10 ms·

California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

60 points by 0xChain 4y ago

olivermarks 4y ago
Democracy dies in darkness...
dumbplestilskin 4y ago
landofredwater 4y ago
> While the legislation has raised concerns over freedom of speech, the bill’s sponsors said the extensive harm caused by false information required holding incompetent or ill-intentioned doctors accountable. There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  - Hi everybody! - Hi Dr Nick!
  - tanseydavid 4y ago
    Simpsons reference?
- 0xChain 4y ago
  Agree with this statement. The problem now becomes not a choice of what to believe, but what you’re told to believe.
- deep-root 4y ago
  Not sure how this is would be so different from how we treat forms of speech such as pergury, libel, and treason.
  - choko 4y ago
    Because objective truth isn't obvious in many cases where events are still unfolding perhaps?
- dahart 4y ago
  False statements of fact are not protected under free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#False_statements_of_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
  - leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
    The issue is who decides what is false. Will people be prosecuted for saying true things that the state says is false? It's not like the state would lie about something.
  - abernard1 4y ago
    Ummm... yeah they are. You're referencing defamation law and contract law. In the case of defamation, you can't be defamed if what the person said is true. And in case of contract law or fraud, lies impact the integrity of a transaction. In the US, you can lie as much as you want with general speech.
    - dahart 4y ago
      > You’re referencing defamation law and contract law. Why do you think this? The WP article is about a general exception to the constitutional right to freedom of speech, though it is not absolute. It happens to mention some defamation and contract precedent, but if you read it, it’s quite clear the exception is broader than those two cases and not limited to defamation and contracts. It even gives several other categorical examples (such as incitement and slander), so you seem to have gotten the wrong idea. > In the US, you can lie as much as you want with general speech. As a summary of the issue, this is mostly false and rather misleading. It’s certainly bad advice in any case. ;) You can choose to lie a lot and you might not get in trouble, but if you knowingly lie about things that materially affect other people, you’re probably not protected in the free speech sense. However the only way to be sure is to go to court, and most people who lie don’t end up in court.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    Tut tut, not all false statements of fact are protected, while some are. Your statement is overly broad as to be a false statement of fact.
- kadoban 4y ago
  > There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech. There are no rights that are absolute. You can have a right of free speech and still not be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Additionally, being an expert comes with some responsibility. You are given trust due to your station, abusing that trust should be punished.
  - romeros 4y ago
    The assumption is that the expert is wrong. Frequently some experts who hold contrarian opinions which are against the mainstream narrative are usually vindicated with time. For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no clue about the subject matter.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      > For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no clue about the subject matter. They should not be punished if they are honestly wrong and are attempting to find the truth (or of course if they're actually right). They should be punished if they are actively spreading disinformation, meaning they know or should know that it's incorrect. We currently have a _lot_ of people spreading disinformation because it pads their pocketbook.
    - tragictrash 4y ago
      I think usually is a very strong and very incorrect word here. I understand what you're getting at, but I think you greatly underestimate the amount of incorrect assertions that need to happen before a sensible consensus is reached. Historically, in the body of science, we're wrong something like 99% of the time until someone gets it right. Also, your comment is a straw man argument. The law isn't going to chastise people questioning existing mainstream views, only the ones spouting horribly incorrect information. Noone is saying it will do that, other than you and other commenters who didnt read the article. Last, are you really questioning the benefit of washing our hands?
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  A facile argument. By this logic fraud would be unprosecutable.
encryptluks2 4y ago
In other words, California approves Bill to punish not pushing government-sanctioned information. How far away are they from becoming China?
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  Evidently not too far behind in one regard: You must practice right-think This is the second wave, the first being the practicing of compliance
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  I mean, pretty far. There's no way this won't be viewed as problematic and against the first amendment in the state courts, let alone if it made it to the Supreme Court.
0xy 4y ago
Waiting for them to punish the doctors and the CDC who claimed that masks were ineffective at the start of the pandemic, which contributed to thousands of deaths. The CDC's lies were some of the worst disinformation (they knowingly lied) of the entire pandemic. Let's not forget the WHO, who repeatedly claimed COVID was not airborne, caused thousands of deaths through negligence. Or there's the doctors who wrongly claimed the vaccines prevent transmission of COVID.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  I can't relate to the fact your post and many others are getting grayed out. The moderators of HN should be able to see that there are people that run through comments, trying to disappear the opinions they don't want to be expressed. Nothing you've said is even arguably false. It is all relevant. Much like this legislation, there is a true war occurring all around us, poisoning reason and debate, attempting to control all narratives
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    The moderator is too busy fighting the culture war on the side of the flaggers (in this case), why would he help you?
    - upsidesinclude 4y ago
      HN offers very little in the way of recourse. What do we do when the site doesn't adhere to its' own guidelines?
      - evgen 4y ago
        I think that the standard reply to such a complaint is that you are free to leave at any time. No one owes you a platform upon which to speak and if you are consistently downvoted into oblivion then perhaps that is a signal that it is time to go...
