So everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
In today's discussion, this community was ignited four years ago by Stephen Frost, a
British trained medical doctor with a passion for truth.
As a seasoned whistleblower and activist, Stephen founded his group to champion truth,
ethics, justice, freedom, and health in the face of global challenges.
I'm Charles Covess, your moderator and Australasia's passion provocateur in my red jacket because
red is the colour of passion.
It's designed to remind you to be passionate and enthusiastic about what we're doing here.
After 20 years as a lawyer, I shifted gears 32 years ago to do this work.
And for the past 14 years, I've also guided parents and lawyers in addressing vaccine
injuries and medical failures.
I'm also chief executive of an industrial hemp company, and I'm going to save Ireland
from billions of dollars of penalties by expanding its industrial hemp activities, amongst many
other countries.
This group is a dynamic blend of voices, doctors, lawyers, homeopaths, journalists, scientists,
filmmakers, professors, peacemakers, neurophysicists, and bold troublemakers like Gerry Waters,
hailing from corners of the globe, united in pursuit of truth.
Many of us once viewed vaccines as benign, now many wear the badge of passionate anti-vaxxers
with pride, awakened to new realities.
And Aaron Sirri was before the Senate this week with a magnificent six-minute testimony.
I'll put the link into the chat, pointing out wonderful, wonderful facts for the Senate
about the fraud that's been perpetrated on humanity with vaccines.
And as he also proved in his deposing of Stanley Plotkin, the alleged godfather of vaccines,
that no children's vaccine has ever been properly tested for safety and efficacy.
First timers, you're warmly embraced.
Introduce yourself in the chat, share where you're from, and let's connect.
Got a podcast, book, newsletters, show?
Drop your links in the chat so we can amplify your work and stay connected.
We're in the thick of a global struggle.
We call it World War III with medical and scientific battles among 12 battlefronts.
Another of the 12 battlefronts is the spiritual battlefront.
And our guest today, Dr. Kirk Moore, has been in a battle and Scott Schara has also been
told us that the only way we're going to win this battle is if we understand the extent
to which it is a spiritual battle.
Five and a half years into this fight with more to come, there's no time for weariness.
Stay strong, stay healthy.
Science we know is never done.
It thrives on challenge and inquiry.
Some here believe in viruses, others see them as fiction, and many are still exploring.
All views fuel our dialogue.
It's instructive to note there are comments in various recordings of the programs that
says anybody who dares to question that there's no such thing as viruses is just a total idiot
and this whole gathering is an idiot because we even have people here who believe in viruses.
So there you are.
Our two and a half hour sessions are action oriented, spawning initiatives and collaborations
from the connections that are made here.
Afterward, Tom Rodman hosts an optional Telegram video chat.
Find his link in the chat.
We'll hear from our guest presenter today, Kirk Moore, followed by Q&A.
Per tradition, Stephen Frost opens the questioning for the first 15 minutes.
This is a free speech haven, appropriately moderated to keep ideas flowing.
Free speech is our weapon to safeguard human liberties.
And as we were talking about before, questioning Islam is now being said to be Islamophobia
and anti-Islam and crap like that.
So if we shut up, we're in big trouble.
If something offends you, own it.
We lovingly sidestep the outraged culture and its demands to silence truth.
We choose love over fear.
Fear binds and sickens, liberates, heals and inspires.
These twice weekly gatherings are far from mere talk.
They've birthed real world actions and alliances.
A key tactic in our fight is exposing medical crimes on social media, rallying behind the
demand of medical truth now, crafted by John Rappaport.
That's our mantra, medical truth now.
And it's coming out in Aaron Sears' testimony, as I said, he was shining a light on the medical
fraud that has been perpetrated.
This call of medical truth now can unite humanity in a surge for accountability.
And in this group, we call for accountability of all politicians and experts who have imposed
this fraud deliberately on humanity.
So share solutions, products or resources in the chat.
The meetings are recorded and posted on our Rumble channel.
I put the link into the chat.
And now we're thrilled to again welcome our guest presenter for the second time, Kirk
Moore, Dr. Kirk Moore, who presented to us in June of last year.
And let me give you a short intro to Kirk because I've got a long one.
It's in the show.
Charles, could you possibly read out that because Kirk supplied that to me.
And as of this page.
It's too long.
This is the whole story.
Kirk going to tell us his story.
It's too long, but it's a wonderful intro.
I don't agree.
Why did he supply it to me?
OK, it's a it's written.
So Kirk is a dedicated, respected 60 year old physician from Utah.
And faced the unimaginable possibility of spending up to 35 years behind bars.
His alleged crime honoring his sacred Hippocratic oath to do no harm.
So Kirk acted compassionately to help children whose only alternative was to receive a vaccine
that they and their parents didn't trust or face restrictive masking mandates at school
with explicit informed consent from parents he administered harmless saline shots soon.
His care expanded to adults facing similarly impossible decisions, risking job loss, travel
restrictions, military discharge, or even denial of life saving organ transplants.
Kirk Moore is not a criminal.
He's a devoted father raising his two children alone after tragically losing his ex-wife
to suicide in 2019.
He's a decorated US Navy flight surgeon who has tirelessly cared for patients throughout
his career.
So his principal stand against these mandates for this principal stand.
Kirk has endured relentless persecution.
And he lost hospital privileges simply because he chose patient safety over compliance with
mask mandates.
His prestigious board certification was unjustly revoked.
At the heart of his actions lies the foundational principle of medical ethics, informed consent.
So the US federal government's aggressive persecution of Kirk Moore exemplified a dangerous
misuse of power and a level of governmental overreach that shook physicians and freedom
loving Americans alike and those who come to these meetings.
The prosecution sought to deny him and his co-defendants their right to present a necessity
defense and moved to exclude testimony from patients harmed by COVID-19 jabs, effectively
silencing the very people that Kirk had served and protected.
So despite, and we heard last June, 2024, you can look at the recording.
We heard last June that despite these actions against him, Kirk remained resilient, unapologetically
committed to his values, his patients and the truth.
And then after the trial began on July 7 this year, that was that's just today's now the
20th in the UK, 21st.
So just two weeks ago, Pam Bondi, the attorney general, formally dismissed the case.
This is quite extraordinary.
Kirk will tell us about it.
This dismissal was not just a legal victory, it was a moral one, a powerful reminder that
the truth still matters, that doctors must retain the right to honour their oath and
that Americans and people all around the world must always be free to make their own medical
decisions without coercion or prosecution.
Kirk did not act out of defiance, he acted out of duty.
So we're delighted to have you, Kirk.
Thank you, Stephen, for creating this group.
And we look forward to hearing from you and having a discussion with you about the
wonderful, wonderful results that you've achieved and where to from here for all of us.
Kirk, over to you.
All right, well, Charles, thank you, Stephen.
Thank you for having me on.
Again, I know we've communicated a few times here over the last year since the last time I
came on. Certainly is a much better feeling than it was a year ago.
And thanks for having me.
I'll briefly go into the story and then I'm open to questions.
And actually, one of my attorneys is on the call this time.
And if he has anything to add, he will either raise his hand or let me know.
In 2020, I started treating people with Covid.
Nobody else is treating them.
I made a transition from closing down my office and within 36 hours, completely changing my mind as
to what Covid really was.
And I started treating people because they weren't being treated by anybody else.
I tell this all the time. The number one flag to me was there is no treatment for anything.
That's just not a medical tenant that any of us have ever grown up with, at least not in the
time frame and in the generation that I, you know, when I became a physician, I graduated from
school in 1993.
So when people told me that there wasn't anything and there was no treatment, that he
raised the red flag for me.
When the whole world went on lockdown and everybody was in lockstep and everybody did the
same thing again, that was the kind of the second thing that really opened my eyes as to, you know,
this the whole narrative and everything that was happening.
And the third thing was that nothing was going to get back to normal until we put a
needle in everybody's arm.
So those three things kind of drove me to where we are today.
I treated people with Covid all the way while I probably treated people with Covid until
earlier this year. I still have people calling me.
I still keep a stash of ivermectin in my office.
But when the jabs came out, I was, you know, against them, but I didn't really worry about
it. They weren't mandated.
They weren't being forced upon anybody.
They were, you know, something that was just out there for people that wanted and people that
believed in it to go use them.
You know, I'm fully into personal choice.
If that's what you want to do, then great.
But in the spring, early summer of 2021, when they started having lockdowns for kids going to
school or not allowing kids to return to school, not allowing kids to enroll in colleges
and requiring vaccine passports to travel for people with their jobs.
And everything else that to me was the next step.
So I opened up a vaccine clinic through the Utah Health Department and started providing
vaccines, sailing shots to my patients.
I didn't advertise anything.
I didn't look for people.
Everybody who came to me had already made up their own minds.
They already knew what it was.
They sought me out to help them.
It wasn't anything where I kept anybody who wanted to get the vaccines from getting them.
So when the government started saying and claiming two years later that I was keeping people
from getting the vaccines, it was a total lie.
And they tried to shoehorn me into a fraud statute saying that I kept people from getting it and
that I destroyed government property and that it was a conspiracy because it was more than one
person. We fought back tooth and nail.
There were four of us initially, plus my business.
In the end, it was just it ended up just being two of us because two people turned and
testified. It wasn't anything that I was worried about.
I wasn't willing to say that I hadn't done it.
So it really didn't hurt us at trial.
And as a matter of fact, some of the testimony from one of my previous co-defendants actually
helped us at trial.
So we were fighting it the whole way.
I was never offered a plea deal and never really asked for a plea deal.
I wasn't willing to say that I had done anything wrong.
I had taken care of my patients the way they wanted to.
And I felt that we needed to give people options and that medical freedom would have taken a
huge turn for the worst if they were able to force a treatment, whether it's a shot, whether
it's medication or procedure, you know, a chip that's inserted in your skin, whatever,
whatever it is, we were going to go down this slippery slope and never able to come back.
So I took a stance and our trial started in July of on July 7th.
And we had five days of trial.
We had two days of jury testimony, three days of actual prosecution presenting our case.
And I felt that we had actually done a really good job.
Brian, who was there as my attorney for my business, and then Kathy, my lead attorney
that was, you know, that was representing me, had done a tremendous job at the trial.
And I felt that I had done a great job at showing to the government that I didn't I
didn't keep people from getting what it was that they wanted, that it was not a political
statement. It was purely a medical statement and that I didn't destroy government property.
So they were trying to prove that even though they the government had paid for it and it
was delivered to me for free, that the product still belonged to the government while I was
and it belonged to them until it was delivered to the patients and their arms.
They tried to underline certain statements in the agreement that I had, certain statements
that they had in the documents that they were sending out to the to their what they call
sixty four jurisdictions, which are some of the large cities in the United States, as
well as the 50 states.
And so they were trying to show to the jury that this product still belonged to them.
I thought we had presented a really good case to show that it actually didn't belong to
them, that there were multiple turnovers in ownership and liability status to, you know,
to to make that a false argument.
That week, we had a small, you know, 50 to 100 people on the courthouse steps that Monday
morning, you know, there to demonstrate to the people and to show solidarity with us,
with Chris and I, who were the two remaining defendants.
And we made I had a short presentation.
I think Chris spoke for a little longer to the crowd that was there.
We then went into jury selection.
An interesting point during jury selection was they accused me and Chris of jury tampering
by encouraging people to show up on the courthouse steps.
I think that was shot down pretty well by the judge who said, don't people have a First
Amendment right to gather and to, you know, to protest.
And so I think that that got cut down at the knees pretty quickly, which was encouraging
After two days of jury selection, we started the testimony.
They called me a criminal.
They said I was hiding behind my employees, that I was thrusting them out into the public
limelight and that that was the reason essentially that two of them had turned against us
to testify, which was completely untrue.
