold some of the panels to third parties, it was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 641 for this purported theft. The company maintained that the panels were “non-conforming goods” of which the government would not have taken possession, and hence were not government property. But the statutory language, “or any property made or being made

under contract for the United States” was fatal to its defense at the trial level.
The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the panels had not become the “property” of the United States, notwithstanding the fact that they were made with materials paid for by the government. It also rejected the argument that a contractual clause that gave the United

States the right to retrieve the materials from third parties in possession of them did not render the panels the “property” of the government.

-26-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.788 Page 32 of 40

The Fifth Circuit impliedly acknowledged that reasonable persons could differ as to whether or not the panels were “government property” under the specific facts of the case. It therefore applied a principal which is implicated in this case as well: the rule of lenity:

This is also a paradigmatic case for application of the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity compels us to construe ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of lenity . . . . The rule promotes fair notice of prohibited conduct and reduces the likelihood that unintentionally criminal conduct will be penalized . . . .

Although the rule does not require that we give the statute its narrowest construction . . . we find that under the facts now before us, the coupling of the title vesting provision with its inconsistent interpretations in the courts and § 641 did not provide [the defendant] with notice that he could be criminally liable for sale of the wire mesh panels.

967 F.2d at 133. An application of that very same principal is appropriate here as well as to Dr. Moore.

Although the CDC did not supply the materials used to manufacture the Covid vaccine, it is certainly true that it was manufactured for the CDC pursuant to a government contract. But the CDC then divested itself of the vaccine and the record cards by giving them to the states, which then determined when, where, how, and to whom to distribute them.

At the very least, the situation creates an ambiguity as to the “ownership” of the vaccine and record cards, similar to the ambiguity that existed in Hartec. Dr.

-27-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.789 Page 33 of 40

Moore believed that he was receiving products that belonged to the state of Utah, not the United States government. He still maintains that his belief was correct, but at worst the situation, as in Hartec, was so ambiguous that “§ 641 did not provide . . . notice that he could be criminally liable” for the use that he made of the vaccine and record cards. It is therefore appropriate to apply the rule of lenity, just as the Fifth Circuit did, and to dismiss Counts Two and Three.

Interestingly, there is another parallel to Hartec. In that case, there was the contractual clause that allowed the government to retrieve the materials from third parties. Here, there is at least an argument that could be made on the CDC’s behalf that although the vaccine/cards were no longer its property, Dr. Moore’s use of them violated the provisions of the Vaccination Program Provider Agreement. This may arguably give the CDC standing to file a civil action for breach of contract against Dr. Moore, a point that he does not concede here but does not dispute either, as it is not relevant. But what the Government cannot do is convert that civil contract dispute into a criminal charge.

A final case that illustrates the use of the “under contract for the United States” language is United States v. Robie, 166 F.3d 444 (2nd Cir. 1999). The defendant worked for a company that manufactured stamps for the federal government. During the process a number of “inverted” stamps were inadvertently printed. Rather than

-28-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.790 Page 34 of 40

destroying these misprints, Robie sold them to third parties for a substantial amount of money. In denying the defendant’s appeal, the court explained:

The misprints fall squarely within the plain meaning of the statutory language. They were produced for the government solely and literally "under contract for" the Postal Service. Although as misprints they were useless to the Postal Service, it does not follow that they were not made under that agreement.

Id. at 452.
The Second Circuit determined that the misprints had been manufactured for

the government and that they were the property of the government at the time that they were sold. That finding of fact was dispositive in Robie. But it is the paragraph following that one that is dispositive in this case as to Dr. Moore:

That goods stolen were at one time made under government contract is not alone enough to establish the offense, however. Stamps lifted by a pickpocket on a city bus were once "made under contract for the Postal Service," but the theft is not a federal crime . . . .

Ibid. The fact that the Covid vaccine was made under government contract is not alone enough to establish the offense charged here. Even if the CDC chooses to characterize Dr. Moore as “the pickpocket on the city bus,” it cannot convict him of a theft of CDC property that no longer belonged to the CDC.

Based on all of the foregoing, the defendant respectfully submits that Counts Two and Three of the Indictment must be dismissed.

-29-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.791 Page 35 of 40

POINT IV

THE CDC’S COMPUTATION OF LOSS SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE INDICTMENT, AND THE PROSECUTION SHOULD BE BARRED FROM PRESENTING ANY ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF IT AT OR AFTER TRIAL.

Assuming arguendo that some or all of the counts in the Indictment survive this dismissal motion, the defendant submits that the Government’s calculation of loss in the Indictment should be stricken, and that it should be barred from arguing its theory either at trial or at any hypothetical sentencing.

Count One of the Indictment presents a chart showing the value of the Covid vaccine obtained by Dr. Moore as $28,028.50. That valuation is based on the CDC’s actual cost, and for the limited purpose of this motion the defendant will not contest it. Count Three, however, contains a second chart that is absurd on its face.

The Indictment claims that Dr. Moore obtained “approximately 1937 doses of COVID-19 vaccines and corresponding COVID-19 Vaccination Record Cards.” It goes on to value the record cards at $50 apiece, for a total of $96,850, for a total claimed loss of $123,878.50.9 The valuation of the record cards is outrageous at best, and blatant governmental abuse at worst.

9 Unlike its approach to the vaccine itself, the Indictment makes no mention whatsoever of its actual cost of obtaining the vaccine record cards.

-30-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.792 Page 36 of 40

As quoted above, the Tenth Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction for 18 U.S.C. § 641 defines the term "value" as meaning the greatest of the following alternatives: face value, market value, or cost price (either wholesale or retail). It goes without saying that the pre-printed index card that constituted a vaccination record card did not have a cost price of $50 apiece. Nor did the card have such a “face value”; indeed, it had no face value, as it was never for sale to anyone, either doctor or patient. The only possible theory the government can therefore be advancing is that $50 represents the “market value” of the card.

