You are not signed in as a Premium user; you are viewing the free version of this program. Premium users have access to full-length programs with limited commercials and receive a 10% discount in the store! Sign up for only one day for the low cost of $1.99. Click the button below.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (ChurchMilitant.com) - A new law could destroy the careers of California physicians who refute the government's COVID narrative.
Conscientious medical providers began sounding the alarm in September, when fake-Catholic Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) signed Assembly Bill 2098, which took effect on Jan. 1. It allows for the Medical Board of California to revoke the licenses of doctors they deem guilty of "the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or 'COVID-19,'" calling it "unprofessional conduct."
It further defines misinformation as "false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care."
In a recent interview, Stanford University professor of medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya warned, "This law ... prevents doctors from dissenting against reigning ideas in public health, even when public health is wrong."
Epidemiologist Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg has studied coronavirus extensively and is suing Newsom over the oppressive mandate. She's calling on other California-based medical professionals to oppose it as well. Høeg explains that the law will result in physicians who are "fearful of sharing individualized, nuanced, up-to-date information, which, ironically, is exactly what is required of us to do our job."
News Report: Doctors Censored
But doctors aren't the only ones impacted. Høeg emphasized, "I hope people understand how my co-plaintiffs and I, as well as most physicians opposed to AB-2098, understand this intuitively: If physicians hold back their honest, informed advice, it is the patients who pay the price. This is critical to understanding our opposition to AB-2098."
Doctors Bhattacharya and Høeg both argue that scientific consensus among government health officials didn't truly exist during the recent pandemic. They claim that what was fed to the public as consensus was quickly debunked.
Høeg cites several examples of this, such as the early claim that mRNA vaccines would stop the COVID spread. It was soon discovered the so-called vaccines not only didn't stop the spread but weren't even tested for transmission during clinical trials.
Then, there was the assurance that wearing masks would prevent transmission, with the head of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rochelle Walensky, reporting that masks were "more than 80%" effective. The medical community later called into question the value and wisdom of wearing masks, admitting more research was needed.
And perhaps one of the most egregious claims that government health officials made, Høeg notes, was the belief that myocarditis was more commonplace in young men post-COVID than post-vaccine. That dangerous claim was later proven false.
Bhattacharya believes that, in light of all the "settled" guidance that subsequently changed during the pandemic, "it's very dangerous for public health to think that it has a monopoly on the truth."
The Stanford professor claims that if it's not stopped, the law will be applied to the social media stratosphere. If that happens, the voices of physicians who aren't in lockstep with the government's ever-changing narrative will forever be silenced.