I had never intended to lie, never intended to do anything, never intended to stand behind
anybody. I was willing to stand to my own ground, which was the reason why I was at
trial. I think the jury was seeing the court case kind of take a turn that wasn't
proving what the you know what the prosecution was saying.
Friday after the last testimony, we I was at home just sitting here thinking I've told
everybody this, that I'm a smart guy, but I'm biased looking at the jury and looking at
what the evidence was that was presented.
But I just didn't feel that they had presented their case.
But the other people on the other side are pretty smart as well.
So what am I missing?
I was up till 1am, got up at 4, kind of just reviewing the whole week.
I was planning on meeting with my attorneys later that day to discuss the following week's
testimony, whether I was going to actually get on the stand or not, whether we needed to, how we
were going to work, defensive strategy at this point.
And then at 830 in the morning, I get a phone call from my attorney on a Saturday morning.
And she tells me that the case has been dismissed.
The attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, interceded and told the prosecutors in
the state of Utah to dismiss the case and to not prosecute us any further.
A few hours later, that was announced on X.
And then the whole this this whole last week of of just elation, jubilation, complete
emotional letdown on our not letdown in the sense that I was sad, but it was just a I was more
tired on Sunday after the announcement than I was prior to that just because of the
just emotional release with everything.
It was a tremendous feeling.
I was then invited on Monday to go to Washington, D.C.
Was flown out there with my fiancee and we actually met Marjorie Taylor Green, Senator Mike
Lee in Attorney General Pam Bondi's office.
It was a very emotional meeting.
I felt the word that comes to mind for me is genuine.
I didn't feel that it was a political maneuver.
There were no cameras there.
Well, there was one camera. We all took pictures, but there no no news media.
Just a handshake, a hug from everybody.
Thank you. And just a very genuine discussion about to some degree what it was and why it was that I
was standing for what it was that I did stand for.
And then another hug and a handshake.
And we left, got a great tour of the Department of Justice building.
I then met a representative, Jim Jordan from Ohio, spoke to him for a few minutes.
He was gracious enough to give me 15 or 20 minutes of his time.
But, you know, the turnaround and from Friday of July 11th to Wednesday, July 9th was an
unbelievable transition and a tremendous amount of elation and emotion that went into it.
So I'm really good.
Sorry. I'm just really thankful for everybody's support.
I'm really good.
Sorry. I'm just really thankful for everybody that's done this.
We were talking a little bit before you went on air there, Charles, about, you know, we have to push
back and we have to stand up.
We can't do this alone.
You know, Ben, I'll probably butcher the phrase or butcher the quote.
But Ben Franklin in 1776 said something to the effect that if we, one of us stands up, then we
will certainly be chopped down or something to the effect of if we have to stand up, but one by
one, we will get chopped down and we will certainly get chopped down if we don't do it
together, something like that.
And I'll probably find that here again.
But it's a total reversal of fortune.
And, you know, from going at 834 in the morning on Saturday morning to still looking at a
potential 35 years in jail to 835 in the morning to being completely dismissed was a I'll never
forget that feeling.
My mom was here.
She held onto the phone because I couldn't hold it, talking to my attorney, and we literally
both just started crying.
I collapsed on the floor and then it was just, who do we tell?
How do we get the word out?
What do we do from here?
It was kind of like a speechless moment.
And where do we go?
And that's the question that everybody asked me now.
My sole objective at this point is to stop these shots.
We have got to figure out how to get these mRNA shots off the market.
It just saw an article this morning from the Ethical Skeptic where he posted that there
was a 44.2% increase in cancer rate that was published on the CDC website.
Just, you know, in people under the age of 58, there was an article, I believe, published
last week that showed a loss of 30 years of life expectancy for people that had two
shots or more.
And I believe that was a Nicholas Hulscher and Peter McCullough article among other
artists or other authors.
So we're witnessing a mass genocide.
And my goal all along was to stop these.
My goal was to stop these.
I was able to keep three to four thousand people from getting them.
But we've had billions of people that have had at least one shot in the world.
And so I need to stop.
I need to do whatever I can to help stop these shots.
And then we need to figure out how to treat the people that have been poisoned by these
medical countermeasures.
I'll leave it at that.
I know that it's only been a few minutes, but I'm open to questions and happy to talk
about all of this.
So I don't have a prepared necessarily statement.
That's a magnificent presentation, Kirk, because I'm sure we could go for five hours
in the conversation that that your 20 minutes story is going to be a long one.
I'm sure we could go for five hours in the conversation that that your 20 minutes story
then plus because people have read read the the bio, they understand the importance of
it as a lawyer.
It is extraordinary to me.
And you articulated it before we get to Stephen for the first lot of questions.
The dirty tricks that lawyers will pull when they're representing government.
It's extraordinary to me, the dirty tricks.
It happens in Australia.
It happens in the UK.
There is no desire by the lawyers working for government to properly apply the law.
And and the and those strategies and tricks and using the resources of government to
improperly apply law is an is an extraordinary attack on the people.
And Kirk, one of the things that not only would I say we must stop the shots and we
have to push back.
And I would urge you, you know, if we can get your lawyer to speak about these dirty
tricks, because we have to shine a light on the dirty tricks as well.
There's dirty tricks in the medical cartel, but then the legal cartel is supporting that.
So so, you know, the end in Australia and America, I'm sure there's a there is a
principle that says that the legal system is supposed to be used in ethical, proper
ways. I'm trying to remember the technical term, you know, of good jurisprudence or
whatever, totally ignored.
And most of the judges don't say anything about it because of the they're either
Democrat judges or Republican judges in most cases.
Right. Well, there's an element of lawfare, I think, on both sides to do things.
And my statement, I've said all along, the process in this thing is the punishment.
And there you're fighting.
It's David versus Goliath, you know, for a metaphor.
But it's also there.
They're not looking for.
They were never looking for the truth.
And they were trying to hide the truth and do everything that they could to keep
anything and everything out that had anything related to why patients were coming to
me, why it is that I did what I did, what it is that the complications were that we
were seeing, which was the reason why we did it.
They they did everything that they could.
And they'd actually won on most of those motions.
We we were not able to present anybody and we couldn't bring anybody in and have them
tell us why they sought us out for a sailing shot or a, you know, a covid shot or a
covid card without a shot.
They knew that they were going to lose that argument.
So then right from the get go, they they precluded us from doing that.
And then they also precluded us from bringing in any experts that would talk about what
the effects of the shots were on these people, not on those people from from my office,
but on everybody that was out there.
And and I couldn't bring in any, you know, any vaccine injured patients in to talk about
what their specific effects were to it.
So they had railroaded us into this really narrow corridor of, you know, you can't talk
about this and but you can only you know, you can only mention this.
I mean, it even got to the point where just before trial started, they essentially silenced
me from being able to talk about my motivations were.
Ethics are sorry.
The the you know, fraud requires intent.
And, you know, I didn't know that I know that much about fraud for this.
I never read about it.
But, you know, legally, my understanding was fraud requires intent.
So unless you have an intent to hurt somebody or to damage them either financially,
physically or whatever it is that you're doing to damage them, you you have to do
it. That's a requirement for fraud.
And they had managed to kind of, again, like you're saying, Charles, they'd managed to,
you know, make an argument that that's not allowed in this court case to be able to talk
about, you know, what the intent was.
And so in reality, had I testified or had I been, I say forced to testify, but had I
gone up on the stand, there was a question as to whether I was going to be able to talk
about what my intent was.
And it was all it was all done very purposefully.
You know, they, you know, for the same reasons, you know, you look at jury selection,
you know, jury selection.
It's not really a jury of your peers, because if I try to get my peers up there, all of
my peers would have been, you know, the people that didn't want to get the shots and the
reasons why they didn't want to get it.
Those would have been my peers and all the people for the you know, for the government
up there would have been all people that were all pro vaccine, pro shots and, you know,
and thought that it was best, you know, next best thing to slice bread.
But they weren't allowed to have them because the way the jury selection is, is that you
want people somewhere in the middle that you just don't really know how they're going to.
And again, it's somewhat of a fallacy and, you know, and letting, you know, and just
not letting the system kind of function the way it probably was originally supposed to
be, you know, developed, you know, that the rules and all of these things, the lawyers
are up there talking about Rule 603 and 402 and, you know, whatever those mean, I don't
know what they mean. My point is, just like you're saying, Charles, it's just kind of
like you put in all these rules about what it is that you can or can't talk about.
I'll say one other thing, and then I want to bring Brian on if that's OK.
You know, the.
I forgot my train of thought.
The rules. The rules.
Yeah, I was talking about the rules, but I was transitioning into something else.
And then I thought, why don't I bring Brian?
You don't mind.
Don't worry.
Can I bring Brian Barnhill up? He's my attorney.
Might want to say something about the trial itself.
Yeah, Charles, you mentioned before that sometimes the justice system gets twisted a
little bit and they take different tax that may not be as well-meaning or as in
other words. Well, we just said this way.
They have their own agenda and they're trying to prove their case regardless of
whether it's right or wrong.
In this case, we had interviews with two of the witnesses that were that are here in
the United States on visas.
They've been here for over a decade, close to two decades, working and paying taxes
and doing everything you're supposed to be doing.
And the U.S. attorney made threats against them, according to the witnesses, that if
they didn't participate and didn't assist them, they would name them as defendants.
Had they simply named them as a defendant, they would have been immediately deported
without any due process rights.
In that same conversation I had with them, they were indicating that the transcripts
we got of their interviews only held about 40 to 45 percent of what they actually told
them or shared with them.
So we were only getting partial information from from the United States on what these
witnesses would have said.
So it goes to your point that sometimes truth gets lost in the justice system.
And what we were trying to do as part of our defense was get the truth out with whatever
means we could.
But to Kirk's point, there was a bright line painted on what we could talk about and
what we couldn't talk about.
And we were really frustrated that we couldn't get to that point of why were these
people coming to Kirk in the first place.
Kirk made a point earlier on that people that wanted a vaccine could get a vaccine.
He never stood in the way of anyone seeking to get a vaccine.
The only people who showed up to Dr.
Moore's office were those seeking a card because they were required to, for whatever
reason, for for a life saving surgery, work requirements, some were pilots.
They needed him for in order to do to do their job.
So he never stood in the way of anyone who actually wanted a vaccine from getting a
vaccine. Another important point that's lost, and this is something that they were
trying to raise as part of the government's prosecution, was that kept referring to the
amount of money that was being raised through donations.
Kirk never received a dime.
He never asked for it.
If anyone wanted a card for whatever reason they needed, he provided that to them free
of cost.
So and to go beyond that, to speak to Dr.
Moore's his dedication to the Hippocratic Oath, if there were people that were suffering
from COVID or sick, he would go and treat them at his on his own dime.
He never asked for any any payments whatsoever.
So this all this portion of it never really got to come out in the trial.
And that that I think that was a critical point that we would have loved to have raised
was to show that this there was no motivation here to commit some sort of fraud on the
government. We were actually Dr.
Moore was actually trying to help people at all times.
I'm on a pyramid.
Yeah, go ahead.
Brian, that is that is beautifully articulated and it reinforces where we're going with
what Kirk was saying that the legal system is not designed to bring out the true story,
you know, and that's what hits the mantra of medical truth now.
Well, the courts don't want to hear the truth.
They want to railroad people down a particular track because that's going to lead to the
outcome that government wants.
Absolutely. For the for them.
And you've seen this.
It often becomes a win and a loss record.
That's that's more what they're looking for rather than to actually bring justice or find
the truth. And that's the sense we got in this was really trying.
They were trying to score a win.
It would have been historic win for the US government.
And I might digress just a little bit.