If one can ignore the bad faith inherent in the CDC’s position, it might be possible to at least give the government credit for creativity. Its theory, such as it is, consists of the following chain of “logic”:

- In Paragraph 22(f), the Indictment alleges that “in exchange for direct cash payments or directed donations of $50 per person per occurrence,” Dr. Moore distributed vaccine cards to patients who were not vaccinated;

- In Paragraph 23(e), the Indictment identifies a specific transaction in which an alleged co-conspirator of Dr. Moore instructed an undercover agent to make “a $50 donation,” and to provide proof of it by text;

- By using $50 as the “value” of each card, the Government is apparently positing that amount, based on the cited evidence, as its “market value.”

-31-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.793 Page 37 of 40

There are a host of flaws in the Government’s theory, some factual and some legal, which collectively are fatal. The following are some of the factual issues:10

(1) Factually, the defendants never received $50, or any other amount, from anyone; for the limited purpose of this motion, Dr. Moore will not contest that he or others requested that some, although not all, of the patients who received records cards were asked to make a donation to a registered charity that was against mandated Covid vaccines and that advocated against it;

(2) The Government does not, and factually cannot, allege that Dr. Moore had any financial interest whatsoever in the charity, and never received even one dollar for “selling” vaccine cards; the Government maintains, and for the limited purpose of this motion Dr. Moore acknowledges, that he was motivated entirely by his medical beliefs about the vaccine and his obligation, as he saw it, to his patients;

(3) Although contributions to the charity were requested, not all patients who got the cards made the donations. Aside from Dr. Moore’s philosophical alignment with the charity, the making of the contributions was more of a “verification” of the genuineness of the patient’s desire to avoid the vaccine than anything else.

10 As to the factual issues asserted here, Dr. Moore is prepared to participate in a hearing to establish the accuracy of the asserted facts, should the Court find one or more of the issues to be dispositive. Some of the asserted facts will most likely not even be disputed by the Government.

-32-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.794 Page 38 of 40

The Government’s theory is also legally flawed. That theory, to reiterate, is that Dr. Moore was selling vaccine cards at $50 apiece, thereby establishing their market value. But there is not a single patient of Dr. Moore’s who would have ever paid one penny, much less $50, to purchase a vaccine card. Assuming, arguendo, that a patient was actually paying for something of value, what he was paying for was the not the receipt of a pre-printed vaccine record card. Even under the Government’s own theory, the patient would actually be paying $50 for the accommodation of Dr. Moore filling out the vaccine card with purported vaccination information; the patient was paying for a service, not a product.11

The defendant acknowledges that the invalidity of the Government’s theory of valuation may be more significant at a hypothetical sentencing (where the value of property would affect the guidelines range) than at trial, as proof of value is not an essential element of the crime charged. But the defendant will still be prejudiced in the eyes of the jury by the accusation of such a large “theft” of property, and there is no reason to allow the Government to make a prejudicial argument that is incorrect as a matter of law.

11 It bears repeating yet again the Dr. Moore denies “selling” anything or “demanding” anything; he maintains that at most the evidence will support that the defendants sometimes requested that a patient make a charitable donation from which he received no personal benefit. The argument being made here simply assumes, for the very limited purpose of making his legal point, that the Government could establish that he was “selling” something.

-33-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 166 Filed 07/11/24 PageID.795 Page 39 of 40

CONCLUSION

The Covid vaccine, and the ways in which government has developed it, approved it, distributed it, and even mandated it, has caused cultural and political rifts that continue to be felt even after the end of the pandemic. This motion cannot heal those rifts or answer the political or ideological issues behind them. Instead, it presents conventional legal arguments, supported in some cases by the holdings of the United States Supreme Court itself.

From the outset, the Government has been trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It believes that Dr. Moore has done something wrong, but has been unable to charge a crime that fits the conduct. Had Dr. Moore committed the acts he is accused of for the sake of profit, this motion would most likely never have even been filed. But even the Government must reluctantly acknowledge that such is not the case. It knows full well that whatever Dr. Moore did, he did based on ideology and his sense of professional ethics. The Government need not agree with Dr. Moore’s ideology, but it cannot in good faith deny its role in this case.

Based on all of the arguments made above, Dr. Moore urges the Court to find that the Government has failed in its attempts to fit a criminal charge to his conduct, and to dismiss the Indictment in its entirety.

-34-

Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB

Document 166

Filed 07/11/24 PageID.796 Page 40 of 40

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeffrey A. Bronster JEFFREY A. BRONSTER, ESQ. (JB/2620)
17 Wendell Place
Fairview, New Jersey 07022 (201) 945-2566 jbronster@bronsterlaw.com

/s/ David O. Drake
DAVID O. DRAKE, ESQ. (USB# 0911)
6905 South 1300 East, #248 Midvale, UT 84047
(801) 601-9049 sirdrake2033@gmail.com

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Kirk Moore Jr.

Dated: July 10, 2024

-35-

To put it bluntly, vaccines are killing our kids, and destroying our society, in spite of having been previously labeled the safest and most effective interventions in history! We had been ‘taught’ that in medical school—not really taught, but rather we were informed and none of us ever even questioned it—it was pure dogma and we accepted it—all of us did. We trusted our professors, our education. But now it’s all coming full circle. Big Pharma (BP) owns the medical school education system! Up to 90% of the funding for medical school education comes from BP. Not to mention that BP owns the media with upwards of 70% of their funding coming from BP (Pfizer, Merck, GSK, AZ, etc)

Maybe some of you know this, but I have been anti-vaccine since 1989, at least personally, and have only had one vaccine since my first Hep B vaccine in 1989 (where I got a painful case of shingles)! My kids are only partially vaccinated, and I will never subject any of them to any further vaccines. I have gotten into big arguments, as some of you know, about vaccines. Some of you actually no longer speak to me, in part, due to those disagreements, as well due to the other social, political, constitutional issues. It’s amazing to me that we have gotten this far. But I am done self-censoring, worrying about what others think.  Hence this post/update.

