In Newsom’s California, Big Brother is getting into the act between doctors and patients on conversations about COVID
Very Soviet of Newsom, and of the California legislature that passed this bill:
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed California Assembly Bill 2098, making it the first state to attempt to censor what physicians can say about COVID-19 to their patients. This is a dangerous, and likely unconstitutional, effort that other states must resist…
The statute instructs that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”
California law requires the Medical Board of California to take action — up to and including license revocation — against any licensed physician charged with unprofessional conduct. But under the First Amendment, content-based speech regulation by government entities is presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that it is narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.
A 2018 Supreme Court case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, held that professional speech — speech by licensed practitioners based on their expert knowledge and judgment — is protected by the First Amendment.
The court, though, did suggest that regulations of professional conduct that incidentally burden speech might be allowed. Speech that is part of the practice of medicine has historically been subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by states.
There is nothing reasonable about this law, and that includes the fact that it is solely about COVID, a disease that is now no more a problem than others such as pneumonia (which also can kill the vulnerable), and about which the science is hardly “settled.”
The Medical Board of California should protest, but my prediction is that, like the good apparatchiks they probably are, there won’t be any objection to this pernicious law.
…[T]he statute clearly has constitutional problems in defining COVID “misinformation.”
The law’s definition is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” This is ridiculously and likely unconstitutionally vague.
As the Supreme Court noted, “Professionals might have a host of good-faith disagreements, both with each other and with the government, on many topics in their respective fields.”
But in California they are not allowed to have a disagreement about COVID – at least, not a disagreement with the state authorities.
When I called this a Soviet type of bill, I was referring not just to the attempt to control people’s communications, but also to the idea that the state can establish a politics-based scientific truth that denies and negates the disagreement that is part of the quest for scientific truth. The Soviets actively squelched science that contradicted certain political messages they wished to get across.
Here’s an overview of that history. Science in the US is rapidly going in that direction.
“The Soviets actively squelched science that contradicted certain political messages they wished to get across….Science in the US is rapidly going in that direction.”
For example:
https://quillette.com/2022/08/28/the-fall-of-nature/
Science in this country is being perverted by our very own brand of Lysenkoism. Christopher Rufo has recently reported on the “oaths of allegiance” to indigenous ways of healing and knowing being mandated at the U of Minnesota, while Tablet posted an alarming piece last month on “Higher Ed’s New Woke Loyalty Oaths”. There exists perhaps not a single institution, organization, or system in our decaying republic which has not been corrupted during “The Great Awokening” of the past several years.
Will there be an exodus of Doc from CA? Probably not, and since they most likely voted Dem, I cannot feel sorry for them.
Now, Newsom is going to get a “windfall tax” on gas, which will push gas prices higher.
I live in CO, now a Blue State. I get told by commentors that we should just move. We are in our mid 70’s, not really possible. I was going to say why don’t more people just move from CA, but I know they might not be able to just as we aren’t.
Car companies should just stop selling cars there though.
CA is going to ban the produce plastic bags you use for veggies, fruit and meat.
I just shake my head at CA, knowing that a lot of the same is coming to CO.
How is this not a Supreme Court case on Freedom of Speech waiting to happen?
Science is what they say it is at any given moment.
It can be wear a mask or take a vax or whatever.
They don’t have to provide evidence or answer questions.
Their statements are to be taken as gospel and you are not to remember what they said yesterday.
Turns out the idea of getting vaccinated to protect Grandma was a lie. A Pfiser executive admitted during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament that at it’s introduction the vaccine had never been tested for prevention of transmission.
With respect to Covid, I recommend this website from the frontline doctors – https://covid19criticalcare.com/ . There are covid protocols based on their research. I’m still taking most of their recommendations on prevention since it still makes sense to maintain good health.
Also, consider finding a direct patient care physician – you agree to pay them a monthly fee. My doctor charges me $67/month and no insurance is billed, including Medicare. She’ll see me as needed, and is always available via email, phone, etc. She has a small pharmacy at a reduced cost and she has a contract with a local lab where they bill her and she charges us at the cost.
If you have a problem with this, consider the hassle of dealing with a physician who has a large practice or is part of a university practice. The doc was part of an university-based practice and she used to have her head in the computer, filling out all the boxes. Now, we talk. First, we deal with the immediate medical issues and then just about life and how I am doing. I see her for about an hour vs the 15 minutes with previous doctors. I can always see other doctors and specialists and pay via Medicare.