The fact that this this case was dismissed three days into witness testimony is monumental.
It's historic.
Once a case in the United States.
Uncested and never happened before.
Never happened.
Once a case is turned over to the US Attorney's Office for Prosecution and the trial starts,
it's unprecedented that someone would intervene and stop that trial midstream.
And that goes a little bit to what Dr.
Moore was saying.
That came about.
Well, we had we had reached out to Bondi's office in late January and again in I think late
March with the weapons that when the weaponization committee was formed, we reached out to see
if there's any means to get this case dismissed before went to trial.
Nothing came of it.
So we just we just proceeded to prepare for trial.
Our understanding is the papers didn't get into the right hands is what we're trying to do.
Is what we're hearing.
I and I don't know who looked at what I could only speculate.
But what did make it important contribution to getting the case dismissed was the public
sentiment, the public gathering and rallying around Dr.
Moore through social media, Twitter accounts or ex accounts, I guess.
That's really what brought the attention that this case needed to Attorney General Bondi's
notice.
So to Kirk's point about standing alone and standing as a group, standing as a group
certainly has an impact on the outcome of these cases.
That's wonderful to hear that.
And we've also heard here, everybody, that the judges follow culture.
The law follows culture, not vice versa.
The judges don't like creating culture.
And when the people stand up, that shows the judges what where the culture is heading.
So it's an important principle and it's salutary for all of us.
There's another element Kirk and Ryan, and that is that in your bio, you mentioned the two
representatives that also intervene on your behalf.
Can you tell us about that?
Because that's a tip of the spear element of this.
And, you know, Stephen has got his questions as well.
But I really want to highlight this, that it wasn't just the public, but you had insiders
working for you.
So thank goodness.
Well, yeah. So during that week, there was a lot of, you know, a lot of publicity that was
coming out about it, that small rally that we had on Monday.
My son, my 17 year old son, had a speech that day and then another one on Friday that both of
them went completely viral.
There was an article published midweek by a journalist that was here, Ed Zoll, following the
case. And he was asking questions and compiling data and information.
And he published an article midweek, Wednesday or Thursday, about the case and how it had gone up
the poll at the weaponization workgroup and didn't get to the right people and was and our case was
not taken in into consideration.
So all of those variables made a difference.
And it was just kind of it brought it to the attention of I believe that, you know, I mean,
Attorney General Bondi gives her full credit.
Marjorie Taylor Greene from the state of Georgia was the first one to post that she posted a really
long message on X, wrote a letter saying that she was going to get a hold of Attorney General Bondi
and try to reverse this miscarriage of justice.
Thomas Massey from Kentucky then followed up with that, as well as Senator Mike Lee from the state
of Utah, which is the state that I live in.
So I think the combination of all of those events and all of those people kind of taking this up.
And like I said, Attorney General Bondi says that it was definitely Marjorie Taylor Greene's
insistence that this case be dismissed that got her to review the case personally and see the
injustice. So.
So this is the so Kirk.
So the important point is it was Marjorie that picked up on it from the media, not you
approaching Marjorie.
Right. No, I don't.
I don't have a I don't.
I mean, I have her phone number now.
She asked me. She asked me if she could keep me on a short list because she knows, you know,
hearing my story and hearing of me and meeting me last Wednesday left her with an impression
that she might want to reach out to me at some point in the future.
And I said, you know, absolutely, I'm helpful and want to do whatever I can to stop these
shots and to get these things taken off the market.
But no, it was you're right.
I mean, it was the public uprising and people saying things and the show of solidarity on the
steps, the public outcry and the retweeting and the messages on Instagram and social
media, everything else, the article that was published and everything getting her attention and
then her taking it one step further and then more people following suit on that really made a
difference. Wow.
OK, everybody, very instructive.
Brian, last comment before we go to Stephen.
Well, I yeah, yeah, thank you.
Yeah, the political process intervened.
I want to just say we did feel like we had presented, at least on the cross examination,
that we had we had taken down their witnesses pretty well.
We all speak for me.
I felt pretty confident going into the weekend that the witnesses they had remaining were not
going to be that beneficial to them.
That from a defense standpoint, I think we had we had done a really good job positioning
ourselves, going into our own direct examination for our witnesses.
So it is a process.
Right. And you don't know what things are and it's a jury.
So you can only speculate pretty good at that point that we were in a good spot.
But having the intervention of the attorney general's office really kind of spoke to
really the underlying issue.
Should we be prosecuting this case?
And I think the resounding answer was no, we shouldn't be prosecuting this case.
Wonderful, wonderful.
Well, it's a it's a thank you for articulating those steps.
That is great lessons for all of us.
So, Stephen, over to you.
So for both of you, well, first of all, we're really delighted that Kirk prevailed.
It was unexpected.
I think, you know, it's never happened before.
So how could one expect it?
But anyway, I'm just interested that, you know, the that the case was ever brought
brought by the prosecution in Utah.
And that the federal government looked on and the attorney general
at the time that that case was launched, which presumably was in the last
administration, is that right?
They saw nothing.
It was brought on by the Biden administration in twenty.
Correct. So I think you said
Kirk that they wanted to hide the truth by bringing the case.
But the truth, you know, you weren't actually they wanted to hide the truth.
But actually, the case was going to bring out the truth, if anything.
And it seems to me they wanted retribution and that was their mistake.
Well, we are I think I think you're accused of fraud, but you're accused, in my opinion,
the whole atmosphere and the whole set up of governments around the world
mandating these shots was and furthermore, the terribly harmful lockdowns
was wrong. And and that was fraud.
There was no pandemic, in my opinion, as a British trained medical doctor.
And there was no covid-19.
And so the trial was nonsense.
It was absolute nonsense.
It was a grave training for the lawyers.
Some may have seen it as that.
But it was retribution and it was everything it shouldn't have been,
in my opinion. And so arguing about this and that about intent to commit fraud,
there was no intent from your side to commit fraud.
But that's what they said. But they had committed fraud.
The United States government had committed fraud by saying that there was a pandemic
when there was no pandemic, in my opinion, as a doctor.
And you may say, well, you know, how can you say that?
Well, if you don't say it and you don't kind of postulate something as a medical
doctor, then we'll never get to the truth because people,
insufficient numbers will be looking for the evidence of lack of a pandemic.
So you have to hypothesize as a decent medical doctor, in my opinion.
So anyway, I just wanted to know what you think about that.
So this is much bigger.
They wanted to hide the.
They want they still want to hide the fact that there was there was no pandemic,
but there was no covid-19, no safe diagnosis of covid-19, in my opinion.
And and therefore none of the so-called measures,
including medical apartheid in the United States of America from November 20,
sorry, October 21 till May the 11th, 23.
Absolutely outrageous what happened.
And so what has happened here?
They stopped this trial.
And we are so happy for you, Kirk.
But this is just the beginning.
It's not the end.
Well, I don't disagree with you with your last statement that this is just the
beginning because they're going to do it again.
I completely also agree with you that there was no covid pandemic.
At the end of January of 2020, there were 44 total cases that had been,
quote unquote, confirmed.
And they still didn't have a test that they said that was an accurate test to be
able to tell them. So I'm not sure how they confirmed it.
And also by that January 31st date, there was only one death worldwide.
So I don't know how you can claim that you have a pandemic, a worldwide pandemic,
when you have a total of 44 cases in a country that has one point four million
pneumonia's that are diagnosed every year and you have one death.
So that's come up, obviously, in my,
you know, time frame of studying all this, I certainly didn't know that at that
time. I was certainly becoming, you know,
very educated on the numbers and everything else related to that.
But no, there was no pandemic. There is no pandemic.
People will make an argument that there's no such thing as a virus.
I'm not going to go down that road.
But certainly no, you know, no worldwide pandemic that
was worthy of a public health emergency of international concern,
something called when you take that acronym and pronounce it, it says fake.
And I completely agree with it that it's totally fake.
And they will do it again.
You know, the psychology of the human race says that when you
get somebody to do something, whether it's right or wrong, you get a human
being to do something based upon fear of the retribution of not
doing it. 92 percent of the time, they will then follow up and do the next thing
that you ask of them. So you start getting people to wear masks.
92 percent of those people are then going to stand six feet apart and not get
into any gatherings. And then you are going to have a certain percentage of
people that then will follow up with getting themselves or giving themselves a
shot and believing that, you know, all of that.
So it's it's been tried and true and tested.
The Ash experiments, the Milgram experiments show that
67 percent of people would give a lethal shock to somebody that was merely
answering questions the wrong way just because there was somebody in a white
coat standing over them, telling them to do it.
So when you have that kind of a mentality, I think our government is very
perfectly capable of using those those tactics on us as a population.
And I think that that's exactly what they did.
Yeah. So one thing that I think none of us should overlook, but obviously you have
to take your time, Kirk. But you have tremendous power now.
You're untouchable, it seems to me.
And so I don't know about that.
Sorry, I said, I don't know about that.
You know, they'll come after me for taxes.
They'll come after me for something else.
Yeah, OK. Yeah, I'm just who knows.
But I think people are going to take very seriously what you say, including the
people who helped you know, Marjorie Taylor Green.
I mean, what does she know about that?
Does she know that Covid-19, the whole pandemic was a fraud?
You didn't talk about that, I don't suppose.
Did you get any sense of could this have happened had Trump not come to power
in January 20th, on January the 20th of this year, do you think?
Absolutely not. Absolutely.
And do you think this seems to me that if it was unprecedented for the US attorney
general even to stop a state in the United States proceeding with a legal case,
which was justified, it's unprecedented.
So do you think that Trump had to be involved?
I think he had to be. Maybe you don't want to say.
I really can't. I can't answer that.
I mean, a lot of people say there's no way that he was not involved in some capacity,
that it wouldn't have been something that he didn't know about and then either
agree to, you know, voluntarily or begrudgingly agree to doing it or what?
I couldn't be blindsided.
I doubt he was blindsided. But again, I don't know.
Well, I think it's impossible, to be honest.
So especially with.
Bondi under attack in some circles for, you know, the failings, whatever they may be
of the Epstein files,
release, which didn't exist, apparently the list.
So anyway, we won't go into that.
But so I just wanted to ask.
So from a human point of view.
It the last five years have been defining for you, I think, as they have for me.
What what was the the worst time in the last five years and what was the best?
Well, there's no doubt that the best was 8.35 in the morning on July 12th.
And that that notification of the case being dismissed
with my mom being here to, you know, to kind of be there after everything that,
you know, that I've put her through, essentially.
I mean, she's 83 years old, be 84 on Wednesday.
You know, otherwise healthy, doing great.
Still travels back and forth to my house and my sister's house in Connecticut.
So drives a car, you know, very, very active person.
But I can't imagine the stress or strain that, you know,
that this has put on her over the last two and a half years.
It was the worst time.
I you know, some people will probably say that the worst day was being indicted.
I actually think the worst day was having that ruling against us
for being able to use a necessity defense, which essentially eliminated
my ability to bring in witnesses as to why they were seeking me out
and or witnesses that had struggled from the effects of the vaccines.
October 19th of 2024 was that date.
And that so that day, the day of my indictment and the day that they threw me
in jail for texting my, you know, my co-defendants that we had a court case
the next day, and that violated my pretrial restrictions of not
communicating to my co-defendants about the case.
And I just told them we had we had a hearing the next day
and that they should be there with their attorneys.
And that was a violation of my pretrial restrictions.
And they put me in jail for 22 days.
So all of that drama that, you know, that came about that whole month
in November of last year.
But but definitely the best day was last Saturday.
And how do you feel now?
Well, certainly relieved.
I'm very tired.
It's it's it was unbelievably exhausting.
I guess you just you're kind of running on a level of epinephrine
and adrenaline that you just don't realize.
