Is California's new AB 2098, the anti Covid vax disinfo bill, unconstitutional?

In this new bill, AB 2098

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2098


It basically gives the CA medical board a tool to revoke a doctor's license if they spread misinformation or disinformation about Covid or any pandemic vax or medicine, putting such advise under the 'unprofessional conduct' umbrella.

Now, personally, I'm against medical disinfo too, but I don't always agree with the medical profession and I don't want the government telling my doctor, who might occasionally disagree with conventional wisdom, on this or that, what he can advise me on and what ne cannot.

For example, I asked my doc, who is pro vax, prov covid vax, as am I, I asked him if I should get the new covid vax? (it's the 3rd booster, or fourth vax in the line up) and he told me 'well, my observation is that they don't work that well, so it's up to me. Thing is, if I had been a patient that finked on him to the CA medical board, would that give them cause to revoke his license? I mean, I don't even want to go there

So the question I put to this forum is this:

Are such laws constitutional?

I think their heart is in the right place, and I'm against disinfo, but want my doctor to not have such a thing hanging over his head, I want to know what he thinks, as in, 'give it to me straight' and because there are 'grey areas' and this law cold be abused to remove the livelihood of some very good doctors, I say it's unconstitutional, what say you?

Here's a LATimes op-ed about it, on the side of the law, blasting the right on disinfo (I blast them, as well, but that doesn't mean the law is constitutional).

https://www.latimes.com/business/st...or-californias-new-medical-misinformation-law

 

If it is unconstitutional, it will be under state law, not federal law per se. But I have not read the extremely long California State Constitution.

 

Your comment doesn't make sense. AB 2098 is state law. Now, whether it conflicts with the CA constitution, I don't know, but no state law can be 'unconstitutional' in terms of the US constitution nor can it conflict with federal law. But, I'm no lawyer and if there are any in the peanut gallery, please chime in.

 

Unconstitutional can either mean unconstitutional per the State Constitution or Federal Constitution. In this particular case, it would be a violation in the state constitution if that was the case.

 

That's a possibility and that it might be unconstitutional by the US constitution is also a possibility which would have precedent if that were the case.

 

I'm no lawyer myself, but doctors are licensed to practice by the state they operate their practice in. The only federal regulations are with the DEA for prescribing Rx, as I understand it.

I understand your concern as this on the surface appears to be another one of those laws that can easily be abused by civil litigation, but at the same time, do we really want someone with a medical degree to be touting unscientific remedies in the pursuit of profits? Perceptually speaking, the AMA doesn't appear to be seen as policing its ranks very well.

 

AB 2098's constitutionality could be challenged under state constitution, or the US constitution, depending on which if violates, or, if it is both, it would be challenged under state. If is not state, but US Constitution, then it would be challenged under US Constitution. That is my undertanding.

 

But AB 2098 could have a first amendment aspect to it, so it could conceivably be challenged under first amendment.


Your implication of 'touting unscientific remedies in pursuit of profits' is simplistic (for one thing, my doctor doesn't profit from drugs, the pharmacy and pharma company does), there are grey areas, and those are to the areas I refer. No one is suggesting 'touting unscientific remedies'.

For example:

My doctor wanted to put me on statins. I asked him, is there are correlation between cholesterol and heart attacks? And he said there is ( he went into the details of it).

then I asked him, well, then, does Statins actually result in fewer heart attacks? And he told me that is where they are controversial, and because of that fact, he said he wouldn't chastise me (not in those words, but that is what he implied ) for not wanting to go on a statin. Then he suggested a supplement that can help, and I went in that direction. What I don't want are some law like AB 2098 that disallows a doctor from making recommendations based on his empirical experience. My mother was on a Statin, and she told me it was making her life hell. That is why I was reluctant to take them.

Medicine isn't black and white, and there are side effects, and they don't always work. A doctor needs the freedom to do as he thinks will benefit his patient without fear of being litigated at every turn by hyper zealot regulators. There are limits.

The CDC states that people who take statins experience 25% fewer heart attacks than those who don't, but Dr. David Brownstein, MD, who has a book on the subject, entitled The Statin Disaster, explains how those statistics are misleading, which the CDC doesn't tell us. Because of this, I wonder if this new law in CA is a good thing or not. Do we lawmakers dictating to doctors? That's the issue here.

Moreover, listen to this video, it's an eye opener. Sometimes, things aren't what they appear.

 

A lot of things that are true now were considered disinformation 5 minutes ago, on the same evidence.

Just look at COVID, or this recent missile that hit Poland.

These days it seems everything is disinfo until a bureaucrat recognizes what we already knew but weren't allowed to say, at which point it instantly becomes conventional wisdom and we all forget the conspiracy theorists were right.

