Home>Articles>Hearing Today on Bill to Reclassify Sharing COVID-19 ‘Misinformation’ by Doctors as Unprofessional

Assemblyman Evan Low (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

Hearing Today on Bill to Reclassify Sharing COVID-19 ‘Misinformation’ by Doctors as Unprofessional

AB 2098 would censor physicians and destroy trust between patient and doctor

By Katy Grimes, June 27, 2022 7:41 am

The very controversial AB 2098 by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), to punish physicians and surgeons for “unprofessional conduct” for advocating for the potential benefits of early treatment with off-label drugs, or those who dare to ask questions about COVID vaccine safety, will be heard in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee Monday afternoon.

This is the bill of which in April, Assembly Business & Professions Committee Chairman, Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) dropped the “F” bomb after becoming outwardly upset at members of the public who showed up to testify in opposition to the bill.

“Increasingly legislative committee chairpersons are showing their frustration with members of the public who call in to the hearings in support or opposition to whatever bill is being heard,” the Globe explained. “Yet this is the system the majority party demanded during the COVID lockdowns, partial re-openings, and continues to insist upon.”

“Previously before COVID, even hearings for very popular or controversial bills would attract a large gathering of members of the public inside the hearing room, as well as from the Capitol community of lobbyists and industry representatives, but the public comment time usually went smoothly and quickly, managed in person by Sergeants and the Committee chairman/woman.”

That is the case with AB 2098.

The controversy is significant as the bill would undermine civil liberties, free speech, will stifle scientific debate, in addition to threatening physicians with a 1984-style medical board of speech overlords. AB 2098 passes will not only hinder the confidential relationship between doctor and patient, it will stifle effective, safe, new treatments and do far more harm than good.

Under AB 2098, doctors would be subject to disciplinary actions by the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California if they do not adhere to the approved COVID treatment consensus.

Physicians would be punished simply for doing what they believe is best for their patients, and sharing legitimate information necessary for their patient to make a true risk/benefit analysis but those who want everyone vaccinated no matter what would consider to be “misinformation.”

PERK, Protection of Educational Rights of Kids, explains:

“The Medical Board will base their consideration on “applicable standard of care” and “contemporary scientific consensus” neither of which currently exist for COVID-19. • (b) Prior to bringing a disciplinary action against a licensee under this section, the board shall consider both whether the licensee departed from the applicable standard of care and whether the misinformation or disinformation resulted in harm to patient health. • This will create a witch hunt for doctors and will drive more experienced doctors out of CA. • This bill goes after our trusted doctors and surgeons who understand that the science is never settled and continue to seek and share the best treatment practices for their patients.”

The bill is aimed at physicians who chose to prescribe therapeutics during COVID, rather only offering  vaccines.

This is what Assemblyman Low said about his bill:

“This bill declares that disinformation and promotion of COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation to the public as unprofessional conduct for licensed physicians and surgeons. Under this law, California Medical Boards will be given the tools necessary to bring discipline actions against a licensee. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore must be held to account. The spreading of misinformation, of inaccurate COVID-19 information, contradicts that responsibility and threatens to further erode the public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.”

The sister bill, SB 1018 by Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) is just as dangerous:

“I introduced Senate Bill 1018 to address the amplification of misinformation and disinformation on online platforms by requiring platforms to publicly disclose how their algorithms work and to share data for research purposes. Ultimately, we shouldn’t have to wait for whistleblowers, like the Facebook whistleblower, to understand how platforms have been negatively influencing our lives, including our ability to stop this pandemic that has not only killed nearly 1 million Americans, but has disabled so many people as well. Transparency will allow the public to make informed decisions, and lawmakers and researchers need this necessary information so we can hold online platforms accountable and also set standards.”

AB 2098 was amended on April 20, 2022 to clarify “misinformation,” and “disinformation.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) has an update on all of the Vaccine Working Group bills – which he calls “the most radical, anti-scientific, and unconstitutional anywhere in the country” – three bills are dead, but 5 are still being heard in legislative committees.

PERK and the Children’s Health Defense oppose both of these bills, and provide more details of AB 2098, as well as providing ways to contact your lawmakers and/or attend the hearing remotely or in person.

The Globe will follow up on today’s hearing.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

15 thoughts on “Hearing Today on Bill to Reclassify Sharing COVID-19 ‘Misinformation’ by Doctors as Unprofessional

  1. Are Pan and Low lovers? I would not be surprised. Maybe it’s a three-some with Wiener in the middle. The three amigos’ next move will be to introduce a constitutional amendment to legalize sodomy.

  2. Thank you so much, Katy, for highlighting these two potentially-devastating bills, AB 2098 and SB 1018, again. How dare these legislative Dems even ATTEMPT to pull this off. Hope and pray they will not succeed.

  3. This bill, if passed will force doctors to become part of the administrative state which have managed to rule over us for the past 2+ years. The unelected officials selected one narrative and ignored historical sound medical protocols. If the administrative state official suspects a medical professional steps out of line from the “approved” narrative, they will be punished. Does this strike anyone as a violation to our rights? It emulates Stasi tactics. This will diminish quality of medical care in California. The bureaucracy grows with one arm tied behind the backs of doctors. This is a shameful bill that will be legally challenged if passed.

  4. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=20.&title&part&chapter=1.3.&article
    Health and Safety Code – HSC
    DIVISION 20. MISCELLANEOUS HEALTH AND SAFETY PROVISIONS [24000 – 26250] ( Division 20 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. )

    CHAPTER 1.3. Human Experimentation [24170 – 24179.5] ( Chapter 1.3 added by Stats. 1978, Ch. 360. )

    24170.

    This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act.