And now it's just trying to pull all the pieces back together,
trying to get my life back together, trying to get my business back
to where it was before.
And at the same time, trying to continue with,
you know, my motivation to get these shots off the off the market
and get these get these stopped.
I just I can't see how our politicians
and our authorities and our regulators and everybody else just
are just completely ignoring it.
They they they have to know about it.
They're just ignoring it.
And in large measure, they're complicit with the murdering
and maiming of our society.
And so do you think that it was pressure from people like
Marjorie Taylor Green and maybe others that you don't even know about?
Or do you think that the first week went badly?
Why did they actually let the trial start and then close it down?
Well, I mean, my understanding is, is that the prosecutors here in Utah
were very upset about the fact that the drug got pulled out from under them.
So I don't think that they were willing and able to stop the case midstream.
And so this certainly came from on high.
And then what the effects were that Marjorie Taylor Green had Senator Lee,
Thomas Massey or any of the other representatives
had that were kind of behind the scenes that weren't so vocal about it.
I don't know. I just know that Attorney General Bondi was specific
about the fact that Marjorie Taylor Green was instrumental in getting her
to notice this case.
She claims that she didn't really know about it.
Prior to last Thursday or Friday, and well, a week ago, so 10 days ago.
And so that July 10th or 11th, the time frame that she that that Attorney
General Bondi didn't know about my case.
And as soon as she found out about it and as soon as she found and as soon as
she saw how you know, how much support we had and and how Marjorie Taylor
Green was just kind of pushing the envelope on getting this case dismissed,
that that's what she did.
She was just trying to get the case dismissed.
That that's what, you know, caused her to open her eyes to go downstairs
and get my file from the weaponization work group and look it over and make a decision to
dismiss the case.
So it's entirely up to you, Kirk.
And maybe you need to time to think about it and maybe to talk to your lawyer.
But in the end, it's your life.
So not your lawyer's life.
I wonder whether, you know, at some stage, you might like to say to Marjorie Taylor
Green, who wanted to be in contact with you, remember, so you could say to her
that you've got access to a pile of witnesses who can change her view on COVID-19.
The pandemic, alleged pandemic.
I think I mentioned that to her.
I mentioned that I had access to a lot of people and a lot of science and a lot of data.
And that if she ever required that, I said that also to
Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio.
And I had a kind of a sidebar personal conversation with Senator Mike Lee about that as well.
So they're both, you know, all of those that both all of those, all of our politicians that
I've spoken to directly are well aware of that.
And I hope they, you know, I hope they reach out and kind of allow me to help them.
Just briefly, Marjorie Taylor Green is one of the big noises in the Maggie
movement, as I understand it.
There's no doubt about it.
Whatever else you may think about her, she is an American patriot.
We need patriots.
What we saw in 2020 was, in my opinion, a Trojan horse for totalitarianism.
And governments all around the world took part in this incredible fraud.
And so that was against their own countries.
That was treason.
It occurred in America, too, like it did in the United Kingdom.
We need to hold these people to account.
And you need to have that conversation with Marjorie Taylor Green when you're ready,
rather than maybe talking about specifically about COVID-19.
That's my opinion.
But we can talk about that in the future, hopefully.
I completely agree with you.
Don't disagree with you at all.
And I can't see Marjorie Taylor Green ever wanting to go against saving her country,
but she needs to understand what COVID was about if she wants to save her country.
So thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you, Stephen.
So we've got hands up.
But before we go to Winston, I want to show you, everybody, have a look at this.
This is the Australian newspaper.
This is an advertisement by the Australian government last Friday, July 18th.
It says, look, big picture, you know, of a sad, forlorn looking woman.
Are you prepared for COVID-19 this winter?
And it says, recognize the symptoms.
Saw the right coughing.
Runny nose.
Or congestion.
Assess your risk.
And it says here, it says here, get tested.
If you get any of these symptoms, act fast and take a rapid antigen test or contact your GP
to get a PCR test.
Treatments may be available for people at high risk of severe illness,
but these are time sensitive and need to be discussed with your GP as
early as possible after symptoms appear.
Look at this shit.
And I just wanted to point.
This is the Australian government putting this shit in.
And it's full of lies.
And it's an interesting question as to publishing this, Brian.
And it certainly says pregnant women are considered a vulnerable group,
particularly if they are overweight or obese, which of course is over 60% of American women
and men.
And have pre-existing high blood pressure or diabetes.
Let's jab the pregnant women with this shit.
So everybody, this is the fraud that continues, the psyops.
So it ain't over and our fight is not over as I said at the start and Steven and I know.
And we're going to be up for the fight.
And Kirk and Brian, your fight is inspiring.
Well, Charles, I'm going to make a statement.
I think this is what I was going to say earlier.
They were accusing me of fraud and just like you and everybody in this room and
other people that are not here, they were the ones that were committing fraud.
They were trying to make what I did an illegal activity without really having any evidence of
the illegality.
The reality is that here in the United States, we have HIPAA laws, which require you to never
ask people's private medical information.
I can actually be thrown in jail and there's a law that's passed that says that.
So if somebody asks somebody or I disclose somebody's personal medical information
without their permission, I can actually be thrown in jail for that.
They can be fined and thrown in jail for that.
So what happened is that the federal government was requiring people to disclose
their personal medical information against their will, most likely, or against their ability.
These people didn't want to do that and they were requiring other people to do that.
So you had to show a COVID card to walk into a grocery store, to walk into a restaurant,
to get on an airplane, to hold a job.
So they were the ones that were actually committing illegal acts.
And then trying to turn that back on me saying that I was committing an illegal act when
there was no illegality in it.
There was an edict from the CDC that said that this is what we should do.
But the CDC is an advisory agency only and they don't have the ability to make laws.
And we brought that up in our trial that the CDC has no law.
No, the government was trying to say that I was violating a, and this is the motion
to dismiss that we had, a lawful governmental function of the CDC.
The CDC doesn't have any lawful governmental functions.
They are an advisory agency only.
That's what their charter says.
And even though we put that in our motion to dismiss, there were no laws that I violated.
They, you know, the judge ruled against that and said that based upon all the evidence
that he could gather and everything else, that there were lawful governmental functions
of the CDC, even though there were no laws that were ever passed.
So that's what I was trying to get at before.
And I apologize, forgot that train of thought.
Thank you.
All right.
So Winston, hit us with your best shot.
Dr. Mork, congratulations on your success.
I think your talk, which I turned on too very late, exemplified a lot of,
a lot of my observations about the law.
One of which is how unfair it is for you to have been charged in the first place
or trying to save and help people, I think is, is horrible.
Then it seems to me that the attorney general, Bondi, didn't seem to tune into what was happening
until Marjorie Taylor Greene saw fit to intervene for whatever reason and to suggest
that the case be dropped according to what you said.
So that tells me that Marjorie Taylor Greene may have some information that we don't know about,
thank God she hasn't.
Thank God she did what she did.
And Bondi, who hopefully will now go and read it alone if she doesn't know already,
the Bondi acted on her suggestion.
So I have to ask a question now, a couple of questions.
Are you, well likely, you're not the only doctor in your country who is,
was in that situation.
So what happens to the others who have lost their licenses, who are perhaps before the courts?
Bondi's intervention, a couple of them as well?
Well, there's a complete, that's a different legal avenue.
Each state licenses their physicians.
So for the federal government to step in on this in the first place was what we felt was out of jurisdiction.
Every communication that I had is with the state of Utah, not with the federal government.
And so we had made the argument that the federal government doesn't have the ability to do that.
The federal government does not have the ability to take away somebody's license.
It's all done within states.
It's all done within their regulatory agencies that they have.
So I don't think that my case is going to have anything to do with the state governments and licensing and everything else.
And then board certification is a separate issue.
That's all, again, just a little bit of a different issue.
I've lost all that.
I don't have hospital privileges anymore.
I don't have my board certification anymore.
All of that was done mainly because of my stance.
I refused to wear a mask in a hospital and so they terminated my medical privileges.
That then doesn't allow me to have a certified surgical facility that I operate out of, out of my hospital.
I can't operate in a hospital and then I can't get my facility certified because I don't have a relationship that allows me to transfer my patients to a hospital in case of an emergency.
And then that led to me losing my board certification when it came up for renewal in 2022.
So all of those are pretty separate.
Winston, you didn't mention this.
I don't think that's going to be a good example of what I'm talking about.
But I think there's other physicians that are out there that did what I did and I hope there's thousands of them.
But I think that this will give people pause as far as if the federal government decides to go after them for their quote unquote fraudulent COVID vaccines and COVID cards.
So is Bondi not sure what he's talking about?
Bondi is federal, but the licensing is the licensing is state.
Right, right.
Yeah, yeah.
But Kirk, the argument against that is the Bondi is federal.
The state was bringing this against you.
Is it?
No, it was a federal case.
It was a federal case.
I hope it's not a federal case.
It was a federal case.
No, it was a federal case.
It was a federal case.
I had FBI and HHS agents and DHS agents that came in and served the search warrant on my office on January 11th of 2023.
So this was a federal case to begin with.
So why didn't they have federal prosecutors then?
They did have federal prosecutors.
But our system is set up so that there's a Department of Justice that is the head Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and then they have state, they have U.S. attorneys in each state, and each one of those U.S. attorneys then has their own staff and assistant U.S. attorneys that we're doing it.
And that's what my prosecution was, the Utah State U.S. Attorney's Office.
Yes, I understand.
Despite you having been exonerated by the federal government, you're saying the state now can come and prosecute you?
Yes, in theory they could.
I have it on, I guess you never know, but I have it on good authority that the state doesn't believe that they would have the ability to do that either.
And I've heard, you know, just some people have told me that it would be political suicide in the state of Utah for this case to have been brought in the first place.
I mean, for a fraud case like they brought in the federal government, there's a three-year statute of limitations on the state side.
So we're beyond that for a fraud type of case. That doesn't preclude them from bringing any other form of action, but I agree with Dr. Moore that it would not be politically savvy for them to bring those cases now.
Yeah, well, I am no lawyer, but it seems to me there's something unusual.
The federal executive, attorney general, says useless.
The state can come and prosecute, so can she then come back and say useless again? How does that work?
It seems to me that that should be the end of that for him.
Absolutely, yeah.
But who am I? I'm nothing. I don't know.
I think you're absolutely right.
I mean, there are some possibilities that this could be brought up in state, but I think Brian says the statute of limitations has run out because the end of my fraudulent activity was in 22.
The attorney general just said, out of your country, that case should never have been.
So where are they going with the rest?
To my mind, not as fast as before Elbow.
Kirk, you should know that the person you're talking to at the moment is a psychiatrist. He's a Canadian psychiatrist.
He's a medical doctor, in other words, so he's on site.
Yeah, I'm just...it's just the way our system is set up is we have a federal system, a federal legal system, and then a state legal system.
They don't really cross over that much.
So that's why they're kind of different jurisdictions.
And that's when I was saying earlier, we've been saying all along that this really is not a federal case.
I never had any relationship with the federal government.
I never had a contract that was signed with the federal government.
The paperwork that we did sign was paperwork from the federal government that actually didn't have any kind of numbers attached to it
the way that the Paperwork Reduction Act in the 1970s says that all federal paperwork had to have.
And all they did was distribute all of this paperwork to their 64 other jurisdictions,
the 50 states plus 14 other larger health departments, probably like New York City,
Chicago, LA, San Francisco, some of the larger cities that have their own health departments that function somewhat separately or are too big to function within the regular state health department.
So this is different.
I think it's our 10th Amendment, which kind of separates church and state and keeps anything that our current constitution delineates to the federal government.
Everything else belongs to the states.