        4y ago
purpleblue 4y ago
[flagged]
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  > The idea that the state would define and criminalize what "false" information is is absolutely disgusting. What do you think libel and perjury are?
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    You mean things that can be challenged in court as opposed to a unilateral, unelected bureaucracy?
  - tanseydavid 4y ago
    > What do you think libel and perjury are? I am pretty sure that they are NOT related in any way to the matter at hand which relates specifically to medical information. To bring libel and perjury into the matter seems as almost a red herring.
- Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
  >I think politicians should be "held accountable" for every piece of legislation that gets repealed because it is unconstitutional. We would need to make courts a completely separate institution for this to work. No more politicians nominating judges.
- dang 4y ago
  Please make your substantive points without fulminating, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
SanjayMehta 4y ago
This will not end well. Say this law was in place when COVID-19 started and a doctor said "hey, this looks like a new virus causing this pneumonia." This is exactly what is supposed to have happened in Wuhan and those doctors were, surprise surprise, punished by their government. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/world/asia/chinese-doctor-li-wenliang-covid-warning.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/world/asia/chinese-doctor...
- mc32 4y ago
  With this law would Fauci and the CDC flip-flopping as they tried to figure out what was happening land them in hot water? When doctors repeated their advice and then the CDC reversed, would they have been spreading misinformation, or is official information, even though wrong, by definition not misinformation even when it is false? This's pretty ill conceived.
  - donw 4y ago
    Of course it wouldn’t get them in trouble. This law is for enemies, not allies.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Let's say they post on some blog or something. What sort of timeframe do they have to correct those? And how long back does it go?
  - BeefWellington 4y ago
    If it was well-crafted enough, there could easily be carve-outs for "at the time" advice, and requiring updates/clarifications, etc. However, I don't know anyone who would trust Cali lawmakers to actually craft bills well.
    - seanw444 4y ago
      "We passed a bill to show those right-wingers that we mean business!" "Did you consider <insert obvious edge case here>?" "Oh..."
LanceH 4y ago
As with all laws, they should first be applied to the politicians supporting them.
- keneda7 4y ago
  I fully support this idea. Though in this case would it only apply to doctor lawmakers?
exabrial 4y ago
Just remember if you're wanting to leave California to escape this non-sense, please leave all the bad ideas there too.
- Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
  Already did. I love my new state.
  - dudeDDRrulez 4y ago
    Where’d you end up?
    - Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
      Not doxxing myself...but in a much happier & smaller place :).
Justin_K 4y ago
Who keeps voting for these fascists coming up with these bills.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  I believe the standard of today is that these ideas, proposed by liberals, can not be fascist by definition. Now, were a non-progressive to propose such an idea, that would undoubtedly be fascist authoritarian nationalism.
peteradio 4y ago
What happens when mainstream ideas turn out wrong? Does that land a whole bunch of doctors in hot water?
nradov 4y ago
Up until 1984, a doctor stating that stomach ulcers were caused by H. pylori bacteria would have been spreading "false" information. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/when-scientists-experiment-on-themselves-h-pylori-and-ulcers/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/when-scienti... This law is a disgusting level of political interference in the practice of medicine. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have broken people's brains and caused them to discard fundamental principles for the sake of expediency.
- dekhn 4y ago
  another example (also rewarded with a nobel prize): Prusiner discovered that some diseases are transmitted by infectious proteins (not viruses, not bacteria) that propagate through misfolding. It was vehemently denied for decades until the final experiments which were heroic.
anonygler 4y ago
Vinay Prasad, who has been wildly correct/vindicated would’ve been punished. Speaking out about learning loss and child masking would’ve been punished. This is legislation from the new authoritarian left. Liberalism is dead.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nishs 4y ago
  Vinay Prasad. “Wearing an n95 to avoid the virus after vaccination is futile. You will eventually stop wearing it. And then you will eventually get hit with a subsequent epidemic wave. Or catch the virus between waves.” [1] “So ‘I'm done with COVID’ is the honorable, equitable, altruistic, egalitarian, pro-science message that we need right now to combat the delusional thinking that ignored trade-offs for so long and would have us live in a bunker forever.” [2] And seemingly, his warped definition of “Duty” [3] includes recommending children to be repeatedly exposed a virus that has deleterious, long-term effects effects on multiple organ systems, basing his arguments on comparing SARS-CoV-2 to a common cold virus (“Stop testing kids”). [4] More of his egregious stuff is noted on a parody Twitter account. [5] [1]: https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1485312764297891843 https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1485312764297891843 [2]: https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1485312770635538435 https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1485312770635538435 [3]: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/stop-testing-kids https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/stop-testing-kids [3]: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/duty https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/duty [4]: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/stop-testing-kids https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/stop-testing-kids [5]: https://twitter.com/vpwndf https://twitter.com/vpwndf
donsupreme 4y ago
20 years Atkins diet was vilified. Now ketogenic diet is widely considered safe and even prescribed by doctor for various condition.
- kiawe_fire 4y ago
