I'll be speaking out for doctors in Sacramento, CA at the Capitol today
Event starts at noon and I'll be speaking around 1pm. 1315 10th Street.
Here’s the flier for the event:
The bill, AB 2098, is unconstitutional because it punishes doctors for saying anything that goes against the mainstream consensus.
From the bill:
(4) “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.
So, for example, any doctor who tells you masks do nothing to protect you from COVID, could have their license to practice medicine revoked which means they’ll be looking for a job. Or if they tell you that the data shows that the COVID vaccines don’t reduce hospitalization or death, they can kiss their license goodbye.
The bill start by noting that In House Resolution No. 74 of the 2021–22 Regular Session, the California State Assembly declared health misinformation to be a public health crisis, and urged the State of California to commit to appropriately combating health misinformation and curbing the spread of falsehoods that threaten the health and safety of Californians.
The correct approach to stopping misinformation is for the parties to meet and resolve their scientific differences. We should not be silencing those we disagree with.
UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad said as much in an op-ed 2 years ago entitled “Scientists who express different views on Covid-19 should be heard, not demonized.”
I wrote about his op-ed 2 months ago:
What’s interesting is that when I ask medical professionals whether they agree or disagree with Vinay, they refuse to answer my question.
Consider this paper: COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities. It was written by top doctors at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and UCSF. Should they all be investigated for misinformation? Clearly, the People of California think so!
Let me be clear…
There is no scientific study published in any peer-reviewed journal showing censorship results in superior medical outcomes.
Scientific differences are best resolved by the parties communicating, rather than allowing the majority to silence the minority.
Why doesn’t California pass a law requiring public health officials to participate in open public debates on a regular basis with doctors who disagree with them? Now that would be a law I could get behind.
See you in Sacramento.
We're all behind you, Steve!
Here is the clickable link, everyone: https://delawaremfa.org/
Good luck.
I just had an online spat with a doctor (who I happen to like a lot), but who is still toeing the line re vax. He just had someone close to him die from a heart attack, but he considers it an "isolated incident," so I told him that in 21, 22, more people have died from such isolated incidents than died from coronavirus in 20. He wanted a peer reviewed study. So I changed his name to Anthony, and I told him that if someone told him there was a cliff straight ahead, he would keep driving, claiming it was not scientifically documented, even while he was going off the dliff. And that he would argue with St. Peter that he needed a peer reviewed study before he would accept that he was in fact dead.
Somehow we have gotten to the stage of rejecting facts as if they were opinions.