Well, you know, again, you can answer this, but I will ask, what is it about you that the federal government zeroed in on you?
You have 49 states or 50 states, whatever it is.
Why would they zero in on you and then exonerate you?
There's something that is beyond me.
So anyway, I don't think they planned on exonerating me.
Why did they go after me?
I think they had a direct complaint against me from somebody that got forwarded to the FBI in January of 2022.
And we made a little bit of a stink about that is they both they had two expert witnesses up there that said, well, as soon as we find out that you're doing something wrong, we will disenroll you from the program.
And yet I was never disenrolled.
I was given product all the way until September of 2022.
So nine months after they had evidence that I was quote unquote fraudulently distributing COVID vaccines and COVID cards, they did nothing about it.
So I can't answer that.
You're right.
Yeah, but from what you're saying, your provincial, not provincial, but your state authorities did not come after you for those reported alleged wrongdoings.
No, they forwarded it directly to the FBI.
So when they had that complaint that came to the Utah Health Department, they just forwarded it directly to the FBI.
Wow.
Well, thanks again.
Congratulations.
On we go.
Too much.
There's there's great speculation there.
And the word that comes to my mind is miracle.
Albert and human hubris on the part of the prosecutors.
Kirk, God bless you, my man.
Albert, great to see you.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Quick question.
You know, I'm not a law man either myself, but in your had this case gone to trial or discovery, whatever that's called.
Did you have a strategy that had or were you able to speak about the bears, any bears stuff or did they put the kibosh on would have put the kibosh on that too that you couldn't speak of bears stuff and just the normal stats that are in there, but like the throttling, the deletion of reports, all the obfuscation and manipulation of that.
No, the ruling that they did in October of last year, which I said was probably the lowest point that I had was when they precluded us from talking about anything that led up to that led people looking for me and or talking about any of the complications or any of the sequelae from the vaccine and the vaccine injured.
You know that I know, you know, Brianne Dressen very well, and she could have lined up, you know, 3000 people that I could have just, you know, one after the next after the next brought through that courthouse and I could have brought any number of the 2000 3000 4000 people that I had treated prior to this to come in and talk about the reasons why they were seeking me out.
But no, they had they just they said, no, we're not talking about that.
And that's why I'm saying, you know, that's why I'm saying it was they were they were walking a tightrope in their opening statement.
They opened the door to bringing that out.
Their first witness brought it out even further.
And then we had a discussion with the judge and everything else about it, because at this point, you know, the judge was kind of like, hey, you guys open the door.
He goes, I don't think it's kicked wide open yet, but we have to come to some rules and some, you know, some some agreement here in terms of how we're going to handle this, because you guys can't talk about the beneficial effects of the vaccine if he's not able to talk about the downstream, you know, deleterious effects of the vaccine.
So it was it was a tightrope and they crossed it a few times.
And we were, you know, we were pushing back pretty hard.
Kirk, one last thing.
My daughter is going to be a sophomore at Arizona State this coming year.
And I heard in a recent podcast, I think you have a son that's going there.
So my daughter was there.
She was there for two years.
And then when I got indicted, she came home.
She finished her.
She finished her sophomore year there, you know, remotely, because that's the way a lot of them did.
She's been taking some online classes since, but has not gone back.
She lives in Oklahoma now.
OK, all right.
It's good to know. God bless you, my man.
Thank you. God bless you, too.
Albert, that's good, because this group is designed to put people together.
We're waiting for our first Marys to come about.
So, you know, get your daughter talking to Kirk's son, you know.
Hello. All right.
Well, also, he could get some so you could get Albert talking to Marjorie Taylor Green.
That would because Albert's a really pleasant guy.
So his charm would help in putting over the stuff he knows about theirs.
I don't disagree with that at all.
I'd be happy to do that and make that, you know, I'll make that introduction as soon as I can.
All right, Jerome, good to see you.
Yes. Hold on a second.
Let me just. And Jerome, if.
Yep. Hold on a second. I've got to get.
OK, I'm back.
And Jerome, if you're still looking for books, I think you've got a fantastic book here.
Well, it would be a good book, and I think it's one we ought to think about doing.
I think it might be a very good book.
So get in touch with me afterwards.
But I think the major comment I've got and our question is, I mean,
the government put me through this, too, with the Mueller investigation.
One put me in prison.
And the astounding thing that you said was
you realize that it was the government that was the criminal
and the government was lying, cheating, stealing.
They could to get you in prison because they had an agenda,
which was to vaccinate it before people realize what was going on.
And so therefore, you know, you suffered the same type of
really torture.
And you should you should definitely seek now compensation for this.
I'm glad I'm wondering, you know, why don't you now
sue the federal government, your lawyers to the federal government
for all the mental distress they put you through on a case of false
prosecution? I think you've got an excellent case here.
False prosecution. I'd hate to see you not get
financial compensation, the millions of dollars for what you went through.
My question, are you planning to do that?
I'm not planning on doing that right now.
There's a there's something called the Hyde Amendment that we
part of the dismissal asked me to sign
that I would not sue them for lawyers fees.
I've had a couple of people come to me and say that
there are other ways of doing it.
And there are some, you know, some tort laws
and some ability to kind of go down that route.
I do know that
my understanding is, at least with the Hyde stuff for legal defense,
there's a pretty high bar to reach in terms of being able to get them
to prove that this was actually kind of a malicious prosecution
and that it takes time and more money and more effort to kind of get there.
I probably will look into it as things settle down here a little bit more, Jerome.
Right now, I'm just kind of enjoying the fact that I don't have
I don't have to go to court and I don't have a sentencing hearing
coming up here shortly after either having been convicted on partial charges or something.
Well, I certainly know how that feels, having gone through it myself.
But the point is, wrongful prosecution should be obvious in this case
because the attorney general stopped a trial in motion, which is unprecedented.
I think if you get an attorney and you file those several quickly,
especially with the attorney general we've got now in the government,
they're not going to fight you.
They're just going to ask you how many millions of dollars you want.
Well, I'll look into that.
I know that my current attorneys having to work in the system here
are probably a little less likely to do that.
I'd probably have to go out of my jurisdiction to do something because.
Well, it's funny, it could turn to Washington to take the case.
And if you don't want to connect with one, we'll be happy to
find one for you. I mean, I'm working with Peter Titken, the president's attorney,
and they're now going for compensation for the J sixers who were put into prison.
There's no reason why you shouldn't be on the list, too.
OK. Well, I posted my phone number and email address in the chat.
I really enjoy a conversation with you.
Yeah. So I really recommend Jerome.
He knows half of America and I know he does.
He's very courageous.
I've followed him for a long time and he has more guts than all of us
in this room put together. So it's wonderful.
Even I'll share yours.
I'm not quite working really conveniently right it all down.
Steven will get me yours and I'll try to pull it up here from the chat.
But I'll put mine in the chat as well.
Steven's got it.
I'll introduce you to to Kirk by email.
OK, yeah, I think that way we get together
because you've got
an outstanding case to get compensated.
And these people need to pay for what they've done.
And I would even know for me, I would bring cases against them.
I'd file criminal charges against the prosecutors.
Well, I I know that them threatening to deport somebody
to get them to testify against me, if not outright illegal,
was certainly very immoral and very unethical.
I would say that's witness covering surely.
I would certainly make some noise about it and tell Bondi
that you intend to file charges against the Department of Justice
for false prosecution and criminal charges
against the prosecutors for how they behave themselves.
Go after these people.
All right. Excellent. Excellent insight, Brian.
There's some thoughts for you, Bibi.
You know, it's a bad time.
You have to recover from the trauma.
But, you know, Brian, it's what are your thoughts?
Well, he doesn't have to tell us now, Charles.
Hang on, Stephen.
Well, I'll just say that with Dr.
Corsi was saying is kind of beyond my that's not in my area of practice.
So I would defer to him.
He's got certainly much more experience on that.
But I will address the Hyde Amendment just to give it some layman explanation.
If you have a contract and there's a provision in there
for prevailing attorney's fees and I sue you for a million dollars,
but I only win a hundred dollars and my prevailing party.
And that's where there were Dr. Moore was talking about.
There's some ambiguity there.
Were you the prevailing party or not?
So in the context of his dismissal, it made sense to sign the Hyde Amendment
because this was unprecedented.
We didn't know where that line would be drawn.
And honestly, he'd been through the wringer at that point.
It was good to bring that to a conclusion, particularly with the jury trial.
You just never know how they're going to come back.
So it made sense for us at that time to do that.
Well, the Hyde Amendment only applies payment of the attorney's fees.
You don't care about attorney's fees.
Go after them for millions of dollars for the for what they did to you.
This is this is criminal prosecution.
They're the criminals and they deserve to be in prison for what they've done.
And if you let these people get away with it, they'll do.
Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off.
I'm excited for Dr.
Moore to connect with you, because I'd love to see where that goes with them.
Beautiful. Thank you, brother.
No, no.
All right. Calladine.
Yes, sir.
Thank you. I have several questions.
I have one question that I was really distraught this last week
when I saw that the HHS made their deal with the
FDA in approving the self proliferating
DNA basically shot the MRNA
that would be self proliferating over a person's entire life.
And so they are working together, apparently.
And that is of concern to me.
The other concern that I have is also
that high risk patients,
pregnant women are considered high risk,
and therefore they may still be on the list to get the injection.
The other concern is really kind of one of Brian's area,
and that is that the parental consent,
the CDC has hidden it in its information
that the.
Parent can certainly have a decision
when it comes to something that is not MRNA related.
However, if it's a MRNA related injection for their child,
then it is in quotations a shared decision
by the authorities and the parents.
My concern is legally,
is there anything being done that parents can certainly come against
or stand up to their school boards, their states
in protecting their children from getting these injections?
That's a lot. I know. I apologize.
Everything in our country right now,
and I think you know this, everything is state by state.
And I don't believe the federal government has come out
and made any kind of, there's no laws that are out there.
That was part of my argument.
So every state has their own regulations regarding vaccines,
and a lot of them depend on kind of the CDC recommendations
in terms of what the health department then takes on.
But there are states like ours in Utah right now
that allow for waivers to be for personal, medical,
or religious exemptions that allow you to withdraw
from any vaccine or any treatment, mainly vaccines.
They don't specifically reference mRNA vaccines,
but they do reference vaccines.
And the state of Idaho has just recently passed
a freedom law for that as well.
I know states like California and New York,
and I believe Illinois are at the other end of that spectrum.
I think there's a realistic, where they don't allow any exemptions.
And there are just these,
traumatic stories of families with two autistic kids
who know that they had their autistic kids,
their kids got autism from the injections.
And then they require that their kids,
that their third child also get the same injections.
And it's a travesty.
I don't know how they continue to do this,
but it's a state by state thing.
And I don't think the federal government has done anything
that would have been a better way to do it.
It's a state thing, and I don't think the federal government
is going to get in the way of any of that.
Well, I do think that it's going to be a fight with HHS,
because when they say one thing, that they really don't want these shots,
but yet they turn around and make this deal
with the self-proliferating mRNA shots
to be approved and moved ahead,
I think that we've got a big battle at HHS as well on our hands.
Well, I don't doubt that, but even with the HHS,
I mean, the problem comes with, in my opinion,
okay, Carl and Dean, the problem comes with
the HHS, CDC, FDA, everybody,
they actually don't have lawmaking ability.
And what ends up happening is that the state agencies
end up taking that information as a law.
So they say, hey, the CDC recommends this,
therefore, we are going to recommend that.
But even then, it's still a recommendation.
It should never be a law unless the states make it that way.
And so when somebody recommends it and then it's, you know,
and then they say, hey, you need to do this in order to go to school,
or you need to do this in order to hold a job, or you need to do,
you know, that is downstream to some degree from what the HHS says.