  And was, and still is, frequently mischaracterized by critics as “all the bacon you want”, failing to mention the core tenant of “healthy natural greens and unprocessed meats”. I wonder if the people spreading what may have been deliberate misinformation about the diet would fair better under such a law, than the author of the diet information itself?
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    tenet
    - kiawe_fire 4y ago
      Actually, I totally meant tenant in a metaphorical sense, in which the precepts of a teaching takes up metaphysical residence in the soul of the —- alright, fine. Yes, tenet is the word I was reaching for. Thank you. :)
ralusek 4y ago
How can we have all just gone through the same pandemic and have anyone come out the other side thinking "You know what that needed? More authoritarian control of information."
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  While you ask that indignantly, I would encourage you to try to steel man (rather than straw man) that very question, particularly without the use of loaded words like "authoritarian." If you want to be less surprised, replace the word authoritarian with "expert" or "merit based." You might not agree. You might not agree for very reasonable and well thought out reasons, but it will at least make sense without demonizing a person who thinks differently. Then there might be a chance of understanding, reconciliation, and eventually compromise. The people who developed the bill probably weren't evil fascists thinking about how to control peoples lives. They were probably thinking "how could we have had better outcomes in regards to this pandemic?"
  - ralusek 4y ago
    > it will at least make sense without demonizing a person who thinks differently. I specifically do NOT demonize people who think differently, hence why I don't find it appropriate to leverage the authority of the state in order to prevent them from thinking differently.
    - hayst4ck 4y ago
      I think this is a fair re-statement of what you said: > "How can anyone believe we need more authoritarian control of information?" The direct implication of this statement is "it's unreasonable to want more authoritarian control of information", stated differently, "only an unreasonable person would support this bill because this bill increases authoritarian control of information." That is demonization. You've defined support as unreasonable with the presupposition of support for "authortarianism." The language you've used denies alternative explanations or that a reasonable person might support the bill. It denies curiosity for why someone would support it. They support it because they are unreasonable, clearly. If there was a good reason for support, it wouldn't flabbergast you that someone might support it. If I asked you "would you like your doctor to be vetted for competence by an authority?" You would probably say no, but many many people, myself included, would like to trust that our doctors have been vetted for competence by some authority so I'm not getting a snake oil salesperson or someone selling their expertise while having none. I don't want a lawyer who hasn't passed the bar. I don't want an electrician that has "unconventional" beliefs about how to wire things. I don't want to share the road with driver's who "think differently" about what lane they should drive in. Licensed positions have a level of authority and are given a level of trust. Licenses exist to protect that trust from abuse. I definitely think some doctors have been abusing trust for political purposes. We saw doctors falsifying vaccination records. I think a doctor can tell fellow doctors or the academics that do the research that informs treatment whatever they want because there's not a level of trust enforced by an authority, but a doctor patient relationship must be protected because a patient is fundamentally unable to evaluate what the doctor says and must rely on trust.
neonate 4y ago
https://archive.ph/x62lm https://archive.ph/x62lm
hayst4ck 4y ago
A licensing board has to have a mandate from the doctors it licenses, people who have spent years of pain and study becoming an expert on health. If this bill is as fascist as many seem to think it is, then the doctors themselves will walk away or not tolerate it. They will move to a "more enlightened, less fascist" state and be licensed there instead. On the other hand, if doctors think some of their peers were creating chaos and not acting in patients best interest by entertaining medicine they don't believe to be evidence based, then the licensing board will have the permission if not blessing of the doctor community to improve public health care by getting rid of those who detract from it. My money says more doctors will be happy with this bill than upset by it, but if we start seeing articles to the contrary I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. I am quite confident the vast majority of doctors would be very happy to have a doctor that says "vaccines cause autism" to a patient (not to the medical or academic community) lose their license. Incredible numbers of medical hours and wages are wasted assuring parents that vaccines are not harming their children because it's been politicized by entities that profit from fear and engagement or the destruction of public trust.
tpoacher 4y ago
"Ministry of Truth, Health Division"
illuminerdy 4y ago
False information such as "we don't know if the vaccine will actually prevent infection" when all the beaurocrats and "scientists" (the only ones who were allowed to speak) were falsely stating that if you took the vaccine, you absolutely would not get the virus? So when are they gonna punish those doctors?
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  all the beaurocrats and "scientists" [...] were falsely stating that if you took the vaccine, you absolutely would not get the virus Not actually true
  - illuminerdy 4y ago
    Of course it's not true. It's not like we have them on video literally saying that. Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      I don't think your memory is all that great, because I remember plenty of caveats about how you could still catch COVID but symptoms would probably be mild - just like every other vaccine on the market has a percentage of effectivity. Perhaps drink less plandemic koolaid and read or watch more discourse from actual epidemiologists and doctors.
guilhas 4y ago
So who decides what is misinformation? We already know science is biased or corrupt, and medical experts seeing patients everyday must know a bit more to balance health decisions than politicians What do they do if they suspect an aproved treatment is causing death or disability? Talk about it? No that is illegal now. But so is malpractic. Who is going to jail?
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  It won't be the politicians passing unconstitutional laws, that's for sure.