I keep my own set of medical records (visit info, lab results and other info). I get a trend report on my labs which I send to my doctor since it is not available to physicians. They only get the current results and my doctor had to look through my records to determine trends. I learned to keep my own records when I took care of my mom – I carried around her big book and it helped since she didn’t have to have tests repeated. When I offered the book to a cardiologist, he looked at it and asked if I was an accountant (guilty) or a librarian (my sister). But he kept it for the weekend and made his recommendation re surgery without additional tests.
Get a good book about advanced first aid and keep a good stock of health care products. I get one script – 90 day supply. But, Walmart will let you reorder at day 72, so I actually have a small stash in case of bad weather, supply issues, etc. I am currently checking my basic supplies so that I don’t have to worry during bad winter weather. I dealt with the panicked mob at the grocery store only one time and then changed my shopping process to do a supply check every six months.
Liz,
That’s amazing. Good for you!
Anyone who thinks Governor Newsom has the well-being of the citizens of California (and the United States) in mind is delusional.
Excellent advice Liz. We engaged a concierge doctor for my husband but at a far higher price. Peace of mind for now. It is our goal to be as healthy as possible, minimizing as best we can the need for medical therapeutics. At the end of last year, I stopped coloring my hair and using any kind of nail polish. As of August 2019 I had already gone through our cabinets tossing out any hygiene products that source from China or Mexico. Sadly when it comes to presciption drugs, this is not possible.
Robert Sendler:
Initially the COVID vaccines did significantly reduce transmission of the original varieties. It was really with Omicron that transmission went up despite vaccines, but Omicron was less likely to be lethal. The fact that the vaccines were not as good as originally thought or promised or promoted does not mean they were worthless.
“Turns out the idea of getting vaccinated to protect Grandma was a lie. A Pfiser executive admitted during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament that at it’s introduction the vaccine had never been tested for prevention of transmission.”
This was already known explicitly as of October 2020, when the BMJ interviewed a Chief Medical Officer of Moderna and posted a synopsis chart of the trial information for each vaccine that paved the way for the EUA. Early on I posted the article at this site twice. I have carried around the chart that I enlarged and highlighted in my purse since January 2021. Clearly revealed was that the excluded populations from the trial were “children & adolescents”, “the immunocompromised” and “pregnant and breastfeeding women”. The endpoints of the study clearly state that the only determination was that the vaccines would “prevent symptomatic disease in the recipient”, something we discovered early on was also a NO! The other clearly stated across the board “NO’s” were “reduction in severe Covid-19 (hospital admission, ICU or death” AND “interruption of transmission person to person spread)”. Oh and the cherry on top is that once EUA was authorized, the Control Group was allowed to get the vaccine, though this study completes in 2023. A complete scientific joke!!!
Here’s the article with the chart.
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
contemporary scientific consensus
This is not a standard. It is a moving target. First of all, consensus of who? Scientific? Who are they? Contemporary to whom? How many are they? What percentage determines consensus? How can you determine consensus if opposition to it is deemed unethical?
It is sad that a legislative entity writes laws like this. A reminder, the former Senator from California now VPOTUS once believed the COVID vaccine was too dangerous to take simply because it was developed while Trump was President.
Also, another +1 to Liz above. I remember asking to pay my PCP directly to get an earlier physical than my employer insurance would allow. Her office staff said it was impossible, and I told them to ask the doctor if she really wouldn’t take cash payment? Of course, she would be happy to be paid directly.
Liz,
Upon what basis do you imagine that California’s political leadership will long allow direct patient care physicians to spread what the State deems disinformation/misiformation?
Sharon W,
“Anyone who thinks Governor Newsom has the well-being of the citizens of California (and the United States) in mind is delusional.”
I agree, which begs the question; should delusional people have the right to vote? When once those delusional were a tiny minority, they could not substantively affect the country. Now with nearly half the country leading/forcing the country down a path to destruction, the issue has become an existential threat to our nation’s survival.
Alan Colbo (6:41 pm) asks, “How is this not a Supreme Court case on Freedom of Speech waiting to happen?”
I shudder to contemplate what the political composition of the Supreme Court might be (and/or how many justices there will be), by the time the Supreme Court hears the case — IF it might deign to hear the case.
[And welcome to neo-posting, Alan Colbo!]
@ Martin > “Science is what they say it is at any given moment.”
