Posted on 01/20/2023 7:39:39 AM PST by Red Badger
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) – A Utah plastic surgeon, his neighbor, and two others are facing charges after allegedly giving people fake vaccination cards and destroying government-provided COVID vaccinations.
Dr. Michael Kirk Moore Jr., 58, and his neighbor, Kristin Jackson Andersen, 59, have been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to convert, sell, convey, and dispose of government property, conversion sale, conveyance, and disposal of government property and aiding and abetting.
The Plastic Institute of Utah Inc., along with office manager Kari Dee Burgoyne, 52, and receptionist Sandra Flores, 31, faces the same charges. According to court documents, Moore and his co-defendants allegedly ran a scheme out of Plastic Surgery Institute of Utah Inc. to defraud the United States and the CDC.
The documents say Moore and Andersen were members of a private organization seeking to “liberate the medical profession from government and industry conflicts of interest.”
In the allegations, the four destroyed at least $28,000 worth of Covid vaccinations and distributed at least 1,900 doses’ worth of fake completed vaccination record cards. The court documents allege the fake vaccination cards were sold either for direct cash payments of $50 per person per occurrence or required “donations to a specified charitable organization.”
The court documents estimate the fake vaccination cards have a total value of nearly $97,000.
Moore and his co-defendants also allegedly gave children saline shots at the request of their parents so the children would think they were receiving a Covid vaccine.
“By allegedly falsifying vaccine cards and administering saline shots to children instead of vaccines, not only did this provider endanger the health and well-being of a vulnerable population, but also undermined public trust and the integrity of federal health care programs,” said Special Agent in Charge with the Department of Health and Human Services.
The defendants are scheduled for their initial appearance in court on Jan. 26 at 2 p.m.
So are you saying the small pox vaccine did not prevent the spread of small pox? Or are you saying the small pox vaccine was actually 100% (after claiming no vaccine was)?
NOT GUILTY!!!
hero.....and I hope he made a sizeable contribution to charity.
But those kids would not be better off. The man is a hero. Somebody in Gov needs to die.
The ensuing jury pool will be carefully crafted and assembled with complete imbeciles.
AndyTheBear wrote: “So are you saying the small pox vaccine did not prevent the spread of small pox? Or are you saying the small pox vaccine was actually 100% (after claiming no vaccine was)?”
Neither. I am saying that claims that the vaccines do not prevent covid or it’s spread are specious since the vaccines, while not 100% effective, do prevent some illnesses and limit the spread (you can’t spread a disease the vaccines have prevented).
Have they prevented the disease in all cases? No, but no vaccines have ever done that. (admittidly the small pox has come close but breakthroughs do happen).
Sure, the vaccines could have worked better but they were the best we had when the most dangerous variants were prevalent. They did save lives. They did prevent some illnesses. There were side effects but all vaccines, all medications have side effective. Did some politicians go over board. Certainly. Do some make outlandish claims about the vaccines. Just as certainly.
Stop making stupid assertions to back up other stupid assertions.
From the 1905 Small Pox vaccine case that was cited in the article:
[T]he liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.
Seems what is clear here is that there are some situations where a vaccine mandate is constitutional if given a good enough reason.
Except for unusual stupidity or unusual bias I can not see how this could be construed to apply to anything that might be called a vaccine. Supposing that the we had vaccine X and it killed 99% of the people one gave it to and had no health benefits. Does the fact that it is called a vaccine make it constitutional to mandate it?
Now the Jabs are not as bad as this theoretical vaccine X. Nor are they anywhere near as beneficial as the Small Pox vaccine. But the point is that the safety and the efficacy and the danger that the disease imposes etc are all factors that still must be considered in each case UNLESS you think that vaccine X mandates are constitutional.
I agree completely.
AndyTheBear wrote: “Sorry, you have refuted your own assertion then that people are always claiming 100% effectiveness when they say the vaccine prevents spread.”
I look forward to your alternative explanation.
AndyTheBear wrote: “Sorry, the case law cited does not support the conclusion that everything that might be officially labeled a “vaccine” can be made mandatory.”
Clearly at least some vaccinations can be made mandatory. Have any kids in school? Were vaccinations required? Are these unconstitutional?
Even the manufacturers have admitted that there is no protection from these jabs which depress the patient’s immune system so they are more susceptible to COVID, other ailments and cancers, primary & recurrent.
You are riding a hobby horse that is inimical to other people’s well being.
It would be OK if your blindness injured only yourself. The people who pushed these jabs, ignoring the reactions & lack of studies that demonstrated any benefit would like to avoid jail time & law suits. Boosters like you trying to gaslight the populace only help those criminals who pushed dangerous untested ineffective drugs for the $ and the exercise of coercing the people of the world to make them more biddable in future.
