California's "misinformation bill" is now in effect, signed by Gov. Newsom in September. Assembly Bill 2098 authorizes the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California to "designate the dissemination of misinformation of disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus as unprofessional conduct." Despite growing evidence to the contrary, the bill also fails to recognize the mRNA shots as even minimally harmful or life-threatening. In fact, the misinformation bill quotes CDC data showing that "unvaccinated individuals are at a risk of dying from COVID-19 that is 11 times greater than those who are fully vaccinated." You would have to twist yourself into a pretzel to believe that statement at this point. A growing body of evidence simply does not support that belief. Keep in mind Florida State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo has already recommended against the administration of mRNA shots for males ages 18-39.
The misinformation bill goes hard on vaccine disinformation and misinformation, stating it has "weakened public confidence and placed lives at serious risk." As a result of "dangerous" information from physicians who "engage in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation," the bill advocates for the removal of their medical licenses if they continue to spread unapproved information. "Physicians," the bill continues, "have a duty to provide their patients with accurate, science-based information." It is a "public health crisis" to have physicians practicing in ways they have freely practiced in the past. In my opinion, it is absurd to punish doctors for what amounts to educated and practiced clinical judgment, especially in light of where we are with the data found on the CDC's own website.
Many physicians are concerned about the bill's implications on health practitioners in the state. Two physicians represented by the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Medical Board of California and the Attorney General of California. Mark McDonald, MD, a Los Angeles psychiatrist, and Jeff Barke, MD, an Orange County primary care physician, also filed "papers seeking a preliminary injunction to protect their free speech rights as the case unfolds." Some attorneys believe the bill is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment. Barke says the bill is tyrannical, and a "giant gag order to physicians," and many will simply move out of state—a state that is already experiencing a "shortage of primary care doctors."
Dr. McCullough, who has been a fervent supporter of medical freedom and informed consent throughout much of the pandemic, believes the doctors are doing the right thing.
In an interview with KUSI News in early October, Dr. Barke quoted the bill's language, concluding it sets a precedent for the country and is "unAmerican and totalitarianism." He believes the bill will "ultimately be defeated." Barke also says AB2098 amounts to nothing more than a dangerous precedent for the censorship of doctors.
AB2098, he states, "says misinformation means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus, contrary to the standard of care. So scientific consensus is what this bill talks about. You know, the reality is there's no such thing as scientific consensus. Unless, of course, you censor all the doctors that disagree with the government, which is exactly what they're trying to do. Science is the opposite of consensus. It's challenging consensus."
If it is consensus that our government has been striving for, then it has done a pisspoor job. Those who have been objectively following governmental policy on the pandemic understand that COVID-19 has ushered in an unprecedented era of shifting goalposts that appear to have very little to do with "science" or the well-being of Americans. You name it; whether it was masks, social distancing, or lockdowns, the policy and narrative shifts have been dizzying. It really begs the question of whether some of the turbulence has been meant to keep people off balance and, therefore, fearful and controllable.
Barke reviews some of the shifting narratives below:
"A few weeks ago, we were told that it was important to mask people who are asymptomatic. Now the CDC's guidelines came out and say just the opposite. Recently, they say no longer do we need to mask or test asymptomatic people. That was the whole premise upon which the closure of schools were enacted. Meaning that we were told that children would go to school, have no symptoms, spread the virus to other kids and teachers, and then those kids and teachers would come home and kill grandma and grandpa. Now the CDC tells us that's not true, so scientific consensus changes because we challenge the consensus. And the same thing with the CDC guidelines that say vaccinated and unvaccinated are now to be treated equally, meaning that the vaccine, whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated, you're still susceptible to getting this illness and spreading this illness."
Throughout the pandemic, Fauci often struggled to keep his story straight, with his unwavering commitment to the mRNA shots being the sole exception to the rule. Emails and the Twitter files prove that much more is happening behind the scenes to help Americans arrive at the "approved narrative." Most importantly, the consequences of the "approved" messaging have proven to be unnecessarily harmful to many. Translated, it feels as though consensus really means whatever the government tells us to do, we should do, consequences be damned. Most sensible doctors will say that good clinical decisions are more often made when doctors challenge assumptions, engage in healthy discourse, and think outside the box.
Dr. Pierre Kory, another doctor who has managed to retain independent thoughts during the pandemic, writes in his rebuttal for The Desert Review that the bill is filled with contradictions and "absurdities." He points out that historically consensus for the standard of care in the health field has involved a more robust guideline that requires "numerous studies over an average of 17 years." Kory continues:
"So, am I not allowed to voice an opinion until 17 years of studies pass? In a novel pandemic in which insights and data accumulate rapidly? What if I am an expert way ahead of the curve based on research I am doing and/or the ever-evolving data and insights I gain from treating patients with this novel disease? Should I be quiet for 17 years until such a time when my insights and expertise are more widely established and accepted?
How will our silence ever get us to that consensus? How will my patients fare during that time? Stay home, wait until your lips turn blue because I am not allowed to have an opinion or practice in treating you if it differs from either non-treatment or giving pathetic Paxlovid, a drug which has one mechanism of action identical to that of just one of Ivermectin's many mechanisms. This is exhausting."
Kory believes the bill is not only absurd but it is dangerous. The bill says nothing about the millions of people saved worldwide because of early treatment with medications and nutraceuticals. With viable treatments available, the Emergency Use Authorization was illegal and should have disappeared. Safe and effective medications like Ivermectin are difficult to obtain in places like California. Honestly, it is nothing short of criminal to deny people the right to try.