@ Leland > ” First of all, consensus of who? Scientific? Who are they? Contemporary to whom? How many are they? What percentage determines consensus? How can you determine consensus if opposition to it is deemed unethical?”
Neo didn’t quote this part of the RedState article (by Dr. Joel Zinberg):
IOW, the statute is following the precedent set by the Wokerati in all fields where they have control, as we have seen especially in the Social Media cancellations, then extending to PayPal and other financial operators.
@ Neo > “The Soviets actively squelched science that contradicted certain political messages they wished to get across.
Here’s an overview of that history. Science in the US is rapidly going in that direction.”
I think we are already there, and Mr. Science Himself has led the way.
The only way you can have a society with “rule of law, not man” is if the law actually HAS rules that can be followed.
If some “man” gets to interpret the legislative provisions on the fly — and after you’ve acted — then that is rule by man, not law.
This is the same reason PayPal’s “at our sole discretion” clause was so obnoxious and threatening.
We need some movement in the medical field analogous to this in the legal domain. Perhaps some major hospital system taking a stand for their rights and privileges might do it.
They could even nail 95 Theses to some door somewhere.
https://nypost.com/2022/10/10/two-trump-appointed-judges-say-they-will-not-hire-law-clerks-from-yale/
“It is unfair, and likely violates due process, to ask practitioners to risk their licenses without telling them who or what will judge their speech.” Dr. Joel Zinberg
That uncertainty is intentional. Not knowing who will judge their speech and, upon what criteria that judgement will be based, prevents evaluating the validity of the criteria. That cuts the ground out from under any opposition.
Dr. “I am the Science” Fauci has “followed the Science” all the way to the bank.
(Not a bad gig…if you can get it.)
Millions died and tens of millions of others (if not more) were destroyed…
…but Muh Bank Account(s)…(and Much Ego(!))
Yep, follow the Science…
“The fact that the vaccines were not as good as originally thought or promised or promoted does not mean they were worthless.”
True enough….
BUT:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/09/04/heres-how-the-covid-pandemic-prioritized-big-pharma-profits-over-saving-lives-n1626819
https://blazingcatfur.ca/2022/08/26/the-global-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin-the-fix-at-the-who-part-1/
https://www.theepochtimes.com/was-ivermectin-unfairly-torpedoed-as-treatment-for-covid-19_4394927.html
(And that’s just Ivermectin…)
The “problem” (“issue”?) is, Dr. “I AM the Science” Fauci has “followed the Science” all the way to the bank.
(Not a bad gig…if you can get it.)
Millions died and tens of millions of others (if not more) had their lives damaged or destroyed…
…but Muh Bank Account(s)…(and Much Ego(!))
Yep, follow the Science…
Related:
‘CDC Quietly Ending Daily COVID-19 Reports;
‘Ostensibly, the shift is “allow for additional reporting flexibility.” However, the move is likely to be based more on political science than medical science.’—
“https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/10/cdc-quietly-ending-daily-covid-19-reports/”
H/T Instapundit:
https://instapundit.com/547544/
Yep, EVERYTHING is political for these Bastards(TM)…—sorry, make that for”…additional reporting flexibility…” (AKA lying, heh, heh… though why they believe that have to actually use such a grandiose excuse now is pretty telling!)
Yep, everything’s political, INCLUDING:
“Democrats cram unrelated policies into defense bill;
“Lawmakers using must-pass military spending legislation to push agenda items that don’t keep the country safe, critics argue.”—
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/democrats-cram-unrelated-policies-defense-bill
This is just how these Bastards(TM) work….
neo responds to Robert Sendler:
“Initially the COVID vaccines did significantly reduce transmission of the original varieties.”
I’m not sure I believe this but let’s grant it.
The EU MEP makes these claims though:
1) The vaccines were NOT tested to see if transmission was prevented. (Confirmed to him in testimony by a Pfizer exec).
2) The vaccines were sold to political leaders and public as reducing transmission.
3) All the coercive policies (job loss, vilification, limits on travel, …) were sold on the basis that being vaxxed would reduce transmission.
Item 1 means items 2 and 3 were lies.
This makes Robert Sendler’s comment valid, I think. People were vaxxed to “save Grandma” (stop transmission) but there was no proof that would happen.
“The fact that the vaccines were not as good as originally thought or promised or promoted does not mean they were worthless.”
Worthless would be a vast improvement over the reality of these injections.
They actually suppress innate and cellular immunity–which is why now it is the most injected who are most likely to get infected, to get hospitalized, and to die.
