Once again, progressive communist democrats are recklessly, needlessly, and malignantly inserting themselves into the patient-doctor relationship, and mandating ideology supersede science and best practices.
This bill, which is awaiting the signature of California’s empty-suit Governor, is not only a violation of constitutional free speech and scientific integrity but damages the public’s health by restricting the range of information from a diversity of sources, many equally well-educated and experienced experts with subject matter knowledge who have contradictory opinions.
Killing the notion of a second opinion…
Assembly Bill 2098 would add a section to the “Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts…
AB-2098 Physicians and surgeons: unprofessional conduct
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California. Existing law requires the applicable board to take action against any licensed physician and surgeon who is charged with unprofessional conduct, as provided.
This bill would designate the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or “COVID-19,” as unprofessional conduct.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The global spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or COVID-19, has claimed the lives of over 6,000,000 people worldwide, including nearly 90,000 Californians.
(b) Data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that unvaccinated individuals are at a risk of dying from COVID-19 that is 11 times greater than those who are fully vaccinated.
(c) The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the vaccines continue to undergo intensive safety monitoring by the CDC.
(d) The spread of misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines has weakened public confidence and placed lives at serious risk.
(e) Major news outlets have reported that some of the most dangerous propagators of inaccurate information regarding the COVID-19 vaccines are licensed health care professionals.
(f) The Federation of State Medical Boards has released a statement warning that physicians who engage in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation risk losing their medical license, and that physicians have a duty to provide their patients with accurate, science-based information.
(g) 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.
Section 2270 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:
(a) 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.
(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Board” means the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as applicable.
(2) “Disinformation” means misinformation that the licensee deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead.
[OCS: Much of what was disseminated by the government at the local, state, and federal levels could be classified as disinformation and propaganda as it was specifically designed to mislead individuals and patients to accept sketchy treatments without full informed consent based on the hidden and suppressed statistics of the time. With many statistics being corrupted by the lack of reporting standards (after all these years) or financial incentives that promoted the misdiagnosis of a patient’s condition or death.]
(3) “Disseminate” means the conveyance of information from the licensee to a patient under the licensee’s care in the form of treatment or advice.
(4) “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to an extent where its dissemination constitutes gross negligence by the licensee. contrary to the standard of care.
[OCS: Translation: “contemporary scientific consensus” means “science of the day" as per the narrative of the corrupt ruling regime. Consensus is a political act of conciliation and has nothing to do with science. A single adverse finding can nullify even the most agreed-upon scientific finding. “Standard of care” does not always equate to best practices, but groupthink from a cherry-picked group of (often) political appointees.]
(5) “Physician and surgeon” means a person licensed by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2000).
(c) Section 2314 shall not apply to this section.
The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Partisan author with secondary objective?
The bill, which was introduced by hyper-partisan Assembly Member Evan Low (D-28th District), Chairman of the LGBTQ Caucus, could easily be used to suppress the true nature of monkeypox and the fact that it now appears to be a “gay” disease passed by men who have sex with other men.
Is this misinformation or disinformation?
ASSUMPTION: The COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19, so high universal vaccination rates will prevent outbreaks and end the pandemic.
- FACT 1: A study of a COVID-19 outbreak in July 2021 published in Eurosurveillance found that “all transmissions between patients and staff occurred between masked and vaccinated individuals, as experienced in an outbreak from Finland.” The authors state that the study “challenges the assumption that high universal vaccination rates will lead to herd immunity and prevent COVID-19 outbreaks.”
- FACT 2: A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study of another COVID-19 outbreak in July 2021 found that 74% of cases were fully vaccinated.
- FACT 3: A Harvard study investigating COVID-19 cases across 68 countries and across 2,947 counties in the U.S. found “no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated.”
ASSUMPTION: The COVID-19 vaccines prevent death from COVID-19.
- FACT 4: There is no evidence from clinical trials that any of the vaccines prevent death because they did not have enough statistical power to measure the vaccine’s ability to prevent deaths.4-6 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states, “A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality.”
- FACT 5: A study of a COVID-19 outbreak in July 2021 published in Eurosurveillance observed that 100% of severe, critical, and fatal cases of COVID-19 occurred in vaccinated individuals.
- FACT 6: CDC data show mass vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine has had no measurable impact on COVID-19 mortality in the U.S. In the nine months before the introduction of mass vaccination (April 2020 through December 2020), there were about 356,000 COVID-19 deaths. In the nine months after the introduction of mass vaccination, there were 342,000 COVID-19 deaths (January 2021 through September 2021), and 182,000 additional COVID-19 deaths occurred in the four months that followed (October 2021 through January 2022).
ASSUMPTION: For children, being injected with COVID-19 vaccines is safer than being infected with SARS-CoV-2.
- FACT 7: In the Pfizer clinical trial, there were zero cases of severe COVID-19 in children who did not receive the vaccine. In contrast, for children 5 years or older, the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial found that the vaccine causes severe (grade 3) systemic reactions that include fever greater than 102.1° F; vomiting that requires IV hydration; diarrhea of six or more loose stools in 24 hours; and severe fatigue, severe headache, severe muscle pain, or severe joint pain that prevents daily activity.