The whole Covid plandemic/scamdemic has really opened my eyes and many others’ eyes. And if it hasn’t opened your eyes, then I truly feel sorry for you. We are living in a ‘real-life Truman Show’.

The 1918 ‘Spanish Flu’ was a farce—PC culture and DEI had not taken hold of our society at that time—it was NOT a Spanish Flu, if it was even a flu. It was a US-based deadly illness started in Ft Riley, Kansas, with the mass inoculation of our military in preparation for WWI—no one that died in the US was ‘unvaccinated’—the ‘safe and effective’ experimental ‘meningococcal vaccine’ was then shipped overseas to the French, English, Italian and Spanish militaries. “Electrification” of society was also a huge contributor to massive deaths. Additionally, chemical warfare, especially the use of mustard gas, was the most deadly use of gas/chemical warfare ever in the history of war.

The victors write our history: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell

https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/exploding-the-spanish-flu-myth/

https://healthfreedomdefense.org/exploding-the-spanish-flu-myth/

WWI, WWII, and all other wars were all fake wars. The US has been at war in one theater or another for 93% of its history! Think about that.

JFK was assassinated by our own govt/CIA. Lee Harvey Oswald was coincidentally on the CIA payroll just 3 weeks before the assassination, Jack ‘Ruby’ (Jacob Leon Rubinstein) also coincidentally just happened to then kill the ‘lone gunman’ responsible for defeating the whole entire Secret Service at their ONLY job. The Warren Commission, entrusted with the investigation of the JFK assassination had Allen Dulles, the recently fired Director of Central Intelligence on it. Again, no conflict there—JFK fires him and then he’s entrusted with determining the culpability of the assassination?! Fox guarding the hen-house?

Watergate was a setup, fake scandal to takedown the single most popular President in US History. Bob Woodward was second-in-charge of intelligence in Nixon’s White House just 1 year before the Watergate scandal, and his boss at the WH was his ‘source’ in exposing the DNC ‘robbery’ scam. 6 of 7 of the ‘DNC thiefs’ were on the CIA payroll, at the time of the robbery, the DNC document theft. And, Bob Woodward then ‘scoops’ the biggest scandal in history less than one year on the job as a journalist, with no prior journalism experience?!?! No coincidence there.

The victors write our history books!

We are being lied to every day and lied to at levels we cannot even fathom, levels that boggle the mind and are nearly impossible to comprehend.

I am NOT losing my marbles. I am NOT suicidal!

Does it not seem strange that nearly all countries on this planet bowed down to one ‘mindset’ and implemented all of these Covid ‘lockdown’ policies, nearly simultaneously and without any hesitation or pushback? When has the WHOLE WORLD agreed an anything, and especially on something so circumstantial to humanity!? In a word: NEVER!

Now, the FBI has already stated (and did so in less than 2 days!!) that they’ve concluded the Trump shooter was another ‘lone gunman’. How convenient! Without the investigation essentially having even gotten started, how do they KNOW that with such conviction?! The reality is they want this to be a lone gunman, they declare it so, without even investigating it, in order to craft the narrative.

À la Covid: “It was not a Wuhan lab leak”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2402379

Now, though, coming full circle from my opening statement, vaccines are no longer the most well studied products on the planet!

Stanley Plotkin, I hope you guys know that name, most of you certainly should, especially for Family Practice docs, Internists, Pediatricians and Ob/Gyn’s in our midst, is the ‘godfather of vaccines’ https://www.amazon.com/Plotkins-Vaccines-Walter-Orenstein-DSc/dp/0323790585/ref=sr_1_1?crid=CVNKCXNCL5MW&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.S_LxfvcHDfxrm2EXlafP7I_36Bci733RCa5D37Rv5vumzCSZEtfexyXmqqEO1S82MOTj3XEAMkxVSXMMmWw_JZa2ykFsJ-RwkbX06heqhlGb3MOJNCaYuo5qoPY7GCns.lsBcljHvz-UL9T3TE6qUiEiXk_qbopJOZzOWiR2zvmk&dib_tag=se&keywords=plotkins+vaccines+textbook&qid=1721068564&sprefix=plotkin%2Caps%2C158&sr=8-1— his conflicts of interest are so deep, you have to be blind to not see them! His accomplishments include the development of the rubella, rabies and rotavirus vaccines, all of which he receives royalties for! Nothing to see here!

This article, though, now completely backtracks on the ‘safe and effective’ history of all vaccines and Stanley Plotkin places almost all blame on the ‘administrators’ for their lack of follow-thru, lack of perseverance. Absolutely no blame to be placed on the medical community, though, especially not Plotkin, Orenstein, Offit, et al. He says it’s because there isn’t enough money allocated to long-term, post-authorization studies! Uh huh! That’s the problem. We are underfunded! Everything is underfunded!

COVID Intel - by Dr.William Makis

VIDEO - Del Bigtree - After decades of aggressively promoting experimental jabs, Dr. Stanley Plotkin is finally admitting that vaccine safety has never been robustly studied

After decades of aggressively promoting experimental jabs, Dr. Stanley Plotkin is finally admitting that vaccine safety has never been robustly studied as he has long claimed…

Listen now

2 years ago · 325 likes · 70 comments · Dr. William Makis MD

“It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination” REALLY?? Haven’t we been told this was being done all along? Has it not been done? That is why VAERS was established in the first place. The 1986 Vaccine Liability Act demanded epidemiological studies be done after passage, and after vaccines were licensed, and even required commission meetings to review the data. A commission that has NEVER even met once! Coincidentally, now VAERS is no longer good enough?

There’s a lot more to this article, and a lot more admissions about the lack of science ‘behind’ the safe and effective narrative:

“Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow — often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete — which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.”

