Bill Gates, Truth About Vaccines, & Big Pharma’s Plot to Destroy Doctors Who Question ”The Science”

Moore interprets this public questioning from Trump as a significant twist, suggesting it could open the door for wider scrutiny into the vaccine's performance and the government's role. He emphasizes that Operation Warp Speed was essentially a Department of Defense operation, managed at a high military level, notably by General Perna. Pfizer, Moderna, and other pharmaceutical companies merely labeled and profited from products largely developed under military auspices. However, these companies have enjoyed unparalleled legal immunities and continue to reap billions funded by taxpayer dollars, while the public remains largely uninformed about the actual results or data underpinning the vaccines.

Governmental Control

Dr. Moore outlines a chilling historical context for the COVID vaccine development, tracing its roots back to U.S. biological warfare research programs. He explains how, after biological weapons were federally outlawed and international treaties signed, many scientists who previously worked on bioweapons were absorbed into government-controlled biomedical defense projects. These programs fund "antidotes" that serve dual purposes: ostensibly protecting against foreign bioweapons threats and perpetuating ongoing research, suggesting a shadowy collaboration between defense agencies and pharmaceutical companies.

Moore notes that entities like DARPA, BARDA, and others are deeply embedded in this process, overseeing vaccine operations under military-like secrecy and control. The military's engagement in healthcare development, especially on a vaccine labeled under "Operation Warp Speed," is unusual compared to typical public pharmaceutical development, raising questions about transparency and the true nature of these medical products. This fusion of military and medical-industrial interests complicates the legitimacy and safety assurances of the vaccines.

Early COVID Response

Dr. Moore recounts his own initial experience at the dawn of the COVID pandemic in early 2020. As a practicing plastic surgeon in Utah, he took the threat seriously at first, ceasing surgeries as promised lockdowns and alarmist media reports proliferated worldwide. However, within 48 hours, his clinical and scientific skepticism was piqued by inconsistencies—cases were extremely rare worldwide, definitions of "pandemic" were shifting, and claims circulated of no effective treatment despite COVID resembling flu-like illnesses.

With clinical experience spanning emergency medicine and primary care, Moore drew on his comprehensive background to challenge official narratives of "no treatment." He was surprised by the sweeping prohibition against symptomatic and supportive therapies typical for respiratory illnesses. Instead of turning critically blind to treatment options, he began deeply researching medical literature and quickly found the official stance to be disingenuous, inconsistent with basic microbiology, and rooted in suppression rather than science.

The Censorship of Early Treatment Protocols

A major red flag for Moore was the systematic banning or restriction of effective early treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin worldwide, despite decades of clinical safety data and promising anecdotal results. He shared how pharmacies ran out of hydroxychloroquine prescriptions as he tried to order it for patients and how governments across multiple countries aligned in unison to prohibit these treatments, unusual given how rare such global coordination is without some centralized control.

Moore treated hundreds of patients with anti-parasitic and antiviral protocols, inspired by early pioneers like Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, whose successful intervention videos had briefly entered public consciousness before being suppressed. According to Moore, none of his patients treated early with these protocols died or required hospitalization. He suspected these treatments threatened emergency use authorizations that required "no existing treatment" to justify widespread vaccine deployment, providing a legal motive for their erasure from practice.

The Myth of "Settled Science"

Moore discusses his longstanding skepticism of vaccines, tracing his personal adverse experience with hepatitis B vaccination during medical school, which led him to refuse subsequent vaccines despite no overt coercion at the time. Contrasting that with the unprecedented coercion seen during the COVID vaccine roll-out—including mandated injections for military personnel, healthcare workers, and students—he underscores a shift from voluntary vaccination to a system of punishments, mandates, and social exclusions.

He critiques the vaccine industry for bypassing basic scientific protocols such as long-term safety monitoring and placebo-controlled trials. The rushed COVID vaccines, built on experimental mRNA technology with unknown long-term effects, were rolled out without standard transparency. Contrary to the popular "science is settled" narrative promulgated by public health authorities, Moore insists vaccine science is always evolving and requires data scrutiny and clinical honesty, not blanket mandates or censorship.

Legal Immunity for Vaccine Makers

Central to the discussion is the legal immunity granted to pharmaceutical companies through laws like the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the 2005 PREP Act. Moore notes that these acts shield vaccine manufacturers from liability for injuries or deaths caused by their products in the U.S., a legal protection not afforded to physicians or most other industries. This immunity extends specifically to emergency use authorizations, effectively removing judicial oversight and allowing vaccine companies to operate without accountability.