- FACT 8: In the clinical trial, a range of 1 in 59 to 1 in 143 vaccinated children 5 to 11 years of age suffered severe systemic reactions within seven days of the second dose. There were 3 to 8 cases of severe systemic reactions observed in the vaccinated group for every 10 cases of non-severe COVID-19 in the unvaccinated group.
- FACT 9: In the clinical trial, 1 in 9 vaccinated adolescents 12 to 15 years of age suffered severe systemic reactions within seven days of receiving the second dose. There were 7 times more severe systemic reactions observed in the vaccinated group than non-severe COVID-19 cases in the unvaccinated group.
- FACT 10: The clinical trial also found that 1 in about 1,100 vaccinated children 12 to 15 years of age had a grade 4 systemic reaction (fever greater than 104° F) after the first dose that required an emergency room (ER) visit and withdrawal from the study.
Read more from Physicians for Informed Consent where you can see other footnoted findings that countered “consensus” viewpoints…
- ASSUMPTION: The COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial was large enough to show safety in children.
- ASSUMPTION: It’s known that COVID-19 vaccines have no long-term side effects.
- ASSUMPTION: Booster shots will solve the problem of waning vaccine immunity.
- ASSUMPTION: There are no known effective treatment or prevention options for COVID-19 except vaccines.
- ASSUMPTION: People who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 need to get vaccinated because natural immunity is insufficient.
- ASSUMPTION: Vaccine mandates have been proven to create a safer environment.
FDA expected to authorize new Covid boosters without data from tests in people
The lack of human data means officials likely won’t know how much better the new shots are — if at all — until the fall booster campaign is well underway.
The updated Covid vaccine boosters, a reformulated version targeting the BA.5 omicron subvariant, could be available around Labor Day. They'll be the first Covid shots distributed without results from human trials. Does that matter?
Because the Biden administration has pushed for a fall booster campaign to begin in September, the mRNA vaccine-makers Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have only had time to test the reformulated shots in mice, not people. That means the Food and Drug Administration is relying on the mice trial data — plus human trial results from a similar vaccine that targets the original omicron strain, called BA.1 — to evaluate the new shots, according to a recent tweet from the FDA commissioner, Dr. Robert Califf.
That could be a potentially risky bet, experts say, if the shots don’t work as well as hoped. <Source>
Would this qualify as mis/dis-information if your personal physician said “don’t take the jab?”
BREAKING: Landmark First Peer-Reviewed Study on Pfizer and Moderna Covid Vaccines Confirms 'Excess Risk' of Adverse Side Effects
"In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs [Adverse Event of Special Interest] (10.1 per 10,000) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group"...
A landmark peer-reviewed study appears to be the first of its kind to provide hard data on the "excess risk" of adverse side effects of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines in an independent randomized control trial.
The results of the accepted scientific study confirm that the concerns that many patients had about the mRNA vaccines were well-founded.
"In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000 participants)," the study found.
"In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants)," the study added.
The study was published on ScienceDirect on August 31, 2022. The authors include researchers from Stanford University, the University of Maryland, and UCLA. <Source>
They don't want you to know the truth...
BREAKING: Biden admin held weekly censorship meetings with social media giants to suppress COVID and vaccine speech
Federal officials in the Biden administration secretly conspired and communicated with social media companies to censor and suppress Americans' private speech. This is revealed in a new lawsuit brought in a joint effort by The New Civil Liberties Alliance, the Attorney General of Missouri, and the Attorney General of Louisiana against the President of the United States. The suit is brought under the first amendment right to freedom of speech. The lawsuit seeks to identify among other things "all meetings with any Social-Media Platform relating to Content Modulation and/or Misinformation."
They targeted people who were sharing their own stories and experiences. "News and reports of severe vaccine side effects included both first- and secondhand reports in Groups, with users sharing photos and video related to their own experiences. Highly engaged Page posts contained some news reports of bad side effects, but also included content meant to educate the public."
The government officials and social media platforms worked together to remove "misinformation" reported from women about peculiarities in their menstrual cycle after taking the Covid vaccine. It was later confirmed that the vaccine did have an impact on menstruation. <Source>
Regarding my health, I want my physicians to give me their honest opinion, not some corrupt regime-promoted propaganda.
We now know:
(1) Dr. Anthony Fauci, lead member of the COVID Response Team and chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, provided materially false and contradictory information during the pandemic. In essence, he was a partisan bureaucratic regime shill promoting a political narrative with certitude and what appears to be faked sincerity -- given what we now know about testing, clinical trials, vicious life-altering side effects, masking, lockdowns, and the suppression of cheap therapeutics which have helped large numbers of people.
(2) We now know that extreme risk was limited to seniors, the obese, and those with chronic diseases and co-morbidities. And forcing younger individuals to take the vaccine may have flipped the risk/reward ratio.
(3) We now know that a portion of the medical community put politics over patient care and did not push back against policies and protocols that may have been harmful to specific individuals. (e.g., intubation and ventilators leading to death)
(4) We now know that the efficacy of the vaccines was not as described and that what was described as a “vaccine” was a genetic therapeutic that did not offer vaccine-level immunity.
And most of all, we now know the politicians and their partisan physicians screwed us.