Haha! More excuses, gaslighting. Had actual, proper randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials been conducted pre-approval, pre-licensure, we would have known the safety profile before it being unleashed on babies. We wouldn’t be subsequently subjected to relying on confounded, biased-conflicted, post-authorization “epidemiological” studies. Studies that Plotkin now wants to conduct which make clear he only suggests because he wants to avoid “public concern and consequent decreases in immunization coverage,” not because he actually cares about safety.

The whole ‘safe and effective’ narrative is crumbling and collapsing faster than a house of cards in a remote township in Oklahoma in the middle of tornado season!

ALL VACCINES are UNSAFE AND INEFFECTIVE/DEADLY!! Nothing injected into our bodies, made in some remote lab, non-regularly inspected facility, due to the under-funding of the agencies, is safe for animal consumption, much less human consumption.

The mRNA products now on the market, and expanding exponentially within the vaccine industry, have never passed animal tests, much less human trials. Why did Pfizer/FDA want to keep the data hidden for 75 years!? 1200+ healthy people died in the treatment arm of the Pfizer study—1200 young, healthy, people with no or few co-morbidities DIED! The sick, infirm, chronically ill patients were specifically excluded from the study! The pregnant were excluded from the study! And yet, after EUA approval, those were the FIRST to receive it! Does anyone ask why anymore? Does anyone have any discernment, skepticism? Can anyone quote ANY randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study on ANY vaccine?!

You can’t, because it hasn’t been done!

Did you know the Hepatitis B vaccine was approved for use in newborn infants with a total of 5 days of follow-up!? Yes! 5 WHOLE days! Crazy, right! Check it out on the vaccine product insert, section 5.1…it’s right there for us all to see.

Here is a chart of all childhood vaccines and the studies done to approve them:

https://icandecide.org/article/childhood-vaccine-trials-summary-chart/

Notice anything? Not one study, NOT ONE, used a placebo as a control! That is the state of our ‘scientific’ debate at this point. Everyone is bought and paid for and do the bidding of whoever is paying them.

We are injecting our most vulnerable children with all of these products with ABSOLUTELY ZERO safety studies! And that is not to even mention all the ‘other’ stuff in the vaccines—aluminum, MF59, AS01, AS03, AS04, and cytosine phosphoguanosine 1018! What are those? Even the scientists that study them agree: “…despite their widespread use, the molecular mechanisms by which the available adjuvants — including alum, MF59 and the Adjuvant Systems AS0 adjuvants — actually work in humans is not well understood.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-021-00163-y

That’s our medical system these days. That’s our FDA! The actual agency tasked with protecting the people from dangerous products, medications and vaccines! How can we possibly trust these institutions any longer!? They are downright corrupt, dishonest, conflicted, shameful, scandalous and outright criminal. The level of amoral, deceitful, and fraudulent activity is beyond repairable. As with our government as a whole, the entire organization needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch.

We have to stop abdicating our own well-being and that of our friends and families to a government agency or institution. None of them have a care in the world about us. They only care about where and how to get more money and power.

Maybe some of you remember Dr. Robert Zeppa, Chairman of the Department of Surgery, but one of the pearls of wisdom I attribute to him when I had the pleasure of working under him in my final 2 years of schooling was ‘no one looks out for you like you’!! I have never forgotten that and it has come to be a driving force in my life, my career, my morals, values and ethics.

NOLI PARERES!

Think for yourself and do not let what others might or might not think of you to determine your life.

WE HAVE WON! It’s all over, except for the singing fat lady!

So, let me review this process. In January, 2020 we identified a ‘novel’ coronavirus that was killing people at far higher rates than any other coronavirus or flu, in the history of mankind. This highly infectious, deadly virus had infected 41 people in China since about December, 2019.

YEP! 41 had this infection, in a country of 1.4 billion people. And no one had died! Not one death! Yet, it was determined in that short period of time, with just 41 infections, that this was a new disease that warranted further investigation, had potential for a worldwide epidemic and had already been presumed to be a novel disease—one that had never before been seen. That’s a lot of assumptions made in less than a few weeks.

The Lancet published an article describing this ‘new, lab-confirmed’ virus by January, 2020—in spite of there being no confirmed test to identify it! YES, that’s right, the virus was confirmed in these people without actually having an actual viable to test to identify it! Remind me again, how that can be done?

Breaking news!

We have a ‘novel’ (new) presumed respiratory disease of unknown origin, for which the symptoms are identical to any flu-like illness of the past, we don’t have a test to identify this new deadly organism, the new disease (presumably a virus) has never been formally isolated, a grand total of 41 people are ‘confirmed’ to have this disease, not one person has died, and we are on the verge of declaring a worldwide Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC, pronounced FAKE!).

Everyone was talking about this new disease. It was front-page news everywhere and people are just keeling over dead(?) in the streets of Wuhan. The hype was amazing. Satellite pictures over China ‘prove’ there is a deadly pandemic because there are heat maps showing incinerators running 24/7 due to the mass numbers of dead bodies. All the ‘experts’ gather for meetings, hearings, strategy sessions, planning committees, and press conferences to keep people informed and apprised of all the latest developments.

The WHO gets mobilized. They activate their Incident Management Support Team (IMST) to investigate "unusual phenomena" associated with a viral infection. The presumed source of infection, the Huanan Wet Market is closed by Chinese authorities—later in May, 2020, it was disclosed there was actually no virus ever isolated, but rather than discard that theory that it was the ‘origin’ of the novel virus, the narrative was slightly altered to ‘relaunch’ the wet market location as the ‘super-spreading’ event, just not as the origin! George Gas, the Chinese CDC Director, (the same person who participated in the tabletop Event 201 exercise a mere 3 months earlier) was instrumental in re-characterizing the wet market theory to the super-spreading event. Again, all unproven!

Everything was happening at ‘warp speed’ at this time! The very first death attributed to ‘2019-nCov’ is reported on January 11, 2020. One death, 44 cases, and we are already talking about a potential worldwide pandemic? This man was reportedly 61 years old, had underlying liver disease and ‘abdominal tumors’, yet his death was attributed to this newly described, virus 2019-nCov! How convenient.

