Then consider the source. And trust but verify.
I suspect that there is far more to this story, too.
The one fact that probably triggered the firing and criminal actions was that the last shot was given to his wife.
The Times admits to this
“The affidavit describes County procedures as forbidding “personal use” of the vaccine, but then fails to describe what “personal use” is under those procedures.”
I could see that vaccinating the wife would fall under ‘personal use’.
They don’t really say who the other names on the list were. But they hint at it.
““Are you suggesting that there were too many Indian names in that group?””
The fact that the article chose to obscure here, means they are likely covering up some other obvious points.
The article does not admit to how much control the Dr. had over the event.
It sounds like he was in charge and running the event.
The article is trying to make it seem like the DA took a racist action against the Dr.
Whereas it is more likely that the DA saw that The Dr. had abused his position to vaccinate his wife, neighbors and acquaintances early. That he manipulated the opening of the final vial.
The price alleged for the value of the vaccine seems to be too low.