What logical fallacies are in this depopulation by vaccination argument?

P1: There is a globalist conspiracy to depopulate the earth with covid vaccines. 

P2: 100s of Dr's say the vaccines are dangerous, kill people, and are causing the outbreak. 

P3: None of these Dr's have been sued by the vaccine manufactures for speaking out against them. 

P4: You cant sue the truth, thats why they try and censor the Drs instead. 

C: Therefore, there is a conspiracy to depopulate the earth with vaccines. 

Argument from silence. 

Just because the outspoken doctors are not being sued, it doesn't mean that other doctors or pharma companies don't believe they're wrong. After all, we can assume they do not believe the vaccines are dangerous because they administer and reccomend them to the public.But given their silence in the legal realm against the antvax drs, it's assumed they all think there actually is a conspiracy. 

On a side note, the logic of this argument is flawed. If the powers that be wanted to wipe out the population they could have done that by just letting COVID spread and pretend that they have no idea how to cure it. It's always assumed that the prime motovation of the powers that be is money, so it doesn't make sense that they would take money out of their own pockets to pay for everyone to get a vaccine when COVID spreads for free.

I've also heard it argued that the virus itself was manufactured by the powers that be. If that's the case, there really isn't a need for the vaccine as they could have achieved everything they wanted from the virus in the first place. Why make the vaccine at all?

What's the fallacy called, where the premise is the same as the conclusion? I think that alone wrecks the structure of the argument.

General comments, to try to show how the argument is poor :

P1 : a bit nonsensical, as a plan to depopulate the earth would be better done by a virus, rather than a vaccination against the virus 

P2 : More doctors say the opposite

P3 : This is of no consequence and is irrelevant

P4 : Unsupported opinion

C: Non Sequitur

First off, this is circular reasoning, because the first premise directly implies the conclusion (it looks more like a statement of what you want to prove rather than a premise).

The second premise appeals to an anonymous authority, because it appeals to “100s of Dr’s”, without specifying or giving an example. I’d also say it commits the fallacy of cherry picking, as it ignores a lot of contradictory evidence.

The third and fourth “premises” seem to be a (unsupported) preemptive counterargument to why the doctors haven’t been sued, but it’s not very clear.