And, you know, we need to fight this on the state, local, county level.
And done that. I've been involved in that.
You know, that was part of my role in 2020, 2021 and 2022,
where I went and made sure that we took the power
out of the Salt Lake County Health Department, as an example,
to institute face masks for everybody.
Originally, they could pass an ordinance that said, hey,
you can make everybody wear a face mask in order to drive a car,
go into a store, go to the grocery store, go to a restaurant,
do whatever it is that they needed to do.
And then we reversed that.
And now they only have a 30-day capacity to institute that
before it goes in front of our legislature to further pass that law or not.
We also passed a law that said that anybody who requires people to go to school
or have a job or travel or anything in the state of Utah
that requires that or that company says that they require a vaccine.
We also now have a law that says that they are also required
to offer people all three waivers.
You can give you...
If you're going to require a vaccine,
you also have to offer them the opportunity for a waiver if they want it.
So it comes down to a state-by-state basis.
I agree with you.
We had an HHS that I thought was going to go in a completely different direction.
And I've seen some work towards that, but mainly,
again, I don't know what RFK is doing.
I don't know how hamstrung he is, if at all.
I struggle sometimes with where he's been the last 20, 25 years
on the vaccine front to have him all of a sudden get into a position of power
where he can do that.
And all of a sudden, he just kind of abandons everything that he said before.
I can't imagine that somebody is not forcing him to kind of change things.
And again, I don't know.
I'm not there every day.
And I'm not putting...
I'm not speculating as to somebody's...
what their real motivations and stuff are.
But I do struggle with that every day.
You and I both know as physicians that most physicians, our peers,
they hang on to every word that the CDC, the FDA say.
And it might not be a law, but in their eyes,
it certainly is, and they intend to carry it through.
So that too has been so frustrating and difficult to fight through.
But with each battle, we still endure and we become tougher.
So thank you for continuing the battle.
I plan on continuing that. I'm not stopping.
Amen, brother. Amen.
That's right. All right. Keep the fight.
My mother always used to say, keep the faith and give him hell.
So that's exactly what I'm saying.
Well, they're not...
I'm not stopping what I'm doing.
So I just hope I don't get crosshairs with the federal government again.
Thank you. Thank you both.
Carladean, that's great to keep the faith and give them hell.
I like that one.
Yeah, she had a shotgun right by her bed.
You always wanted not before you went in.
Perfect.
So thank you, Carladean.
It also raises an interesting point that Jerome touched on, Kirk and Brian.
And this is the PsiOp strategy.
So the government goes full on with this shitty behaviour.
Then they drop the case for whatever reason.
It's a miracle. It is a miracle because it's unprecedented.
That's the definition of a miracle.
And then psychologically, Kirk, it's really easy and Brian to go,
we won that. Now we'll just get on with our lives.
And so the government takes this big jump, comes back a little bit
and we've lost all these rights.
And it's good to have Jerome say,
come on, you know, after a month or two or three, gird your loins.
And we have to prosecute, and the comments are made in the chat,
we have to prosecute government employees who behave badly.
Otherwise, they'll keep doing it.
And so it's just to say, just a reminder in the way that we think
about these matters.
All right. Just a comment, Jeremiah.
Welcome.
Yep.
Oh, you're muted, Jeremiah. You're muted.
Oh, sorry, I muted myself.
Yeah, thanks, everyone, for being here.
I just interviewed Dr. Kirk Moore on Friday
on my medical freedom focused radio show called The Baseline.
So I put that in the chat. It was a really good conversation.
So please put that in your Dr. Kirk Moore file.
There's a bunch of questions I'd like to ask,
but I'm just going to focus in on something that Dr. Moore said earlier,
which is pertaining to the COVID disease itself.
I continue to research, to question, to ponder.
I'm very confused still as to what COVID was,
because there's a lot of people who jump right to the statement
of there was no virus, and that's easy enough to say.
But then there's a number of people who say they got sick,
they felt sick in an unusual way.
It wasn't a normal cold, quote unquote,
even people who are medical freedom people
who didn't buy into the narrative, they're under the impression they got COVID.
There are people who say they lost their family members to COVID.
I mean, there's a lot of different things.
I spoke to an emergency service, emergency,
you know, what is it EMT, emergency medical technician,
who said that the thing that they noticed when COVID was announced
was extremely low blood oxygen levels, like they had never seen before.
And then that introduced the term happy hypoxia.
But I'm just still wondering, I'm still baffled as to what was COVID, frankly?
What do we actually think it was?
You know, there's also the question of,
to sort of support what I'm saying,
many, many examples of people who were unable to spread COVID
within their own households, people who they got sick, they got tested,
they said you're COVID positive, and no one else in the household got sick.
I heard of many of these cases, which then raises the question,
how did the virus spread all the way around the world
and then not spread in a room?
So all these different types of questions
just leading me to the general question,
what was COVID actually?
In your opinion, Dr. Moore?
You know, my...
I'll go back to what Charles put up there
with that advertisement that's in the newspaper.
Runny nose, I don't even think he mentioned fever,
he's mentioned runny nose, cough, maybe a little bit of malaise.
That's what COVID is.
There was never any differentiation
from any other disease, cold feeling that we had in our...
You know, in January of 2020 or in July of 2025.
So it's never been well defined.
And that's part of the argument that I've had all along.
There is no definition of the disease.
There's... Everybody gets runny noses,
everybody gets malaise, everybody gets a little fever.
And it's...
It's just a part of life.
And that's where you have the people that claim that it's a terrain issue,
and make claims that there are no viruses that are out there.
And that, you know, we're putting a...
We're defining something that can't be defined
just for the reason that they're trying to implement something else.
And this is what I've been saying for years,
is that COVID itself, the disease,
was developed to launch the vaccine.
Correct.
And it's...
I personally don't think it ever existed.
And like I said earlier, I don't know if you were here
at the very beginning of my discussion,
we were talking about there were 44 total cases worldwide
of confirmed COVID at the end of January and one death.
And we had already declared an emergency,
not a public health emergency of international concern like they did,
but the World Health Organization on January 12th or something
had already declared an emergency
and had a bunch of people flying in and trying to do all of this stuff.
And then you do all of this retrospective analysis
with Event 201, Operation Lockstep,
all of the stuff that's happened over the years.
It was all a training exercise to get us to where we are now.
And that's my personal opinion.
It never existed, it doesn't exist, there's nothing out there.
And all we're doing by continuing to talk about it
is to continue to perpetuate that narrative,
which is only going to benefit them in the long run.
Absolutely correct, Kavik.
So can I just say one thing? I'll do it in 30 seconds.
So in answer to your question, Jeremiah,
in my opinion as a British medical doctor,
and we can discuss this,
the answer to your question is that, first of all,
the PCR test was fraudulent from beginning to end.
And the inventor of the PCR technique,
Kerry Mullis, died, had to be killed, in my opinion,
in August of 2019.
And he was saying that my technique, the PCR technique,
which he won the Nobel Prize for in chemistry in 1993
for the discovery in 1983,
must never be used as the diagnostic tool
for a viral illness.
But we know that Kerry Mullis was also doubting the AIDS narrative.
So if you think of AIDS as a false diagnosis,
and COVID was another false diagnosis,
so he knew what he was talking about.
He had to die before the beginning of 2020,
because the pandemic could not, the so-called pandemic,
the so-called pandemic could not have occurred without him.
In answer to your question, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was false.
I knew it was false in 2020.
I couldn't believe that all my doctor friends couldn't see it.
But I tried to explain to them that,
that first of all, the PCR test was fraudulent.
That was used to create the COVID cases,
to essentially create the fear to create the pandemic.
So it wasn't about, we don't need to know about the virus,
not at this stage anyway.
We do need to negate what they've said,
which was that there was a pandemic in 2020,
and then waves of these variants coming afterwards.
It was just nonsense.
The whole thing was a fraud from beginning to end.
And the other thing is that clinically,
which is a normal way to diagnose these illnesses,
flu and all the rest,
they couldn't justify it because they hadn't got a single symptom,
which was pathognomonic or peculiar for COVID-19.
So what they said was COVID-19, could have been flu,
it could have been pneumonia, it could have been the common cold.
And so I don't know whether that's helped you,
but they said that they were talking about the oxygen measurements,
never seen such low...
Look, they didn't do those oxygen measurements
when they were practicing proper medicine.
That is a recent thing.
Yeah, very interesting.
So I can explain to you...
So you need to understand this if you're running a podcast.
It's very important because it's the way that we can tell the world,
change public opinion about what's happened.
There was no pandemic, they need to understand that.
Otherwise...
And furthermore, I don't think that it's possible for pandemics to occur.
All right, on we go.
Jeremiah, thank you.
Put the link again in the podcast.
I will.
I just wanted to say quickly in response to those comments
that there is sort of ongoing issues
in terms of the clarification of this matter,
because for example, you have medical freedom doctors
who are outstanding, outspoken medical freedom...
They don't understand. I'm sorry, Jeremiah.
We've talked to hundreds of witnesses on this channel.
Right.
And yeah.
But you have to...
I'm not saying they're correct or incorrect.
I'm just saying that people who are very aware of PCR fraud on the one hand,
then saying, well, I treated thousands of COVID patients.
Yeah, absolutely.
It's inconsistent.
PCR fraud?
I absolutely agree with you. It's inconsistent.
And then there's also one other little thing I'd like to add,
which is people, they don't want to get caught in the no virus camp.
And then they say, well, I think there was a novel virus,
but it wasn't as bad as they say.
At which point I say, well, then how do you identify it as novel?
What characterizes a new type of cold?
Why do we say novel virus for this little virus
that wasn't as bad as people say,
but we want to insist that it existed?
Absolutely.
Yeah, absolutely.
And the gain of function stuff that they were putting about,
they only put that about because it played into the narrative
of creating further fear of endless leaks from local labs.
I'm sorry.
Can I just ask you that one little thing to clarify with you,
just so I think that's really fascinating.
Do you think that the gain of function discussion
was to create a paper trail?
And it's not pertaining to a physical virus that we would be concerned about?
So my personal opinion,
I thought as soon as they started to mention that in the Senate and elsewhere,
I thought, oh, here we go.
They're going to use this about the gain of function
to further escalate the fear
in order to strengthen the false narrative.
But also I was talking to people,
so JJ Cooey was telling me that he didn't think
that it was possible for them to do what they were claiming to do
with the gain of function research.
But the point is, whether it's in a lab or whether it's naturally occurring,
you still have to spread it around the world.
And we were taught at medical school,
a deadly virus, if you believe in viruses, kills its host.
In other words, it can't spread.
A weak virus, on the other hand, can spread.
But it doesn't last for a week.
We've got a lot of heads up.
Thank you, Jeremiah.
Thank you.
That's right, Jeremiah.
Ron.
Oh, dear.
Hello, everybody.
I just wanted to introduce Jeremiah.
He's produced 101 interviews,
interviewed all kinds of people.
I've wanted him to come on this platform
so he can share with you guys what he's done the past couple years.
Anyway, just wanted to say hello, Dr. Moore.
I know that you and I, we've communicated, we've DMed.
It's nice to see you in person.
And your attorney is Brian Barnhill, am I correct?
I want to ask you both this question.
The only thing that I have seen
was a social media message from the attorney general.
Has there been something official in writing from the attorney general,
citing some sort of case law,
some sort of federal prosecution,
overreaching something where it could be used by other people,
other physicians in similar situations
or in situations whereby to prove,
well, the feds are not, have dismissed this case.
You can use that somehow as a foundation moving forward.
I'm wondering if there's something in writing
other than the social media post that Bondi issued
when she dismissed the case.