This does not however mean that anything called a "vaccine" can be constitutionally made mandatory.
It seems to me that the jabs should not be since they have an unusually high amount of risk and even when taken by about everyone in a population the disease is not eradicated but remain endemic.
They have known harm, little if any public good. Especially when given to sub populations that have about no chance of dying from the disease but pretty much have all been exposed to it by now.
Small Pox killed about 30% of those that got it and the vaccine was able to eradicate it. Obviously the case for mandating the Small Pox vaccine is very much easier to make.
AndyTheBear wrote: “I think we agree that some vaccines may be constitutionally made mandatory. This does not however mean that anything called a “vaccine” can be constitutionally made mandatory.”
Agreed. but I must point out that there are some on FR who do believe that any and all vaccines are unconstitutional.
AndyTheBear wrote: “It seems to me that the jabs should not be since they have an unusually high amount of risk and even when taken by about everyone in a population the disease is not eradicated but remain endemic.”
Perhaps, but we’ve learned much about covid and the covid we experiencing now isn’t the covid that was prevalent in 2020. I’m not so sure that these vaccines have any more risk than other vaccines.
BTW, have you considered that the vaccines maybe one of the principal reasons covid has become less of a threat?
Also, only about 2/3rds of the population has been vaccinated. I’m uncertain if that is sufficient to eradicate a virus as infectionous as covid.
ayGalt wrote: “Even the manufacturers have admitted that there is no protection from these jabs which depress the patient’s immune system so they are more susceptible to COVID, other ailments and cancers, primary & recurrent.”
go ahead and give me a quote to that effect from the manufacurers.
Yes. Constitutional for effective, tested, and not poison.
And you should read the story. I know that is a lot to ask these days. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of the legal guardians of these Children, not solely because “they refuse to do so”.
So, if you have a 10% chance of dying from an infection, but a 20% chance of dying from the cure, and government officials force you to take it, you think that is fine then?
You cling to the government fostered fallacy that a “vaccination” that doesn’t not stop people from repeatedly contracting a virus, and does not stop the spread of a virus, is going to magically eradicate a virus.
rlmorel wrote: “Yes. Constitutional for effective, tested, and not poison.”
These vaccines are not poison. Over 12.7 billion doses have been given worldwide. Over two thirds of the US population have been vaccinated. No, these are not poison. They have been tested. They have been approved.
rlmorel wrote: “And you should read the story. I know that is a lot to ask these days. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of the legal guardians of these Children, not solely because “they refuse to do so”.”
You should read the story. This doctor and his associates could have simply refused to administer the vaccines. Instead they choose to commit fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, falsified medical records, and destroyed government property. Had they simply refused to give the vaccine, there would have been no crime.
The fact that the legal guardians consented to these crimes only incriminates them as well. A person consenting to a crime, doesn’t change the fact that it’s still criminal.
Excerpts below.
It takes the circular reasoning of a climate change promoter to follow all the lies, admissions and shifts that have been advanced to create the illusion that there was clinical worth in these”jabs”
https://www.biznews.com/health/2023/01/02/pfizer-vaccine-covid-19
With new reports and information surfacing, the foundation upon which the official Covid-19 narrative was built is being exposed as a house of cards. This week, Pfizer executive Janine Small made the admission that not only was the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 vaccine not designed to prevent transmission of the virus, it was not even tested to see if it did so. Since Covid-19 vaccines were made available to the general public, leaders of countries across the world regurgitated the same phrase: “Get vaccinated to protect your loved ones and those around you.” The phrase became a psychological weapon to make those who chose not to be vaccinated feel guilty and socially irresponsible. This admission should remove several more rose-tinted glasses worn by those who have followed the official narrative without question. This article first appeared on The Defender. – Nadya Swart
Pfizer Exec Admits COVID Vaccine Was Not Tested for Preventing Transmission
A Pfizer executive said Monday that before Pfizer released its Covid-19 vaccine into the market, neither she nor other Pfizer officials knew whether the vaccine would prevent transmission because the drugmaker hadn’t tested for it.
A Pfizer executive said Monday that neither she nor other Pfizer officials knew whether its Covid-19 vaccine would stop transmission before entering the market last year.
Member of the European Parliament, Rob Roos, asked during a session:
“Was the Pfizer Covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? Did we know about stopping immunisation before it entered the market?”
Pfizer’s Janine Small, president of international developed markets, said in response:
“No … You know, we had to … really move at the speed of science to know what is taking place in the market.”
Roos, of the Netherlands, argued in a Twitter video Monday that following Small’s comments to him, millions of people around the world were duped by pharmaceutical companies and governments.
“Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that ‘you do it for others,’” Roos said. “Now, this turned out to be a cheap lie” and “should be exposed,” he added.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.