They also allow for higher viral loads to be carried for longer, with less symptoms–turning people into incubators and transmitters.
There is that myocarditis, clot, stroke and neurologcal injury stuff too.
Don’t kid yourself that they were of any meaningful benefit to you–the “less sick”–one less day of symptoms. That is what they do. What does that matter, in light of the devastation they cause?
(And if your doctor is telling you that–I would find myself a new doctor, because yours is not very well read, lacks essential critical thinking skills, a corporate shill, or will lie to you. 90% of primary care physicians are employed, not in practice for themself or in a physician partnership.)
I was going to say why don’t more people just move from CA, but I know they might not be able to just as we aren’t.
We left 6 years ago. I was 79 at the time. My wife was 71. Our kids were unhappy and I miss seeing the grandchildren as much but those people are just crazy. We drive over every few months to see the kids.
This virus thing has been 100% political since the start. I am not usually a conspiracy theorist but there is a lot that I cannot explain. I still have my CA license but I have long been retired.
I have hopes that AZ will go more red in November.
Neo,
The assertion that the jabs were effective is based entirely on fraudulent statistics. That was demonstrated by a number of people quite a while back.
More importantly, it was well-known that the jabs would reduce the ability of the immune system to adapt to new strains and there are ALWAYS new strains evolving. Even if the jabs had been effective at first, their use was obviously a brain dead stupid move. And that doesn’t take into account the horrific side effects.
The healthcare establishment lied about every single aspect of Covid. Every. Single. One.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” — Richard Feynman, America’s greatest physicist.
It’s also the belief in the ignorance, incompetence and corruption of politicians, bureaucrats and news media.
https://pjmedia.com/blog/catherinesalgado/2022/10/11/pfizer-executive-no-haha-we-didnt-test-if-covid-vaccine-stopped-transmission-of-virus-n1636295
“Pfizer executive Janine Small admitted to the European Parliament with a laugh that the company did not test if its COVID-19 vaccine stopped transmission of the virus before the vaccine was put on the market. Apparently knowing whether a vaccine works isn’t important before forcing everyone to get it?”
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-dam-is-about-to-break-on-the-covid-shots/
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/part-1-the-ugly-corrupt-lie-of-the-experimental-covid-jab/
California’s citizens are a mystery to me. Literally every policy they’ve put in place has been disastrous for everyone with the exception of a handful of smug, often overeducated second generation moderately wealthy or people who want to value signal that they are in that group. At every level the state is a failure.
The windfall profits tax and the medical disinformation law may be the two stupidest ideas since, I don’t know. forever?
Windfall profit was tried in the 70’s and resulted in rationing of gas. Medical disinformation certainly worked well in the Middle Ages when the medical community (the Church) decided to enforce scientific consensus with the Inquisition.
It would be laughable if I did not know there was support for this at the national level as well.
There is a considerable difference between reduction and prevention which it would be well to recall.
“Reduce” = make phenomenon X occur less often than before, but not to zero occurrences.
“Prevent” = make X go to zero occurrences.
Thus, to your point, JimNorCal, your point 1 does not actually contradict points 2 and 3.
As to this video coming from the Dutch MEP, it is interesting and I am glad that he posed that question; I am also glad that Ms. Small did actually give a relatively straight answer – she still couldn’t help trying to justify it editorially, but at least the kernel of the point was addressed.
But I think Mr. Roos may be reading a bit too much into the reply. It’s possible that Pfizer, Moderna, etc. (granted, the video is really only pertinent to the first of those) may not have had time to really dig into the question of transmission prevention as such, and if they had, then maybe they would have found that transmission prevention was not occurring, even though transmission reduction still could be in play. I’m not up to speed on what exactly was tested by them in-house, but there are these and other factors that are worth considering distinctly.
One pertinent question, which shows how nastily all this stuff can be entangled in a mess of yarn, is whether the overselling of the “vaccines” (which are really pre-emptive therapeutics, if anything), in the sense of supposing that they would prevent transmission, came from the Pfizer people as they talked to the government, or was the bureaucrats’ wishful interpretation of what Pfizer actually told them.
That bit about the “speed of science” – really? She actually allowed herself to vomit up a milquetoast marketing slogan in a legislative hearing? That offends me more than did the substance of her answer, frankly.
“…with a laugh…”
Well at least she has a sense of humor…realizing full well that the name of the game is tweaking those definitions. (The CDC caught on pretty quickly to that one—so fast, in fact, that it could make a grown CDC Director weep….)