Moore argues this legal special treatment is morally and constitutionally questionable. Physicians have no blanket immunity and are legally responsible for their actions, yet vaccine manufacturers face nearly no legal repercussions—even though vaccines are not an absolute necessity for survival but a medical choice. This skewed system concentrates power in vaccine companies, enabling profit without transparency or recourse, undermining informed consent and medical ethics.

Informed Consent Erosion

Moore highlights his deep frustration with the breakdown of informed consent during the pandemic. While medical ethics and U.S. law require that patients be fully informed about the risks, benefits, and uncertainties of treatments, the COVID vaccine presented a special case where safety data sheets were "intentionally left blank," information withheld, and alternative opinions censored. Despite these red flags, the public was pressured or coerced into vaccination, while dissenting voices like Moore faced deplatforming, professional ostracism, and legal threats.

He describes how even doctors who wished to inform patients or offer alternative treatments were shut down by social media bans, professional discipline, and government action. This censorship extended to scientific journals and medical societies, which he accuses of complicity, enabled by pharmaceutical funding. Moore sees this as a systemic betrayal of both medical ethics and patients, equating coercion without informed consent to medical malpractice on a massive scale.

Legal Prosecution and Government Harassment

Moore recounts his harrowing personal ordeal after signing up as an official vaccine provider with the Utah Health Department, intending to offer either vaccines or alternatives with full disclosure. Instead, he administered saline injections and provided genuine vaccine cards, a choice that led federal law enforcement agencies—including the FBI, Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and Department of Homeland Security—to raid his office, seize his phone, and launch a multi-year federal indictment charging him with fraud, conspiracy, and counterfeiting.

Despite facing life imprisonment, Moore emphasizes that he never charged patients for these services, explicitly sought informed consent, and had their full knowledge that no vaccine was given. Yet the government framed this as a criminal scheme and employed heavy-handed tactics such as multiple jail stays, restrictions on defense arguments, exclusion of expert and patient testimonies, and harsh prosecutorial decisions. Moore views this as an emblematic case of political weaponization of the justice system against dissenting medical professionals.

The Justice System's Denial of Fair Trial Rights

The trial itself revealed further systemic abuses in Moore's eyes. He was barred from presenting a "necessity defense" that would have allowed him to explain that his alternative treatment protocols were justified by the dangers of the vaccine and failed official policies. The judge limited the defense's ability to call expert witnesses or allow patient testimonials supporting Moore's medical approach, effectively precluding crucial evidence.

Moore also highlights prosecutorial abuses, such as character attacks, misrepresentations of his intent, and the use of informants and sting operations that were later discredited, including one agent caught selling illicit substances. The legal process was designed not to seek truth or justice, but to signal to the medical community that noncompliance with the official vaccine narrative would be ruthlessly punished. The system's inclination to "win at all costs" rather than pursue fairness deeply troubled Moore.

The Role of Key Government Figures

Throughout the ordeal, Moore describes the cold indifference of key legal and political actors, naming federal prosecutors Todd Boutton and Jacob Strain as instrumental in pursuing his case aggressively despite little evidence of personal gain or harm. Even requests for dismissal or intervention by oversight groups like the DOJ's "weaponization workgroup" were rebuffed. Moore also references letters and support from members of Congress like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Senator Mike Lee, whose involvement helped bring public attention and eventually contributed to dismissal of charges.

Nonetheless, Moore laments the absence of meaningful accountability or consequences for the prosecutors and government officials who pushed the case. Key players remain in their positions, perpetuating a system hostile to medical freedom. This experience has left Moore disillusioned with government, the medical establishment, and the political system's ability to uphold justice and liberty.

Reflections on the Medical Profession

Finally, Moore shares a somber reflection on the fractured trust between patients and physicians, noting that his peers have largely embraced pharmaceutical industry narratives or remained silent, while those who question are marginalized. Medical publications and conferences are industry-controlled, and ethical codes demanding physician advocacy against unjust laws are ignored or ineffective. He describes a profession compromised by financial incentives and coercion, posing serious challenges to public health and patient care.

Despite this bleak picture, Moore remains motivated to seek truth and rebuild his practice, though uncertain whether he will continue in clinical medicine. His ordeal exemplifies broader tensions between autonomy, government power, pharmaceutical influence, and medical ethics in the 21st century.