 

I share your apprehension, but I think it would depend on the wording in the bill. If a doctor gives the OPINION that a particular patient should not be vaccinated (due to suspected allergies, due to possible interaction with other drugs, ... anything of the kind) that should obviously not fall under the statute. On the other hand, if an unvaccinated patient DIES of Covid, and it's determined that this happened because the doctor CONVINCED them that vaccines don't work, that should definitely be considered "unprofessional conduct". Science is science. There is no place for opinions in Science. But there IS room for opinions in its technical applications. The medical profession is a technical (not scientific) profession. Which scientific knowledge applies to each situation is up to the technician. So long as the opinion is BASED on science, the doctor should be fine. But if it's not, then there is definitely a high degree of malpractice there.

It's the same situation as if a doctor ADVICED a patient to take the vaccine, when he knew that this particular patient was allergic to its components.

 

I think it is unequivocally unconstitutional. The government cannot restrict speech, period, although there are instances when parts of the constitution conflict. It's nice to be against disinformation, but who decides what is disinformation? In reality disinformation is words opposing whatever the power to decide believes.

 

of course its unconstitutional.
Gonna pretend that this is the FIRST time the left has tried to control free speech?

SAD

 

Most legislation is well-intentioned. So what?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The notion of having politicians dictate how doctors practice medicine is a REALLY bad idea. Shockingly bad.

 

And that was my precise sentiment to the SCOTUS ruling on Citizen's United, Dobbs and Heller.

Same goes for that law (I think it's in GA) that disallows anyone giving water or food to people standing in line to vote.

There is lots' of crap laws and rulings that are well intentioned, but pavement on the road to hell.

 

Sounds pretty unconstitutional.

 

If I had asked for quintessential examples of whataboutism, your reply would have been spot on.

As far as the topic at hand, I think we perhaps agree it is a really bad idea.

 

What if the doctor is right and the governing board is wrong? Then what?

 

Leftists hate the Citizens United decision because they don't know what it actually does.

 

However, you did invite whataboutisms with your 'most legislation is well-intentioned but so what' comment, eh?

 

Hmmm.

That seems like a stretch to me. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

And the chief problem, of course, lies in who decides what is or is not misinformation. And whether or not they are themselves paid spreaders of misinformation.

 

Well, perhaps you'd like to be informed on what it 'actually does'. To wit:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-five-years-later

Citizens United also has resulted in at least three other disturbing trends (none acknowledged by the Court):

• A tidal wave of dark money: In striking down limits on corporate spending, the Court extoled disclosure as a remaining safeguard: “With the advent of the Internet,” it proclaimed, “prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable.”[iv] The truth, however, is that Citizens United has enabled election spending by a variety of “dark money” groups who do not disclose their donors, and who have spent more than $600 million on federal elections to date.
  
• Weakening of contribution limits: The Court said that it was only eliminating limits on “independent” election spending, which in its view raises no corruption concerns. It purported to leave another pillar of campaign finance regulation, limits on direct contributions to candidates and political parties, untouched. In reality, though, the post-Citizens United era has seen rampant collaboration between outside (i.e. non-candidate, non-party) groups and candidates, along with broader efforts to roll back contribution limits altogether.
  
• Trampling of shareholder and employee rights: The Court suggested that disclosure would be sufficient to ensure that nobody — especially corporate shareholders — would be forced to subsidize speech with which they disagree. But shareholders are often kept in the dark about corporate spending, and there are troubling reports of at least a few corporations (and unions) trying to impose their political views on employees and even coerce them into participating in political speech.

 

I get it, there are bad doctors who have no business being doctors. There are grey areas, and therein is where the problems arise.


The problem of such bills is the real world effect. Doctors get paranoid, wanting to avoid litigation, wanting to preserve their livelihoods, and thus they will or might or tend to curb their behavior in ways not intended in the legislation. I had been seeing my doctor or 6 years, and it is only recently has he opened up to me what he really thinks about some of the meds he has to prescribe, like statins, like 'some' vaccines (not all vaccines are great, and that is a fact, some are, some aren't) Now that I have his confidence, he tells me. not what I want to hear, but what he really thinks which is based on his empirical experience. I make sure others are saying similar things, I don't take any one person's word for it. In that way, I know I have an experienced doctor who will give it to me straight, based on real world experience, and that is the best kind.

Be careful tossing around that word 'science'.



From the horses mouth, Richard Horton, the Editor of the most prestigious journal of medicine and bioscience, The Lancet:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext?rss=yes

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct."

This doesn't mean we should disregard studies, but no one study is the final word on anything, and so be careful when tossing the term 'science' about.

 

Of course. One study has never been considered "science". No science is ever based on one study. That would be completely contrary to the scientific method. So, of course most studies ("half", as mentioned in your quote, sounds about right) never become science. To be considered scientific knowledge they must be replicated. Science dealing with medical issues must meet a particularly high bar. For example, Trump's fascination with Hydroxychloroquine originated in a handful of studies that did not meet that standard.

But that's a different topic....

 

But, when companies support causes you agree with, you're all for it