Not happy with the definition of vaccine? Just change it.
Not happy with the definition of transmission? Just alter it.
Not happy with the definition of immunity? Just redefine it.
Not happy with the definition of lying? Just tweak it.
For the good of the planet!
She even, according to said article, coined an absolutely brilliant, scintillating, gleaming, shiny brand new expression (at least for me): “the speed of science”!!! Read…and savor it:
‘…Small then attempted to justify Pfizer’s actions. “These, um, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.”…’
“…to really understand what is taking place in the market…”
Oh yes, most certainly, positively…NOBLE!
O! What glorious pablum!!
Giving Kamala a run for her money, she is!
(And that’s no small feat….)
I have no particular criticism of the vaccine and the rush to develop it. My wife and I had the Moderna jabs. However, my conservative son did not have the jab and he has created vaccine cards for his kids. He had Omicron around Christmas and I think my wife and I had it soon after. There is no valid medical reason to give this experimental drug to kids. My 18 year old grandson is an athlete and I would have written a letter if it had ever come up. I have another, leftist son who is a trial lawyer and his two kids are fulled vaxxed and boostered. It might almost be a trial experiment but I won’t be around to see if the vaxx affects one group and not the other.
I also have an adult daughter who has a three year old daughter and I think I have convinced her to avoid the vaxx for her daughter. She is also thinking of home schooling. She was a Bernie supporter but motherhood has changed her life.
Neither my wife nor I have had any boosters, to the disgust of our Democrat internist.
Sooner or later what the Florida Surgeon General and a couple studies one in Israel will come out that the Fake Vax is killing many and giving thousands serious health issues.
The law suits will start some day, California will be in them.
Lawsuit already filed
https://cnsnews.com/article/national/micky-wootten/doctors-file-lawsuit-against-californias-covid-19-misinformation-law
Any medical professionals in CA should head for the nearest sane state ASAP! Run, don’t walk.
stan: “More importantly, it was well-known that the jabs would reduce the ability of the immune system to adapt to new strains and there are ALWAYS new strains evolving.”
I guess there’s a reason why we’ve never gotten a cure for the common cold … and why shots for normal flu are so hit and miss …
Mike K: “We left 6 years ago”
We have (an estimated) 2 years to go LOL. We figure it will take that much time to get our last kid, a high school senior, safely launched and settled.
Great weather, memories, wonderfully variable landscape but … homelessness expanding and the Woke insisting we adjust to them rather than the other way round. Crime off the charts and too many local officials sympathetic to the criminals. Schools teach BS political correctness instead of math/science/English.
There’s a vast group of influential people who live in places where they don’t feel the pain of the policies they advocate. So they keep voting Dem. Also, our Repubs are way more active in fighting Deplorables than Wokesters.
Regarding the bill, I just tried taking a look at the Calif. Business and Professions Code on FindLaw. The search function is not up to modern standard, it seems, and it’s a gigantic piece of legislation with all these hundreds and hundreds of sections. (This new Section 2270, for example, that Neo is talking about is going to become just one little piece of the middle of just one of the huge chapters of the thing. It would probably take me a week just to read the whole statute.)
I was just now trying to find how many other times, if any, the word ‘consensus’ occurs in the code and it seems that it does not, though I’m not sure if the search function is really telling me the whole truth. I was using this search page. If somebody knows of a better way, I’m all ears. But anyway, if the results I got are accurate, then this new bill will be the only instance, in California law at least, of a law appealing to “contemporary scientific consensus” in order to justify formal disciplinary action pertaining to professional licensure.
As others here have pointed out, obviously the “contemporary scientific consensus” is mutable, to say the least. It is curious to me that only on this pretty narrow topic did the Legislature see fit to make this a requirement. Why not on other medical or disease-related matters as well? Why not sanction ‘misinformation’ about, say, organ transplants or off-label cholesterol medications? Or about other vaccines, real ones that are well established? Why, indeed, when it had ample opportunity to broaden this Section 2270 to include anything and everything else touched upon in that chapter of the BPC, did the Legislature target only this very specific subject? The more I think about it, the more troubled I become.
What will it be next – will the legislature move to, by force of law, strip professors of tenure if they disagree with some aspect of climate change? The mind reels at what could eventuate if this is allowed to stand.
Pingback:Head–Heart–Stomach – Chicago Boyz
Pingback:Vectors of Societal Destruction – and the Growing Pushback Against Them – Chicago Boyz