From my perspective, I haven't seen anything.
I know that there was a signed motion in our court
by our federal judge, I believe, Brian, correct?
But anything directly from her, I have not seen anything in writing,
directing our US attorney's office here to do anything.
Do you have anything there for Brian?
Well, the only thing we had was the phone call that Saturday morning
where the three US attorneys were on the phone
indicating that they'd received word from the attorney general,
Penn Bondi, to dismiss the case.
And that's the only thing we got was a phone call.
And then apart from that, the formality of going through the motion to dismiss
and the subsequent order, those are all on the court docket.
So the no citation of nothing, nothing you guys can take with you to use,
that's unfortunate.
Right. And because it's unprecedented, I don't know that there would have...
I'm trying to think in my mind of what they could have provided
if there was a written directive, but given the urgency of it,
or at least the apparent urgency of it since it was in trial,
I think the quickest means to get it communicated was through the phone call.
Do you think it's something that you, the attorney, could ask,
Beji, or would you feel like it would be pushing it at this juncture?
Well, my personal opinion is probably too late.
This is one of those things where they've acted quickly,
they've given the directive.
I'm not opposed to asking for something from her in writing,
but I don't know that she would respond.
I think she's on to other things at this point. That's my speculation.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Ron.
Good questions. All good questions. Laura.
Here she comes.
Hi, Charles.
Laura, I love it to see you. One of our presenters here, Kirk, as you know.
Yes.
Hi, Dr. Moore. Thank you so much, Charles and Stephen,
for having all these wonderful people here.
Dr. Moore, we've texted, and I'm an encourager,
I send you encouraging texts, but when I heard your story,
I had written to you that, you know,
one day people will tell stories about you
and they will tell their kids about you.
And I think there'll be, you know, a book or a movie there should be anyway,
because, you know, this won't be the first time
that I would say the dark side tries such a thing.
And I think what you did was the example,
it had such integrity.
And to me, you are a Schindler, you are an Irina Schindler.
You know, she falsified documents,
had all her arms and legs broken,
and she still saved over 2,500 children like you.
So, anyway, your inspiration,
I don't mean to be emotional, but...
And I wanted to...
I also wanted to tell you, I'm so encouraged
that even after all you've been through,
you still want to crush the gene therapy vaccines,
that you're not curling up in a ball
and afraid of sticking your neck out there again.
And that just fills me with such hope.
And then finally, I do want to plant the seed.
I know, you know, you don't know the...
I'm not... My stuff isn't out there very...
I don't have social media or that kind of thing.
But we've got eight counties that have signed resolutions
in some form against the...
Really, not just the COVID vaccine, but gene therapies as well.
It kind of... And they've demanded forensics investigation,
health audit of Idaho,
and also one county in Washington state.
And it's, you know, basically,
I push from the lesser magistrate level.
And Commissioner Joe Gish just had immense success
in his county up in Nez Perce,
where he has demanded the data,
the death data and the vaccine data in Idaho.
And they are in conversation with our health and welfare.
Now, I just wanted to plant the seed.
If... Sorry about my crazy Jack Russell in the background.
But I'm hoping for a moratorium bill again this year.
We got really close last year.
I want to plant the seed.
You know, if you want to be someone in the testimony for us
in the Senate committee hearing when we get there again, and we will.
And then I'm also trying to collaborate
at least 12 states dropping moratorium or banned bills
in different fashions this year
and just kind of...
Working with my science team, you know, Nick Colcher, Dr. Wiseman,
Dr. Parks, Sasha Laripova, a lot of just amazing people.
They're amazing. I'm just kind of the...
They call me the science cat herder.
So anyway, I just...
You don't have to say yes or anything now,
but I'll just start my persistence
and, you know, bug you a little bit down the road.
So anyway, God bless you.
Well, thank you.
I really appreciate those comments.
Thanks very much.
I'd certainly be more than happy to testify.
I started my practice out in Idaho,
so I kind of have a...
You know, I have a warm feeling
and a nice feeling about Idaho. I like it.
And so I'd be more than happy to help out in any way I can.
And I'm not that far away, so...
No, you're not.
And I'm good friends with Bre.
I'm a volunteer at React 19.
So she's an angel.
Utah's lucky to have her.
Yes, we are.
Okay. Well, thank you, Laura. Appreciate it.
Thank you, sir. Thank you so much.
Well done, Laura, on your herding of scientists.
That's a brilliant line, the herder of scientists.
Love it. Great job.
Thanks, Charles.
Okay. Now, was Jim, were you before Alan
or was it vice versa?
So Alan, be...
Jim, what was your first impression of the city?
I think it was the city of Utah.
Jim, what was it?
All right, Alan, you go and then Jim.
Okay. Thank you.
This has been really interesting.
I am a market research analyst, really scientist,
that has been hypothesizing about what is COVID since 2020
when my boyfriend got it.
And I think he got it from vaccines
that he was encouraged to take
by a kind of Zionist-oriented guy in January.
And as soon as he took this MMR and the other one, a shingles,
he felt weird, you know, and kind of a brain fog.
And then by March, by February,
he got... He had no smell.
He couldn't eat. He lost 40 pounds.
So these are unique symptoms, you know, of COVID.
No, they're not, Alan. But anyway...
Okay. Okay.
But, you know, my hypothesis that I started studying,
you know, they said, I live in Chicago, go home,
you know, put on a mask, don't go out for weeks, you know,
and I just started reading everything I could
and watching all these documentaries about genetics,
you know, the T-shelves...
Okay, so the question is, I'm getting in, you know,
so I've got three points I've wanted to bring,
you know, regarding earlier questions.
One is, what is COVID?
I think it's vaccine-induced AIDS, basically.
I have researched, knowing that it's biological warfare created,
you know, at Fort Detrick, you know, went to Wuhan,
but we know back in 2004, in the 90s,
that the Department of Defense, NIAID...
Question, Alan.
Okay. Okay. These are hypotheses I'm putting out there.
And maybe people could agree.
Okay. Right. Okay.
So does anybody else agree that this could have been biologically developed
warfare, AIDS, back as it was in the 90s?
The other thing is the research.
Does anyone else agree that...
No, it's not anyone else's.
The question should be for Kirk or his lawyer.
Okay. Okay. Kirk and the lawyers.
Then that, you know, one was the CDC
was run by a communications of, you know, propaganda.
It was all... We know the public relations agencies,
which is against the law for public relations agencies to be operating.
Okay. And here's the third one.
Is he aware of the Federalist Society?
And, you know, why are these things at the state level?
For one thing, because it was pushed that way,
but also regarding prosecutorial immunity.
They've given themselves total immunity.
So our problem is that state by state, you know,
if they're sovereign to make these decisions,
prosecutorial immunity is...
You can't prosecute a prosecutor.
That's what they're trying to overturn now with the Ku Klux Klan Act.
And, you know, regarding Jerome Corsi's suggestion,
it sounds like a great idea,
but, you know, it has to be done at the state level,
which is something we are doing at the truthactionproject.org.
Every Tuesday, we are bringing...
One guy came up with... We bring in speakers.
I think he'd be a great speaker.
Okay. Can I please just get this one idea in?
That a guy named Carl Schmitz is putting together
these kind of cases in a way that's going to win.
That's our goal, to focus together, to bring all our thoughts,
to figure out how to address these things as deep state events,
COVID, 9-11, the JFK.
But why, you know, why none of these have been brought to justice?
Because the Justice Department is fraudulent,
but you can't prosecute it,
as well as the CIA.
And it started with Executive Order 12333,
that said that they would not prosecute themselves,
and they never have. That's it. Thank you.
Comments, whatever.
I've heard of a lot of the things that you were talking about, Alan.
I think it's a much bigger question
than what we can address right now.
I think I've said my piece in terms of what I...
What the...
The prosecutorial side of this whole thing,
I didn't feel like it was a federal jurisdiction.
I think it should have been handled at the state level,
and if the state wanted to address this,
they would have had to do it.
If they wanted to address this,
they could have tried to address it this way.
But those other things
regarding going after your prosecutors,
I personally believe that if somebody does something illegal,
and you have evidence of them having done it,
they set themselves up for liability.
They should.
All right. Thank you, Alan.
Alan does some very interesting thinking,
and has some very interesting ideas,
and we don't have time to go through all those ideas,
but certainly very provocative. Thank you, Alan.
Jim is next, and Marv.
Hey, Kirk. Great presentation,
and thanks very much for all you've done
on behalf of every other physician who is in your same situation,
but maybe not as public.
The issue is, it looks like the Department of Defense,
or it looks like maybe Pam Bondi dropped this case,
maybe not because of all the public pressure,
but because of the witnesses that came up
and started talking about safety and efficacy
of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein vaccine
that may be fraudulent.
It is not safe, it is not efficacious,
and the Department of Defense, HHS, know it.
And I believe that that's why,
that may be more of a reason why Pam Bondi dropped the case.
Can you expound on that?
And are you aware of Stephen Hatfield's case
where Stephen Hatfield was falsely prosecuted
as being the guy who released anthrax
when it wasn't Stephen Hatfield,
and he won $5.7 million against the government
for false prosecution?
I have heard of Stephen Hatfield's case.
I do not know the particulars about it.
I probably wouldn't have been able to tell you
that he'd won that much money or what the value was,
but I know that he had turned around and prosecuted them,
or he turned around and accused them
of malicious prosecution and he won.
But as far as, you know, I'd be fully speculating,
we had, we did agree, I think I said this earlier,
we did agree that the prosecution had overstepped
on a couple of occasions with their claims of benefits
of the vaccine and how much, you know,
kind of the COVID vaccine had helped,
you know, cut down on mortality.
And then we brought up a couple of things
and cross-examination on him to get to completely impeach him
where we just gave him the absolute numbers
that were CDC numbers of the total deaths in 2020
versus the total deaths in 2021,
which showed a 12 or 14% increase in deaths,
or 380,000 in 2020 and 460,000 or something like that in 2021.
So that was the limit of where we could essentially go
was to cross-examine him directly on the statements that he made.
And, you know, Brian might be able to kind of more eloquently speak
to how we came to a truce, I guess,
in terms of how this was going.
We raised a stink about the fact that they'd opened the door.
They'd opened the door on their opening statement
and then they opened it again on that, you know,
on the direct examination of Chris Duggar.
And I believe they even kind of crossed the line a little bit
with Gary Disbrow.
They specifically did not bring in the DOD contract
that Gary Disbrow states that he was intimately involved in negotiating.
And there was, you know, I never saw the contract.
They tried to submit a redacted version of it that was denied.
They then gave the attorneys only a license to look at it.
And they decided that even prior to that contract coming to us,
they'd already kind of said, well, we're probably not going to use it,
but now that you've asked for it, we'll give it to you.
And, you know, there were other contracts that they...
I think once you go down that route by doing that,
they were really fearful that there would have been other contracts
that they did not disclose to us, like their McKesson contract
that they had with other...
whether they had a contract with FedEx or not, you know,
and other things that was just going to do that.
Now, I'd had some discussions with my attorneys about that,
that that in and of itself, the fact that they didn't disclose them
was a Brady violation right from the get-go,
because they are required by law to disclose to us
anything and everything that they have
or that could potentially be exculpatory.
And so I think there may have been some of that that was happening,
because I was certainly going to appeal any conviction
that was going to go down that route,
and then that stuff would have been a definite reason
to get that information out there.
So I don't know if Brian wants to speak up on that.
And there's one more thing I'd like you and him to discuss,
and that is the Goodyear versus Hagar case.
Goodyear versus Hagar was about withholding information,
just like you're saying.
The government has to give you
exculpatory information that they have, and they did not.
Up until they turn it over, they have to cover your attorney's fees.