Journal articles were being submitted, peer-reviewed, confirmed and published in record time! An example of this was the Corben/Drosten journal article “submitted on 21 Jan 2020 / accepted on 22 Jan 2020 / published on 23 Jan 2020” - directly taken off the Researchgate website (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco_Kaiser/publication/338788554_Detection_of_2019_novel_coronavirus_2019-nCoV_by_real-time_RT-PCR/links/5e2acd704585150ee77e365d/Detection-of-2019-novel-coronavirus-2019-nCoV-by-real-time-RT-PCR.pdf?origin=publication_detail)

Submitted, accepted and published in 48 hours—now, who said the ‘vaccine’ was the only thing developed at Warp Speed?!

We still only have, as of January 21, 2020, 6 confirmed deaths from this worldwide deadly pandemic! The above paper, approved in record time, even confirms in its own text, that they did NOT have an actual viral sequence of SARS-Cov2, but, rather, they used an older sequence of the original SARS virus in 2004-2005. Directly from the paper:

“The establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”

This is the basis of the PCR test. Yet, ’designed in absence of virus isolates or original patient isolates’ is enough to generate a test that will DIAGNOSE and CONFIRM people have this new deadly pathogen that has killed a total of 6 people worldwide, all in Wuhan, China—a city of 11 million people, that is now completely shutdown, streets are empty and forced quarantine is being implemented, people are being locked into their apartment complexes, and in some cases doors/gates are being welded to prevent ‘infected’ people from leaving.

I read this paper and was absolutely astonished and demoralized that this was the level we had stooped to in our scientific exploration for answers. That the world’s ‘experts’ could use this paper as the foundation for further testing, diagnosing infection with SARS-CoV2 was astounding. That this was now the new accepted paradigm for Evidence-Based Medicine dumbfounded me.

Of note, this Corben-Drosten paper was reviewed in a November, 2020 publication outlining the major defects in it, and the authors demanded the immediate retraction of the Corben-Drosten paper. Ten fatal flaws were outlined including the inability to detect whether a sample is from a human, defective primer design (as I mentioned above), issues with the very high amplification cycle threshold, significant conflicts of interest (some disclosed and many not disclosed), lack of adequate peer review, among others. Many of the authors of this article continue to this day to demand its retraction and to demand the world ‘stop the shots’.

At about this same time, and one of the main reasons for my growing skepticism, Neil Ferguson of Imperial College of London fame (infamy?), makes a public statement, or is quoted to have made a statement, something to the effect that scientists are working diligently to find a bedside test AND A VACCINE!!

A VACCINE?? At this point we don’t even know what the organism is, we haven’t had a true viral isolate, we haven’t determined who ‘patient 0’ is, we don’t know where it came from, and yet we are already talking about creating a vaccine for mass distribution?

As time goes on the vaccine talk becomes more public, more conspicuous, and is being talked about in all the mainstream media sources. Mind you, we have been trying to find a vaccine cure for cancer for nearly 100 years, for AIDS for 40 years and now we are going to have one available to us for a novel disease that we haven’t even identified? All the red flags were going up at this point.

As early as April, 2020, there was already literature about US taxpayer funds having been doled out to companies like Johnson & Johnson for ‘vaccine’ development. In hindsight, and looking back on all the data available now, there was a machine already in place and fired up ready to go to manufacture, distribute, and administer vaccines to all of the US citizens, as well as worldwide partners. How does one have BILLIONS of doses of a product purportedly to prevent the disease and prevent the spread of a disease that was only identified a few months earlier? Not just have them, but have them ready to distribute, with administration literature, instructions on how to deliver and store it properly, etc.? Was this planned ahead of time? How could it not be?

At about this same time, April 30th, I believe, the world’s most famous NON-doctor, Bill Gates, declares that the world can go back to normal "when almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus". That was the plan all along. A needle in every arm.

My first resort was to look back into recent vaccine history with SARS/MERS and into the mRNA technology itself. What was it’s history, how had it been developed, what were the previous published studies, and what, if any human trials had already been performed? None of it was promising. Not one SARS/MERS or mRNA study actually had the animals live thru the study or re-exposure. Of interest now, the mRNA studies that I had looked at, are nowhere to be found—they have been wiped from the internet, or I just can’t find them. I do remember an article in Nature that ‘summarized’ the results and the recommendation was that the SARS vaccine was not ready for human trials, and not only were they essentially useless, but in some cases actually made the disease worse. And now, here we are, creating a ‘safe and effective’ vaccine in less than a year, for a similar disease when nothing in the last 20 years has even made it to human trials!?!

The Pfizer and Moderna clinical studies were conducted only over a two month period. That in and of itself is problematic, but according to Brook Jackson, the studies were never even designed to actually collect accurate data. A few notable issues came to the fore very quickly: the short duration of the study protocol, the end points being changed mid-course, and the un-blinding of the study participants, even before the original study was completed. The rapid review and approval by the FDA was also wholly unprecedented.

When we, as physicians, prescribe any medication to our patients, there is a presumption by the patient that we know what we are prescribing. It’s a trust issue. They trust that we know what the product is, what the expected effects are, what the potential side-effects are, and how to handle those said side-effects should they arise.

With these ‘vaccines’, we had no such information. There was no list of ingredients, no chemical structure, no studies published showing efficacy against anything, no published side-effects, and certainly no long-term side-effects mentioned, because no one had any idea what that profile consisted of. The package insert was actually blank, with the words ‘intentionally left blank’ printed on it!

Next, early vaccine deployment and the 5 alarm fire being covered up by our CDC, FDA, and NIH!

The mask mandates were beginning in full force. I was reprimanded a number of times for not wearing a mask when caring for my patients in the Emergency Room. Mind you, I only goto the ER about once/month, but invariably, the same ER tech would walk up to me, hand me a mask and tell me it was a requirement to wear it—’hospital policy’! I would thank him, grab it and go see my patient, ask them if they minded that I was not wearing a mask, and they invariably said ‘no’ and they would then proceed to take their masks off, as well, obviously relieved that I was not going to require them to asphyxiate themselves while being treated for some minor facial laceration.

