Dr Kirk Moore

Dr. Michael Kirk Moore is a 59-year old Utah physician now facing 15 years in prison for apparently simply doing what his patients asked -- providing vaccine cards to individuals who chose not to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Isn’t that what doctors should be doing? The Hippocratic Oath requires that doctors “do no harm” and as more medical studies and deeper dives into the Covid vaccines are being completed - a clearer picture is emerging that the Covid vaccines were experimental and too often increased unnecessary medical risks in return for dubious protections.

The government’s failure to conduct thorough testing on COVID-19 vaccines, and the near complete censorship of opposing views, limited the ability of anyone to fully exercise informed consent. This is a violation of basic ethics by denying individuals the opportunity to make decisions about their health based on complete information regarding potential risks and benefits. Dr. Moore’s actions were upholding the ethical doctrines of “informed consent” and “do no harm” to anyone who felt that they did not have all the information, wanted more information, or simply did not trust the information being provided by the ‘experts’ and they chose to not be forced to receive one.

Seeking to imprison a single father for doing nothing more than what his patients asked for and wanted is simply wrong. From what I’ve read, Dr. Moore did not charge his patients. The government, in its case, fakes concern over the destruction of actual vaccines. It’s almost laughable considering that Switzerland has destroyed over 10 million doses of the vaccine and even Canada has destroyed over 14,000,000 doses. Countries all around the world are destroying the vaccine as more and more people now have access to previously censored information, as well as new studies, empowering full ‘informed consent’ - and once informed, it’s clear that people simply do not want to take a risky vaccine.

Furthermore, Dr. Moore's approach exemplifies the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, fundamental pillars of medical ethics. Beneficence emphasizes the healthcare provider's obligation to act in the best interest of the patient. Dr. Moore's provision of vaccine cards, without financial burden, underscores his desire to facilitate patient autonomy and enable them to engage in society while doing no harm.

The prosecution on April 24, 2024 has now filed a Motion in Limine to Preclude a Necessity Defense. In short, a necessity defense allows for defense of a ‘criminal act’ when it meets 4 criteria:

1. The defendant must reasonably have believed that there was an actual and specific threat that required immediate action

2. The defendant must have had no realistic alternative to completing the criminal act

3. The harm caused by the criminal act must not be greater than the harm avoided

4. The defendant did not himself contribute to or cause the threat

Dr Moore, and his co-defendants, certainly believe they meet all of these criteria. They should be allowed to present any ‘defensive’ strategy they feel is necessary to prove their innocence—precluding it offhand has an element of unconstitutionality to it. The government states in their motion that they did this based primarily on political foundations. That is so far from the truth and is more prima facie evidence that the government is so far out of touch with the American people it’s embarrassing to call them our representatives.

There was nothing about this that was political, it was solely based on the ethical, moral and professional values to do no harm. The government makes bold, unfounded statements that mimic the indictment and want the judge to believe that their facts are a foregone conclusion, to the point that they believe there really is no need for a trial, let’s just string them up in the town square, like they did in the Salem Witch trials, the ultimate in vigilante justice: ‘what we say is the law, do not try to even oppose us’ or ‘we are stronger, more powerful and we will crush you’.

The government wants to not only not allow them the possibility to use a ’necessity defense’, but also to preclude using witnesses that would testify as to their own ‘need’ to seek them out to help them in their time of need, but also to preclude presentation of any witnesses that have been harmed or injured from the Covid ‘vaccines’! A ruling in their favor 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’!

The gall! Wasting the jury’s time with irrelevant information?! After all the jury isn’t smart enough to figure out what is relevant, what is appropriate and what can be used to determine guilt or innocence—we have to filter the information, as the general public is incapable of doing it on their own.

These arguments sound so familiar, don’t they?

‘We are smarter than you, listen to us, do what we tell you to do, and nothing will happen to you’.

“Take this shot and you won’t get Covid”

“Take the shot and you won’t give it your grandma”

‘We know what’s best for you’.

‘We DO believe in the FIRST AMENDMENT, but you cannot say anything we don’t agree with!!