60 points by 0xChain 4y ago

olivermarks 4y ago

Democracy dies in darkness...

dumbplestilskin 4y ago

landofredwater 4y ago

> While the legislation has raised concerns over freedom of speech, the bill’s sponsors said the extensive harm caused by false information required holding incompetent or ill-intentioned doctors accountable. There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech.

anigbrowl 4y ago
- Hi everybody! - Hi Dr Nick!
- tanseydavid 4y ago
  Simpsons reference?
0xChain 4y ago
Agree with this statement. The problem now becomes not a choice of what to believe, but what you’re told to believe.
deep-root 4y ago
Not sure how this is would be so different from how we treat forms of speech such as pergury, libel, and treason.
- choko 4y ago
  Because objective truth isn't obvious in many cases where events are still unfolding perhaps?
dahart 4y ago
False statements of fact are not protected under free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#False_statements_of_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
  The issue is who decides what is false. Will people be prosecuted for saying true things that the state says is false? It's not like the state would lie about something.
- abernard1 4y ago
  Ummm... yeah they are. You're referencing defamation law and contract law. In the case of defamation, you can't be defamed if what the person said is true. And in case of contract law or fraud, lies impact the integrity of a transaction. In the US, you can lie as much as you want with general speech.
  - dahart 4y ago
    > You’re referencing defamation law and contract law. Why do you think this? The WP article is about a general exception to the constitutional right to freedom of speech, though it is not absolute. It happens to mention some defamation and contract precedent, but if you read it, it’s quite clear the exception is broader than those two cases and not limited to defamation and contracts. It even gives several other categorical examples (such as incitement and slander), so you seem to have gotten the wrong idea. > In the US, you can lie as much as you want with general speech. As a summary of the issue, this is mostly false and rather misleading. It’s certainly bad advice in any case. ;) You can choose to lie a lot and you might not get in trouble, but if you knowingly lie about things that materially affect other people, you’re probably not protected in the free speech sense. However the only way to be sure is to go to court, and most people who lie don’t end up in court.
- peteradio 4y ago
  Tut tut, not all false statements of fact are protected, while some are. Your statement is overly broad as to be a false statement of fact.
kadoban 4y ago
> There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech. There are no rights that are absolute. You can have a right of free speech and still not be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Additionally, being an expert comes with some responsibility. You are given trust due to your station, abusing that trust should be punished.
- romeros 4y ago
  The assumption is that the expert is wrong. Frequently some experts who hold contrarian opinions which are against the mainstream narrative are usually vindicated with time. For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no clue about the subject matter.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    > For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no clue about the subject matter. They should not be punished if they are honestly wrong and are attempting to find the truth (or of course if they're actually right). They should be punished if they are actively spreading disinformation, meaning they know or should know that it's incorrect. We currently have a _lot_ of people spreading disinformation because it pads their pocketbook.
  - tragictrash 4y ago
    I think usually is a very strong and very incorrect word here. I understand what you're getting at, but I think you greatly underestimate the amount of incorrect assertions that need to happen before a sensible consensus is reached. Historically, in the body of science, we're wrong something like 99% of the time until someone gets it right. Also, your comment is a straw man argument. The law isn't going to chastise people questioning existing mainstream views, only the ones spouting horribly incorrect information. Noone is saying it will do that, other than you and other commenters who didnt read the article. Last, are you really questioning the benefit of washing our hands?
anigbrowl 4y ago
A facile argument. By this logic fraud would be unprosecutable.