But for attorney's fees, get covered by the prosecutors
who are withholding information.
Goodyear versus Hagar, and I'll send you that.
Okay.
Can your attorney comment on that?
Yeah, Brian, do you want to?
Let me kind of go back to that.
We talked earlier that there was a necessity defense
that we were precluded from bringing.
That really put a bright line in the sand
that any discussion about what happened to anybody
after the vaccine, you couldn't discuss.
And you also couldn't discuss why they were coming to you
for the vaccine card.
The prosecution stepped over that line a couple of times
in their opening statement,
and then Chris Dugger opened the door
for us to bring in some of those questions.
But the judge was very clear.
He wanted it to be very narrow.
And we did agree, ultimately, in one of the bench meetings,
we went out and had an attorney caucus,
that we would provide the jury a limited instruction
that would instruct the jury that they could not consider
the reasons for seeking the vaccine card or something similar.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.
I'm talking about the government specifically
not providing the contracts.
This is contract law issue.
The contracts that DOD has, the contracts that HHS oversees,
the contracts with McKesson, the contracts were withheld.
And I believe that they don't even have the...
I'm not sure, and I don't think they have the right
to allow you to see it without your client seeing it.
I think your client has to be able to see those contracts
in total as well.
Well, if it's deemed to be highly confidential
or it's a sealed exhibit,
then the judge can order that it can be attorney's eyes only.
It does happen, you see it a lot in trade secret or...
You know, someone's gonna gain a competitive edge by keeping...
Espionage.
Yeah, so that was the context.
So...
I think espionage is more likely the real issue here,
and that goes to who created the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
They still go with the, we don't know who did it,
which is the intelligence agencies of Six Eyes.
So I believe this is an espionage contract,
and I believe that because they withheld it,
you have rights for attorney's fees up to that point.
Because of the Goodyear versus Agar case,
I'll send it to you and you can make that decision.
I'll take a look at that.
Great, well, thank you.
And thank you for the good defense that you've provided for Kirk.
Thank you, appreciate that.
Thank you, Jim.
I thought, hey, Gar, the horrible was a cartoon character,
but now I'm realizing he's a defendant in a court case.
Marv.
Hey, Doc.
I want to ask, in a dearth of good news stories,
this is a great one.
I am just so jacked up to hear your story.
I want to ask you what kind of feedback
you've been getting in your social medical group.
And also, Brian, what kind of feedback
are you getting in your legal social group?
Thanks.
I've gotten maybe four or five negative comments
out of the absolutely thousands of positive comments
and voicemails, messages, emails, texts, social media posts.
There's the occasional one that says that we broke the law
or that we did something unethical,
we deserved to go to jail,
we endangered other kids or other people,
we took money, whatever.
But they're far, far and away outnumbered by the thousands.
And I don't even think that it's a percentage number.
It's the number of positive comments,
both now as well as even before.
Before the trial and over the last two and a half years,
in large measure, that's been a real positive thing for us
and has allowed us to kind of keep going,
knowing that we have the public support
and everything else that we've had.
Now, from a professional standpoint,
the answer to that, and I think that Stephen is well aware of this,
I've had zero feedback from anybody
that has not already given me the support.
So anybody who I've lost touch with
or kind of lost a relationship with over this,
none of those people have come out of the woodwork to say,
oh, we're sorry, oh, you did the right thing,
oh, thank you for what you did, everything else.
It's total silence.
And I'll just add from my end,
those who have been negative, they don't know the facts.
They only know the headlines that were printed in your mainstream media.
Those that take the time to actually read and understand
or listen to what we're saying, 100% pats on the back, great job,
glad it ended the way it did, is the right result.
Absolutely.
All right, thank you, Marv. It is wonderful news.
Okay, Ron, last question to you,
and then Stephen, we'll finish with questions and we'll finish on time.
Yeah, I have been in the habit of correcting mainstream media reports
about all things COVID-19 vaccines.
One of the corrections I had wanted to make was the AP story that I saw on...
And they reported that you, Dr. Moore, sold your services.
And I wanted to correct that particular, that AP article,
but it wasn't a byline, it was just the Associated Press.
So I couldn't identify the reporter, which was quite frustrating.
I'm just making a comment, that's all.
Well, that was the original press release as well
that came from the Department of Justice when they first filed this case,
was that we had sold cards, and that was their...
That was the premise, one of the main premises of this fraud case that they brought.
So I appreciate that, Ron.
All right, Stephen, before you get going, I was given this box, everybody.
Look at this, Stephen.
You say, what's this box?
We're sent to be in the mail, and it's called Wakerpedia,
and it's a deck of cards,
all with different facts about the fraud that's been perpetrated on us.
Very interesting, very interesting.
So about the depopulation, a way of sharing information,
misinformation, germ theory et al., Hegelian dialectic, PCR, rat testing.
So it's a doctor who's put all this information together,
Psiops, allopathy, allopathic, plandemic et al.
Stephen, this is your favourite topic on plandemic.
So that's how many words it is, as you can see,
plandemic, and it's very clever.
What does it say for pandemic?
It's pretty small, I don't wear glasses.
So sophisticated, ingeniously planned operation, never isolated,
fake virus, also known as rebranded flu,
fraudulently implemented by allopathy media industry, educational law enforcement.
Two, social experiment commenced March 2020, measuring societal compliance,
i.e. facial coverings, lockdowns, PCR, rat testing, QR coding.
Three, social manipulation, problem, reaction, solution.
You'd love this, Stephen.
In fact, particularly, I'll send this one to you on WhatsApp.
But there's a huge amount of material here.
I'll see what I can do, and I'll share this with people.
But a useful tool. All right.
So to change public opinion, Charles,
we need to concentrate on concise messaging, in my opinion,
and focus on the most important things that we need to convince the public about.
So the first one, I would think, everyone thinks it was a pandemic.
There was no pandemic.
And I get people's attention when I say that now.
I didn't in 2021.
Well, Stephen, we've got to have that debate, all right?
Because on this platform, we've got to have the debate
of people who think you can have a pandemic
and people who think you can't have a pandemic.
We haven't had that yet.
So anyway, Stephen, questions?
Was there AIDS or wasn't there AIDS? Because it's the same thing.
Well, Charles, put the link on there. I want to get a deck of cards.
I want to get the deck.
I shall.
I will. I'll give you the name of the bloke.
So this says on the side here,
for those individuals who have awakened and those still awakening.
I'll get the link.
So Kirk and maybe Brian as well, the Department of Justice said...
So they had the charge, but they also said that you sold cards.
They didn't put that in the charge, but they said that you had sold cards,
and that was a false accusation and it wasn't covered by the charge.
So what were they doing?
Well, I can tell you that their own exhibits that they delivered to us
and their own witnesses confirmed that Dr. Moore and his office
never received a dime.
We have the exhibits showing that there is a voluntary donation,
which was the donation was utilized to educate people
on the true nature of the vaccine, to post some billboards
and provide education and resources.
And it was a third-party company.
It had nothing to do with Dr. Moore. He didn't own any interest in it.
Didn't receive any payments from it.
So their own exhibits disproved that premise.
Yes, but Brian, what I'm trying to say is they're disingenuous and, yeah,
dishonest, in my opinion.
So they're saying they don't put that in the charge,
but they put it in the stuff that goes in the PR, I suppose,
to damage him.
But what's the statutory limitation for libel?
Hold on a minute. I've got a windstorm.
There's a big windstorm. They just kicked up something.
Yeah, I can see it.
Well, you mentioned before the prosecutorial discretion
and some immunity on that. So from the libel standpoint...
Oh, I see. Yes, you couldn't go... Yeah, Department of Justice.
Right. And the reason they put the monetary on there
is because for a felony, there has to be at least $1,000
that was received as a benefit.
And that's why they had to put some monetary statement in there.
Originally, it started out at $98,000, then it went down to $28,000.
By the time we were at trial, they were saying $2,000 plus.
So it just kept whittling down.
So it was disingenuous and dishonest.
It started out at $124,000.
Oh, that's right. It was bigger. Yeah.
Yep.
So the fraud would have looked ridiculous if Kirk had...
Oh, I see. They could still be fraud in their mind,
but it would look worse if he'd received money. Is that correct?
Yeah, that's right. Yes.
So it was disingenuous and dishonest to introduce that when it wasn't true.
That was part of their narrative, right.
But again, they had to prove at least $1,000 for a felony.
So in their initial calculations,
they were assuming all this money went to Dr. Moore when it didn't.
And that was when they first brought the charges.
And as they learned as the process was going,
they kept refining that number downward.
So they must have realized at some point that he'd never received any money.
Not the type they were thinking of.
Right. I think that's one of the weaknesses of their case
that I felt pretty good about.
That at the end of the day, when they heard the testimony and saw the exhibits,
they realized that it wasn't funneling back to Dr. Moore.
And then they were trying to piggyback that saying that he's requiring a donation.
But that wasn't the testimony either.
So that's where I felt good about our case.
So essentially, they were trying to justify false accusations.
Absolutely outrageous.
So Kirk, we're so happy that you've prevailed here.
Amazing victory for you.
My advice to you would be to keep your head and keep humble
and get your health back if it's suffered.
And it must have suffered a bit.
But we're so grateful to you for speaking to us
and giving us an insight into this amazing story that you have.
And I think, as I said before,
I think the fact that you've prevailed in these circumstances
when your wife was taken away from you in 2019 for suicide
and you had two boys look after, two children, sorry,
outrageous that they go for a man who's trying to look after his two children
when he's lost his wife in those tragic circumstances.
I just don't understand why the devils would do it to you.
And they would only have to speak to you, Kirk, for two minutes,
or maybe 10 for them because they're psychopaths,
to understand that you're a really good guy and you're really authentic.
Steven, I appreciate those really kind words. Thank you.
Ultimately, we talked about this earlier. They don't care.
It's all about a notch in their belt. It's all about winning.
And it was not about finding out the truth or serving justice in this case.
It was just all about winning. It was all about a notch in their belt.
And it was all about, you know, the big picture of it to try to put a...
Use me as an example that if you push back against the government,
this is what's going to happen to you. So don't do it.
Yeah. And I had a similar experience as I alluded to on when we spoke,
whistleblowing and five and a half year legal case.
So I know what these bastards are capable of.
Yeah.
Yeah. So thank you so much, Kirk. And I'm glad to see you still standing.
If they don't kill you when they attack you like that,
you're a very dangerous person to them in the future.
So well said, Steven.
And I just want to take issue with what you said, Steven.
You said he's authentic, but in fact, he's made of plastic.
He's a plastic surgeon.
Yeah, he's a plastic surgeon.
Yeah. Not many.
And you've got a beautiful car, Kirk. I won't say what it is,
otherwise you'll have numerous women making suggestions.
All right.
Fantastic car. Great taste.
Thank you.
All right. So thank you, Brian, for being here.
Thank you, Kirk. Thank you, Steven. Thank you, everyone, for the contributions.
Go to Tom Rodman Group. He's put that in the link.
And there won't be an invitation coming. I've sent that to you.
If you haven't read it, don't send me an email saying I haven't got the invitation.
It's Richard Voebs on Tuesday night, who is fantastic.
I must have been a longtime subscriber to him on YouTube.
Very funny man, very insightful. So well done, Steven, for getting him.
I might be able to log in on the call, but I'll be traveling.
So I'll just come in on my phone and we'll see what happens.
Thanks, everyone. Thank you, Brian. Bye for now. Bye, Steven.
Bye bye. Thank you, Charles.
And thank you again, Kirk.
And yeah, you're a magnificent example to people.
Yeah. Thank you.
All right. Thanks, everyone. Bye.
Bye bye.
Save the chat. Remember, I'll send it to you, Brian, as well.