California Judge Halts Implementation of Law Censoring Doctors (AB2098)
re: ethics in medicine
re: follow the money
See the full legal brief:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: TRACY HØEG, M.D., Ph.D.; RAM DURISETI, M.D., Ph.D.; AARON 13 KHERIATY, M.D.; PETE MAZOLEWSKI, M.D.; and AZADEH 14 KHATIBI, M.D., M.S., M.P.H., v GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California, in his 18 official capacity....
See also the Aarron Kheriaty twitter page
See also: Growing Number of Doctors Say They Won’t Get COVID-19 Booster Shots
See also: UN Initiative Targets and Doxes Doctors and Nurses Who Don’t Follow COVID-19 Narrative
California Judge Grants Injunction to NCLA Clients, Halts Implementation of Law Censoring Doctors
2023-01-25. Emphasis added.
...The controversial state law empowered the Medical Board of California to discipline physicians who “disseminate” information regarding Covid-19 that departs from the “contemporary scientific consensus.”.
Judge Shubb stated that “the ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ lacks an established meaning within the medical community,” and thus, because the “scientific consensus” is so ill-defined and vague, the physician plaintiffs in the lawsuit are “unable to determine if their intended conduct contradicts the scientific consensus, and accordingly ‘what is prohibited by the law.’”
WIND: non-objective law is pure evil. That’s what AB2098 is—wholly non-objective. Well, that’s how many or our laws are today, but I digress.
The politicians of the state of California do not respect constitutional rights except in support of their own ideology—extreme intolerance. Every year, dozens of constitutionally dubious bills are signed by the governor. But 40+ years of government indoctrination camps ("public schools") ensure that people keep voting for those who abhor the Constitution.
Anon MD writes:
The decision is an entertaining read, with gems like “Dr. Verma cites to numerous examples of contrary guidance provided by the CDC on the issues of masking and vaccination.”
And ‘Expert declarant Dr. Verma also explains that the term “scientific consensus,” as it has come to be used during the pandemic, often refers to the pronouncements of public health.’
WIND: such laws are far more worrisome than most realize, so it is crucial that this law be struck down. Because once a precedent is set, it means that the Big Food to Big Pharma assembly line death recipe could be be cemented into the legal system via similar bills on all manner of health matters (think heart disease, diabetes, dietary recommendations, etc). At least today, you can (with some effort) seek out a doctor willing and able to think for him/herself meaning one not working as an employee.
However, the problem might just go underground in a much nastier way:
Doctors Are Being Silenced by State Medical Boards: Richard Jaffe
Jonathan Turley: Court Enjoins California’s Bar on Doctors Giving “False Information” on Covid
2023-01-25. Emphasis added.
With the recent passage of AB 2098, California took a highly controversial step in barring doctors from offering “false information” on Covid-19 and related subjects. The law is an extension of Democratic efforts to block or censor “misinformation” and “disinformation” in society from social media to medicine. However, this effort involves direct government action. As will come as little surprise to many on this blog, I opposed the measure as unconstitutionally vague and a threat to free speech. Nevertheless, Judge Fred Slaughter (C.D. Cal.) in McDonald v. Lawson held that this statute was likely constitutional and rejected a motion for a preliminary injunction. Now, however Judge William Shubb (E.D. Cal.) has reached the opposite conclusion in Hoeg v. Newsom, granting an injunction.
The law bars doctors from providing “treatment or advice” “to a patient” “related to COVID-19” when that treatment or advice includes (1) “false information” (2) “that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus” (3) “contrary to the standard of care.” If a doctor goes against this ill-defined “consensus,” the doctor is guilty of “unprofessional conduct” and can face disciplinary action.
The law was enacted despite the fact that many doctors who questioned aspects of Covid treatment (and were attacked for their views) have been largely vindicated. Among the suspended from social media were the doctors who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdowns as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.
As the prior “consensus” over the efficacy of masks or other Covid measures was being placed in greater doubt, California moved to make future dissenters even less likely by threatening their licenses. While the law only limits comments to patients, it sends a chilling message to physicians to toe the line on Covid statements.
WIND: there is no way this law is going to stand. But I’d bet that medical boards will take up the slack to harrass and intimidate doctors.