Along with all the online censorship happening, the restriction of well-known, safe medications for the treatment of ‘influenza-like’ illnesses was not only actively being censored and disparaged online, the government was actually buying up all the available reserves and restricting their use to licensed physicians. Marketing campaigns belittling people for using a veterinary horse medicine were in full-force. Newspaper articles and news reports of overrun Emergency Rooms from people having complications from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were rampant. Many were even ‘caught’ using stock footage of long lines of people outside ER’s, but upon closer scrutiny it was obvious these were fake—-I specifically remember one such incident where there were purportedly people in line outside an emergency room in Oklahoma, in mid-summer, with jackets, sweaters and hats! Now, maybe some people have never been to Oklahoma, and many consider it merely ‘fly-over’ country, but Oklahoma in mid-summer is HOT! No one in their right minds would be outside on the street in a parka, hat and gloves in August!

Yet, the authorities and the media just continued this false narrative. The sad part about it is that people bought it, hook, line and sinker! This was really starting to expose to me the mindless, thoughtless thinking process of not only the common folk, but also some presumably very smart, educated people!

This was also in the middle of a full-blown presidential election. The politics of the Covid pandemic was astonishing to not only watch, but to be a victim of it! This whole thing was way above treating your patients in your clinic. How you treated your patients and what you recommended alone became political fodder. Just because you treated your patients for the disease process in front of you, did not send them home to be miserable until they were admitted to a hospital and died alone in a secluded room, quarantined from their families, friends, and even staff, was much more a political statement than a medical treatment! Never in my lifetime was politics ever a point of discussion in how I took care of my patients! In my 27 year career (at that time!), I had never been to the CDC website to get recommendations on how to treat the patient in front of me.

Anthony Fauci stated in 2017, in no uncertain terms, that there will be a ‘pandemic’ during Trump’s presidential term! How did he know that? How could he have been so sure? What information did he have that the rest of us didn’t have? Don’t statements like that make you wonder? Doesn't that make you curious and want to do more research?

Well, that’s what I did. And what I found was astounding! Actual publications started to come to the forefront. Organizations started to show their true colors. People’s true stripes became exposed. These people, organizations and government officials were actually not only predicting the future, they were telling us exactly what they were planning on doing to us. Maybe movies like “Contagion”, and “The Hunger Games” were the clear cut plans for humanity as they saw it.

For me, it started with Event 201. A 3.5 hour pandemic ‘practice’ event done in October, 2019 discussing EXACTLY what to do in case of a coronavirus pandemic, ‘released’ out of China, and detailing the full response required to control such a viral pandemic. The full panel tabletop discussion was not only eery, in my opinion, but it in fact described the actual response that was instituted just a few months later, for the exact SAME coronavirus pandemic! How did THEY know!? Were these officials truly that clairvoyant?

This then led me to other ‘publications’, exposés, articles, and the like. Clade X, Dark Winter, Atlantic Storm, as well as Rockefeller publications like Lockstep, and Bill Gates’ TedX talk in 2015 talking about how we could decrease the world population by at least 15% with ‘really good’ vaccines! The rabbit holes were abundant. The predictive programming was astonishing.

All the while, our country, and the whole world for that matter, were all on-hold awaiting a vaccine to stop the rapid spread of this novel coronavirus pandemic! Remdesivir, a medication made by Gilead Sciences, was rapidly approved as the ONLY hospital treatment for Covid-19. Again, the ONLY treatment? Seriously? When has a disease been treated by ONLY one medication? Doesn’t that raise flags for everyone, especially the medical community?

In further researching remdesivir, it was one of two drugs REMOVED from an Ebola study because it caused MORE deaths than the virus alone! YES, I said that correctly, it was removed because MORE people died from the treatment than they did from no treatment alone!!

And it suddenly became the SOLE in-hospital treatment for Covid-19!? The hospitals and physicians were even given a 20% bonus on their service fee for the ENTIRE hospitalization! Why? If it worked so well, why were people being bribed to prescribe it, why were hospitals incentivized to mandate it’s use for ALL in-hospital Covid patients? Does anyone do any research any longer? Do MD’s even ask any questions any longer? Do they even try to evaluate the efficacy of the treatments they are providing their own patients, under their care, in the hospital? Does anyone have any critical thinking skills any longer? Does anyone have any moral compass to objectively evaluate what they are doing to the THEIR OWN patients? If 85% of your patients are dying after being put on a ventilator, do you not even question your treatment protocols? If 50% of them are dying when treated with remdesivir, is there not a modicum of humanity left in you to question your interventions? Where did humanity go? When did morality stop? Where did compassion end up? What is a ‘money-grubbing, selfish, greedy, immoral, insensitive, evil Plastic Surgeon’ (that’s unfortunately what many people think of Plastic Surgeons) doing demanding answers of the more compassionate, moral, ethical, sensitive, benevolent, charitable primary care and intensive care physicians in our system?

Obviously, that is a rhetorical question, but truly, where did our humanity go in treating and caring for Covid-19 patients? How could that all be sacrificed and ignored just because we had a ‘novel’ disease to take care of?

And, it not only didn't get any better over the next 2 years, it actually got much worse!

Not only were the hospital ventilator and remdesivir protocols killing people, alternative treatment regimens were not just discouraged, but they were outright prohibited! Absolutely prohibited! Some very well-known, well-established research-oriented and excellent clinical physicians were not only maligned for successfully treating themselves and their patients as they had done in their long, illustrious careers, they were frankly prohibited from doing just that. Many even lost their jobs, their livelihoods for treating their patients! We are not talking about marginalized doctors, mind you. We are talking about some of the most widely respected, world-renowned physicians!