    (Added by Stats. 1978, Ch. 360.)

    1. It would seem these mandates are illegal under California law. More from the same section of law above. None of these provisions have been met. The last one in this section is basic, but the others are also important:
      24173

      As used in this chapter, “informed consent” means the authorization given pursuant to Section 24175 to have a medical experiment performed after each of the following conditions have been satisfied:

      (a) The subject or subject’s conservator or guardian, or other representative, as specified in Section 24175, is provided with a copy of the experimental subject’s bill of rights, prior to consenting to participate in any medical experiment, containing all the information required by Section 24172, and the copy is signed and dated by the subject or the subject’s conservator or guardian, or other representative, as specified in Section 24175.

      (b) A written consent form is signed and dated by the subject or the subject’s conservator or guardian, or other representative, as specified in Section 24175.

      (c) The subject or subject’s conservator or guardian, or other representative, as specified in Section 24175, is informed both verbally and within the written consent form, in nontechnical terms and in a language in which the subject or the subject’s conservator or guardian, or other representative, as specified in Section 24175, is fluent, of the following facts of the proposed medical experiment, which might influence the decision to undergo the experiment, including, but not limited to:

      (1) An explanation of the procedures to be followed in the medical experiment and any drug or device to be utilized, including the purposes of the procedures, drugs, or devices. If a placebo is to be administered or dispensed to a portion of the subjects involved in a medical experiment, all subjects of the experiment shall be informed of that fact; however, they need not be informed as to whether they will actually be administered or dispensed a placebo.

      (2) A description of any attendant discomfort and risks to the subject reasonably to be expected.

      (3) An explanation of any benefits to the subject reasonably to be expected, if applicable.

      (4) A disclosure of any appropriate alternative procedures, drugs, or devices that might be advantageous to the subject, and their relative risks and benefits.

      (5) An estimate of the expected recovery time of the subject after the experiment.

      (6) An offer to answer any inquiries concerning the experiment or the procedures involved.

      (7) An instruction to the subject that he or she is free to withdraw his or her prior consent to the medical experiment and discontinue participation in the medical experiment at any time, without prejudice to the subject.

      (8) The name, institutional affiliation, if any, and address of the person or persons actually performing and primarily responsible for the conduct of the experiment.

      (9) The name of the sponsor or funding source, if any, or manufacturer if the experiment involves a drug or device, and the organization, if any, under whose general aegis the experiment is being conducted.

      (10) The name, address, and phone number of an impartial third party, not associated with the experiment, to whom the subject may address complaints about the experiment.

      (11) The material financial stake or interest, if any, that the investigator or research institution has in the outcome of the medical experiment. For purposes of this section, “material” means ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more in securities or other assets valued at the date of disclosure, or in relevant cumulative salary or other income, regardless of when it is earned or expected to be earned.

      (d) The written consent form is signed and dated by any person other than the subject or the conservator or guardian, or other representative of the subject, as specified in Section 24175, who can attest that the requirements for informed consent to the medical experiment have been satisfied.

      (e) Consent is voluntary and freely given by the human subject or the conservator or guardian, or other representative, as specified by Section 24175, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence.

  5. So WHY EXACTLY is it SO important to these Democrats to get EVERYONE shot up with an Experimental Use Authorization “EUA” injection that has shown to have MINIMAL benefits and a host of ADVERSE side-effects, “up to and including DEATH” (to use their explanatory/regulatory disclosures) ???

    WHY is it SO IMPORTANT to FORCE people to take this injection???

    WHY is “individual bodily autonomy” their talking point for ABORTION, but is SQUELCHED or PUNISHED for the C-19 injections???

    Inquiring minds want to know…

    1. AND, if “licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust” then WHY must they “therefore must be held to account”???
      Do these Bay Area progressive/Communist Democrats NOT TRUST the credibility of the medical professionals and why must they all parrot the official “government narrative” and WHO EXACTLY is the arbiter of “misinformation”??? The companies themselves? Stupid politicians who have never actually worked a day in their lives??? Tony Fauci and that idiot who heads up the World Health Organization? Klaus Schwab?? Bill Gates???

      Something stinks to HIGH HEAVEN that this topic is even making it to the floor for DISCUSSION, let alone being codified into LAW in this snothole of a state??? Until California frees itself from the death-grip of Bay Area “progessives”, our quality of life, economy and ability to live as free people will continue to be DIMINISHED, if not outright ELIMINATED….
      So when do we push back HARD against these crazy people? (And more importantly, WHEN do we STOP ELECTING THEM??? What’s the MATTER with you people in the Bay Area???)

  6. Hey Pan – the statement about “…not only killed nearly 1 million Americans, but has disabled so many people as well.” actually refers to THE INJECTIONS that you’re forcing medical professionals to LIE ABOUT…

  7. Everyone, including the idiots in Sacramento, need to read the exchange between Congressman Jim Jordan and Dr. Birx from last Thursday. Very enlightening because, based upon her frankness, a fairvamount of the official C9VID statements from the CDC could now be considered “misinformation”..!!!

  8. The “VAX” does not stop transmission of, acquiring of, reoccurrence of, or stop anything about Covid-19.

  9. In future, would this bill silence doctors regarding advice given (or not given)
    to a pregnant woman and her choices in California?
    Could this bill silence a doctor in the ER or ICU when explaining options to the family of a coma patient?
    Bottom line- this is absurd !
    How can they be bringing these bills up again when NOBODY gives d*mn ?

    1. Exactly, Mary. You know, you just KNOW, that this attempted legislative gag would not stop at issues related only to (the now irrelevant, or SHOULD BE) Covid-19. We can’t have this!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.