TTAV is experiencing heavy censorship on many social media channels since we’ve been targeted by the mainstream media sellouts, social media bullies, and political turncoats. Be sure to get the TRUTH by subscribing to our email list. It’s free.
California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday signed into law Assembly Bill 2098, legislation that equips the state to punish doctors who spread misinformation during interactions with patients. The bill does not apply to public comments, such as social media or interviews.
Following Newsom’s signature of one of the most controversial pieces of pandemic legislation to date, California doctors will now be subject to discipline and possible suspension of their licenses to practice for giving their patients advice or information that contradicts the “contemporary scientific consensus”.
Newsom said the law applies only to physicians’ speech with patients during discussions directly related to COVID-19 treatment. This is particularly interesting, because it means that doctors cannot be punished for spreading false information regarding other diseases or health complications.
If the intent of the bill is to ensure that patients receive the most accurate information, why limit its scope to only COVID-19? More importantly, is it really right for physicians to be threatened with suspension or revocation of their license for offering nuanced guidance on a complex issue that is hardly settled by existing science?
“Misinformation” is a highly dubious and debatable category. The “scientific consensus” has often expressed views relating to COVID-19 that were later contradicted. Science is a deliberative process, and medical professionals need to be allowed to dissent from mainstream orthodoxies and challenge dominant perspectives. Patients deserve expert care, but it’s unreasonable for the government to compel ideological conformity in this field.
Newsom acknowledged that he is “concerned about the chilling effect other potential laws may have on physicians and surgeons who need to be able to effectively talk to their patients about the risks and benefits of treatments for a disease that appeared in just the last few years.
“However,” he continued, “I am confident that discussing emerging ideas or treatments including the subsequent risks and benefits does not constitute misinformation or disinformation under this bill’s criteria.”
But is that true?
According to the bill: “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.”
That’s painting with a pretty broad brush, to put it mildly. Government officials and public health “experts” have shown no particular aptitude for discerning what constitutes genuine misinformation. On the contrary, government actors have frequently instructed social media companies to be wary of perfectly legitimate points of view.
This happened with the lab leak theory, which was brutally suppressed on social media at the behest of the government, and it happened with the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story, which was wrongly branded “Russian disinformation” by top law enforcement agents and punished accordingly.
Our good friend Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. correctly identified the biggest threat to public health when he said that the law “fundamentally changes the sacred relationship between physician and patient that has existed since Hippocrates.”
“Under the new rubric, the doctor no longer serves the best interest of the patient but acts as an agent of state policy,” he added.
“History is replete with nightmarish examples of what happens when doctors stop healing and act instead to advance ‘the greater good.’ Governments have variously cited that phrase to justify euthanasia of the elderly, mental defectives, homosexuals, and other ‘useless eaters’ and to enforce ‘one-child’ policies.”
It’s also likely that this bill violates the First Amendment. Governments have the power to regulate medical care, but the compelled speech component of AB 2098 would probably perturb the Supreme Court. Even some legal experts who support the bill’s goals concede that it will have a hard time surviving scrutiny.
“Initiatives like this will be challenged in court and will be hard to sustain,” Michelle Mello, a professor of law and health policy at Stanford University, told The New York Times.
Dr. Peter McCullough (who we recently interviewed at our home) also expressed grave concern about the damage this bill could cause to California healthcare:
“As a medical expert treating patients with COVID-19 and vaccine injury syndromes, I anticipate AB 2098 will cause physicians to retract from treating such patients. AB 2098 makes it impossible for healthcare providers to have honest and fully informed conversations about the rapidly evolving pandemic and the health problems it has brought to Californians.
This new law hurts the most vulnerable at a time when they need their physicians to be honest and forthright. California is on a slippery slope of medical totalitarianism.”
We wrote in August about the CDC’s updated COVID guidelines, which now offer the same recommendations for patients regardless of vaccination status. Under California’s new bill, many doctors could have been punished for providing information that is now accepted by the “contemporary scientific consensus.”