Dr. Peter McCullough. An Internist, Cardiologist, the single-most published physician in the world! The chief editor of 2 of the most widely circulated journals in the world. Certainly, not a slouch. A very well respected physician, not only in his local community, but worldwide! He is all of a sudden a pariah, a grifter, a misfit just because he has a different treatment regimen for a very treatable disease process? Seriously?

Dr. Paul Marik. An Intensive Care Physician, also extensively published, probably the most published ICU clinician in the world, a well-respected clinician, teacher and mentor to many other doctors, medical students. He loses his job because he is essentially ‘saving too many lives’! Thats’s right, his own protocols had a mortality rate a mere fraction of the rate of the other conformist physicians in the hospital, he bucks the system and gets fired, or is forced to resign!

Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Simone Gold, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Eric Hensen, Dr. Mary Tally Bowden, Dr. Ahmad Malik, and many, many others, all had their reputations tarnished, their careers disparaged. Some have lost their licenses to practice, and others have had their board-certifications revoked merely for differing in their treatment regimens for a disease that was failing other well-accepted and approved protocols; all of them for merely treating their patients to the best of their own abilities, and with a much better success rate than what was available through current, approved hospital protocols!

They were using the MSM ‘fact-checked, debunked treatment regimens’ of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin! Those ‘deadly’ medications that have only been proven to decrease hospitalization and mortality by a mere 85% in most cases!! Yes, those regimens, in many studies, including randomized, placebo-controlled studies, have shown a decrease of 80-85% in both hospitalization and mortality!!

In the meantime, I continued to practice. Continued to do my job, but added all of the Covid patients to my practice. I treated everyone of them pro-bono, most of them via telemedicine, many in my clinic and even some in their homes—imagine that— a Plastic Surgeon doing house calls!? I used the FLCCC protocols, Dr. McCullough’s/AAPS protocol, tweaked it based on my own experience, and results—just like I’ve done for 27 years of being a physician.

Then came Dr Pierre Kory’s US Senate testimony! Wow! The passion with which he spoke and presented cold, hard facts and data that completely undermined Dr. Jha’s opposing testimony! Mind you, Dr. Kory had treated hundreds of Covid patients already, and with tremendous success. Dr. Jha, who, subsequently, became Resident Biden’s Covid Czar, had admittedly treated NONE! Not one!! And to this day, has NEVER treated a Covid patient!

And we have merely touched on the travesty of the vaccine narrative!

To Be Continued…

Subscribe now

Beginnings are hard.

I haven’t really ever written before—well, except for letters of reference as an adult, and papers submitted for grades as a student. I feel that it’s now time to change that.

My life, in the last few years, has changed significantly, for better or for worse. It all started in the winter of 2020. I’m a political junkie, have a B.S. in Political Science. I listen to podcasts while operating. I rewind parts of videos that make me go “huh?”. We talk politics the whole time and when the subject changes to something more “normal”, we have to rewind the podcast to the part where we all began to get ‘distracted’!

I’m a Plastic Surgeon, and work in the Salt Lake City area. I have been here for nearly 20 years. My life has been somewhat interesting: born in France, growing up in Italy, college in Maine, Grad School in Philly, and Med School in Miami. A brief stint in the US Navy as a Naval Flight Surgeon, and then private practice in Idaho and now Utah. Not particularly politically active until 2020, but always interested and kept myself up to speed on current events and political climates.

Anyway, in early 2020, this new virus was making headlines. It was just in China, though, but it was making news all over the world. People were seemingly just keeling over ‘DEAD’ in the middle of the streets. Satellite heat maps purportedly showed ‘hot-spots’ due to crematoriums working around-the-clock to incinerate all the dead bodies—again, ostensibly further illustrating the dire consequences of this new viral epidemic decimating the towns and cities in China. Scientists were ‘disappearing’.

This disease was not transmitted from human to human, though, so ‘nothing to worry about’, was the going narrative.

So, what were all the ‘hotspots’ on the satellite pictures in Wuhan, China? Why were the streets completely empty in a city of 14 million people? Were those people on the Princess cruise ship all sick, how many were dead or dying? Was the virus airborne, or was it transmissible thru direct contact? Casual or intimate contact?

When the 'virus’ hit Italy, Spain and then Seattle, and people reportedly started dying, it was becoming more real. Answers were in short supply, but questions abounded: what was this, where did it come from, how transmissible was it, were the affected people healthy or did they have other medical problems, was this a naturally occurring virus from a wet market, or did it come from a Level 4 Bioweapons Lab just a few miles away from the first known case? Rumors of millions of ‘lost’ cellphone signals in China were making headlines, implying massive unreported deaths. There were even rumors of a ‘lab accident’ in the late fall of 2019 at the same Wuhan lab, but details were sketchy. Either way, there were a myriad of questions, and very few answers.

Subscribe now

Hindsight being 20/20, the reality was that there were actually only 41 total hospitalized patients thru the whole month of January and just ONE death!

March 17, 2020, I finish surgery, and head home. My daughter, a junior in high school and my son, a 6th grader, got home later that day. While sitting at my kitchen table, reading the online news, watching video clips of the various pundits, and seeing more ‘scientific’ support for this rapid viral spread, I called my office manager and closed my office, effective immediately. We weren’t going to ‘risk’ getting ourselves infected, and we were going to do the best we could to protect ourselves. I’m a single dad, raising my two teenage kids that had already lost their mom, no way I was going to risk my life, and theirs, for my career—-that’s what my thought process was at the time.

Some states had already shut down. Donald Trump and his Covid Task Force were on TV every day, updating us on this deadly disease. Governor Cuomo was also on TV every day, making himself look like the savior of New York (and being touted as the next POTUS!), begging for more ventilators, building more mobile hospital wards, as they had done elsewhere, parroting the comments of Drs Fauci and Birx. Within a week of me closing my office, having had nothing but time to study, review, critique all the available science and data, I was ready to go back to work—this was all fake. It was a farce and nothing but outright fear-mongering, plain and simple—-it reminded me of the 2001-2002 weapons of mass destruction narrative that had been just jammed down our throats for weeks, making the case to invade Iraq. I was not going to fall for this crap again.

