On Thursday, a bill that could result in revocation of medical licenses for healthcare providers who spread “misinformation or disinformation” regarding COVID-19 received approval from the California State Assembly by a vote of 53 to 20.
This means the state Senate will now consider the bill.
The publicity of COVID-19 misinformation is considered “unprofessional conduct” under California Assembly Bill 2098, introduced by Democratic Assemblyman Evan Low.
This “unprofessional conduct” can result in disciplinary action being taken by the Medical Council of California and the Osteopathic Medical Panel of California.
The #California Legislature is poised to pass a “medical misinformation bill.”
If passed, the new law would prohibit doctors from freely providing medical advice and treating their patients if those practices run counter to the state's official position. https://t.co/bEFBww1JtC
— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) May 27, 2022
The bill references an assertion from the Board of Directors of the Federation of State Medical Boards that was issued in July 2021.
In that statement, the Board of Directors notified physicians that if they spread “incorrect COVID vaccine” information, they risk having their licenses revoked.
This assertion would be codified into California law, thanks to AB-2098.
If you see this Thursday AM, please make final calls against bad bills on the Assembly floor! Tell your own assemblymember (https://t.co/YC3J3bzsaG), "Oppose AB 2098 punishing good doctors, AB 1797 violating medical privacy, and AB 2223 still functionally permits infanticide." pic.twitter.com/mLDu3FQ1RP
— SaveCalifornia.com (@savecalifornia) May 26, 2022
The law effectively raised itself and the media above health personnel with years of practice, specialized knowledge, and education. They didn’t even bother to specify which news outlets they were elevating to that position.
It would appear a journalist with no training in medicine who simply repeats what government agencies declare to be the truth is more trustworthy than dissenting scientific papers that peers vetted in the field.
The measure would make it possible to file a charge of professional misconduct for spreading false information on “treatment and prevention.”
It is possible the licenses of medical practitioners who challenge the legitimacy of the review process used by the FDA, as well as the removal of efficient, cost-effective medications from hospital COVID-19 procedures, could be at risk.
When it comes to vaccinations, what about “misinformation”?
Would the researchers who had a paper looking at negative impacts of vaccine requirements published and who holds doctorates from prestigious colleges like Johns Hopkins and Harvard be held responsible?
“Misinformation” is defined as “false information that is opposed by current settled science to the point that its transmission constitutes gross carelessness by the licensee,” as stated in Section 2b.
The term “government-approved” can also be referred to as “consensus.”
It is expected the Medical Board of California will be responsible for determining what constitutes a consensus. Evidently, only a select group of knowledgeable individuals are allowed to weigh in.
As the previous few years ought to have taught us, making premature assertions of consensus demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the role that scientific inquiry plays and ultimately results in poor policy.
Science is not stationary.
It is contingent on the unrestricted flow of information, as well as the capacity to evaluate alternative theories. It is impossible for governmental bodies to impose their will on the scientific community without impeding its advancement.
We have to be on alert against the growing desire of government to step in and impose so-called truth under the guise of science to capture power; we need to do this as soon as possible.