Leana Wen, a professor at George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health, former Baltimore health commissioner and author who writes a column for the Washington Post, published an op-ed in early September that summarizes the issue:
“California’s bill is a recipe for medical practice to be subject to the whims of partisan politics. And it challenges the basis of the doctor-patient relationship. At a time of deep division, when trust in health officials has already been eroded, bills that threaten doctors should be reconsidered before unintended consequences create far more problems than the legislation tries to solve.”
We’ll leave you with this:
The bill specifies misinformation about “the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” as grounds for punishment. As of September 23rd, The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has recorded:
- 31, 214 deaths associated with the COVID shots
- 178,971 hospitalizations associated with the COVID shots
- 1,424,789 adverse events associated with the COVID shots
This is not about public health. It’s not about combating “misinformation.” It’s not about saving lives. It’s about restricting doctors to ensure that the official narrative is the only acceptable narrative.
This bill is going to permanently damage the doctor-patient relationship, crippling practitioners and resulting in even more unnecessary loss of life.
Great job, California.
Follow, Subscribe, & SHARE:
1. Telegram: https://t.me/TheTruthAboutCancer_Vaccines
2. GAB: https://gab.com/TyCharleneBollinger
3. GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/cancertruth
4. TruthSocial: https://truthsocial.com/@TheTruthAboutCancer
5. CloutHub: https://app.clouthub.com/#/users/u/TheTruthAboutCancer
6. Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/vX3lcHH4Dvp0/
7. Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheTruthAboutCancerOfficial
8. Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/thetruthaboutcancer
Dubby Rose says
We’re still suffering from the last government foray into our health when they decided that we need to radically change our diet to a high carb one which has resulted in an epidemic of obesity and diabetes and no doubt a number of other disorders. And they’re still forcing their way into our diet with this latest thing that we’re supposed to all survive (but not thrive) on bugs and pesticided gmo vegetables. Didn’t it take 100 years for the medical establishment to come around to the perspective of Semelweis that doctors needed to wash their hands after dissecting corpses and before delivering babies? I guess Semelweis was also a “dangerous disninformer” – until he wasn’t. Do these people ever learn? I’ve been fortunate, never had cancer and I had my 84th birthday 2 days ago. But I had a sister who died of cancer at 63 which is perhaps why I have so much interest in it and have read a number of books about Gerson and Hoxsey and Burzynski and Royal Rife – and Cancer: Step Outside the Box. If I ever got cancer, I would do everything in my power to seek alternative healing and avoid what Rupa Marya rightly calls colonialmedicine. I’ve learned a lot from your webinars, books and website so thank you.
We already know they’ve lost the game.
Their judgment day is fast approaching.
There will be no where to run no where to hide on that great day of reckoning. They can kill the body but they “Can’t Touch Wi Energy!” #AP🎸🎶
Stella Johnson says
“This is not about public health. It’s not about combating “misinformation.” It’s not about saving lives. It’s about restricting doctors to ensure that the official narrative is the only acceptable narrative.”
This statement you made is the most accurate and true statement I have read. It applies to everything that’s related to covid. People ask where is the safety data, where is the testing to prove the safety? These are the people that believe the shot is really a vaccine. They have been lied to for years and experienced the scare tactics for so long that when they hear the truth, they won’t accept it. There is no safety data or safety testing. The shot wasn’t meant to be safe. The only testing was on we the people and it was proven to be extremely dangerous and deadly. Exactly what it was meant to be. It was only called a “vaccine” to get people to take it. I watched the film called The Big Reset Movie. They explained what has been going on. They said the serum from the shot was put under a microscope and what was found were microscopic chips and metals. They said a “vaccine” was not made for a pandemic, a pandemic was made for the “vaccine.” They had to create a pandemic to get the people scared enough so they would take the shot, even if it meant forcing it on us. That explains the mandates. They had to get those chips inside us so desperately. I think the corrupt evil people who sat around the conference table said “we have to do something quick and serious before the truth reaches even more people” and that’s how they came up with that assembly bill, from a communist. They based a law on consensus, not evidence. Consensus is only opinions.
Geno Syd says
Obviously not about stopping disinformation but truly about spreading corporate misinformation sponsored by pharmaceutical companies bribing politicians in order to gag doctors from speaking the truth which is clearly a violation of the first amendment!