Meanwhile, Dr Vladimir ‘Zev” Zelenko made the ‘news’ I was watching. He sent a video to President Trump espousing all the benefits of his hydroxychloroquine, Zithromax, Vitamin C, Vitamin D and Zinc regimen. His own clinical results were amazing. I believe he had already treated nearly 2000 patients, only one had died, the rest had survived! Dr Brian Tyson and Dr George Fareed were also having tremendous results using a similar regimen. These reports were making ALL the alternative news platforms, but not one of the MSM platforms, except to disparage the regimen—-therefore, there had to be some truth to it! The cynic in me came out in full force.

Subscribe now

I called all my family, friends, staff, and prescribed them all these medications. Most were asking me what is was for, but all filled their prescriptions as I directed them to—’keep it until you start getting flu-like symptoms’ and then use it to lessen the effect of the virus. In some of my friends who had significant co-morbidities, I would instruct them to take the hydroxychloroquine prophylactically 2x/week.

More and more HCQ studies were being published, but more and more MSM, NIH, CDC pushback followed. Reports of people dying from drinking fishbowl cleaner and people flooding the emergency rooms of rural hospitals because of the ‘cardiac’ side-effects of HCQ were being spread all over the MSM news channels. Again, I knew this was all fake. I had prescribed HCQ for hundreds of people on my numerous humanitarian trips to Ghana—-I knew exactly what the side-effects were—-it was ALL FAKE! The more MSM/expert pushback there was, the more it convinced me we were over the target.

Because my office was still closed, and people started to get sick, and they were not being treated, if even just with typical flu medications, I was getting calls from dozens of people asking for help in treating them or their friends/family. Word was getting out! I treated everyone of them, not one call was refused, not one plea was ignored. To my total amazement, I was having the same success as all these other doctors—-not one of my patients got admitted to a hospital, not one died. Until you actually see the results yourself, there is always some skepticism.

As I was one of a very few doctors actually treating people, the word spread even faster. I was getting multiple calls every day, and was treating everyone remotely. This carried on for months. Concurrently, the narrative only got worse, and getting these benign medications became exceedingly difficult. All of a sudden, there were shortages, backlogs at the pharmacies, and then many would just stop allowing me to prescribe them—’I was merely a Plastic Surgeon, knew nothing about HCQ and it was not in my scope to prescribe that for patients’ was a common excuse I would get from a number of pharmacists and pharmacies—CVS was the worst!

I also could no longer even get it thru my regular medication suppliers—it was more or less removed from their list of available medications, and if it even was available, it was 10-15x the price it had been merely 2 weeks before! A $10 prescription became $120-$150 for the same medication/dosage. Quercetin and EGCG were over-the-counter alternatives I started using in lieu of HCQ.

Subscribe now

As the disease became more rampant, and more people seemed to be getting sick, some presented later in the disease process, and HCQ was no longer as effective in those people. Monoclonal antibodies were all the rage, and I had some people that I felt would benefit from them. The criteria were strict, though. The medications were rationed and given only to those the government deemed ‘worthy of treatment’. In particular, a patient of mine, the husband of one of my nurses, presented to me 7-8 days after onset of symptoms, and was very sick. He called me on a Sunday evening, and I filled out the online form to ‘qualify’ him for the monoclonal antibody treatments, set up an appointment for him the next morning, but when he arrived, he was refused treatment due to his skin color—it wasn’t dark enough, and the monoclonal antibody treatment was refused to him because he wasn’t ‘sick enough, yet’! The reality was, he was refused treatment due to overt, discriminatory, racist criteria.

He struggled for 2 more days, even with the medications I had prescribed him, but he finally went back to the Emergency Room on Wednesday—this time he was ‘sick enough’, and he got the monoclonal antibodies. They tried to admit him to the hospital for the ‘Covid Protocol’ treatment. Mind you, the protocol did not include an oxygen cannula while in the Emergency Room, as his saturations were not below 85%! Let me repeat that: He was refused oxygen in the Emergency Room because his saturations were above 85%! His wife gave it to him anyway. She called me in somewhat of a panic and I had her immediately leave the ER, go home, and I met them there, and we started him on high dose steroids, per the FLCCC published online protocol—thank you Drs. Kory and Marik! Three days later he was off oxygen, and keeping himself busy cleaning the kitchen for his wife!

This happened on at least 3-4 other occasions, some I treated in the office, some at home. No one died. Everyone went back to their previous job, and all are healthy to this day. I only got paid by one of my patients, at their insistence, just for the supplies, otherwise, all of these patients were treated completely for free.

No one else was treating them! I don’t have the ability to bill insurance and these people, many of them, were desperate, were scared and too terrified to go to a hospital, and I was their last resort. Imagine the anxiety, stress generated in people who previously had always trusted our health care system? What a paradigm shift—-they were SCARED to seek medical care WITHIN the healthcare system!

Share

Then came Dr. Stella Emmanuel, Dr. Richard Urso, and Dr. Brian Tyson et. al.. What smart, wonderful, compassionate people. Dr. Emmanuel stole my heart at the AFLDS Supreme Court steps! She had so much passion, so much compassion, and you could just feel the empathy thru the computer screen and microphone. It brought tears to my eyes! Their presentations and speeches to everyone were so cogent, coherent and truthful, it should have been world-changing. But, it wasn’t.

And then it was gone! Millions of views, millions of shares, and it was gone! ‘Covid misinformation’, or some such BS from Youtube/Google ‘fact-checkers’! The 15-20 doctors on those steps were ALL wrong, their conclusions, actual clinical experiences and scientific prowess were not good enough for the ‘scientific consensus’ espoused by the CDC, NIH and FDA! Not one of whom actually cares for patients on a daily basis. What a crock! I was also censored for trying to repost that video.

And, it’s still only July, 2020!

Subscribe now