encryptluks2 4y ago

In other words, California approves Bill to punish not pushing government-sanctioned information. How far away are they from becoming China?

upsidesinclude 4y ago
Evidently not too far behind in one regard: You must practice right-think This is the second wave, the first being the practicing of compliance
BeefWellington 4y ago
I mean, pretty far. There's no way this won't be viewed as problematic and against the first amendment in the state courts, let alone if it made it to the Supreme Court.

0xy 4y ago

Waiting for them to punish the doctors and the CDC who claimed that masks were ineffective at the start of the pandemic, which contributed to thousands of deaths. The CDC's lies were some of the worst disinformation (they knowingly lied) of the entire pandemic. Let's not forget the WHO, who repeatedly claimed COVID was not airborne, caused thousands of deaths through negligence. Or there's the doctors who wrongly claimed the vaccines prevent transmission of COVID.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
I can't relate to the fact your post and many others are getting grayed out. The moderators of HN should be able to see that there are people that run through comments, trying to disappear the opinions they don't want to be expressed. Nothing you've said is even arguably false. It is all relevant. Much like this legislation, there is a true war occurring all around us, poisoning reason and debate, attempting to control all narratives
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  The moderator is too busy fighting the culture war on the side of the flaggers (in this case), why would he help you?
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    HN offers very little in the way of recourse. What do we do when the site doesn't adhere to its' own guidelines?
    - evgen 4y ago
      I think that the standard reply to such a complaint is that you are free to leave at any time. No one owes you a platform upon which to speak and if you are consistently downvoted into oblivion then perhaps that is a signal that it is time to go...
      - 4y ago

purpleblue 4y ago

[flagged]

jakelazaroff 4y ago
> The idea that the state would define and criminalize what "false" information is is absolutely disgusting. What do you think libel and perjury are?
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  You mean things that can be challenged in court as opposed to a unilateral, unelected bureaucracy?
- tanseydavid 4y ago
  > What do you think libel and perjury are? I am pretty sure that they are NOT related in any way to the matter at hand which relates specifically to medical information. To bring libel and perjury into the matter seems as almost a red herring.
Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
>I think politicians should be "held accountable" for every piece of legislation that gets repealed because it is unconstitutional. We would need to make courts a completely separate institution for this to work. No more politicians nominating judges.
dang 4y ago
Please make your substantive points without fulminating, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

SanjayMehta 4y ago

This will not end well. Say this law was in place when COVID-19 started and a doctor said "hey, this looks like a new virus causing this pneumonia." This is exactly what is supposed to have happened in Wuhan and those doctors were, surprise surprise, punished by their government. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/world/asia/chinese-doctor-li-wenliang-covid-warning.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/world/asia/chinese-doctor...

mc32 4y ago
With this law would Fauci and the CDC flip-flopping as they tried to figure out what was happening land them in hot water? When doctors repeated their advice and then the CDC reversed, would they have been spreading misinformation, or is official information, even though wrong, by definition not misinformation even when it is false? This's pretty ill conceived.
- donw 4y ago
  Of course it wouldn’t get them in trouble. This law is for enemies, not allies.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Let's say they post on some blog or something. What sort of timeframe do they have to correct those? And how long back does it go?
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  If it was well-crafted enough, there could easily be carve-outs for "at the time" advice, and requiring updates/clarifications, etc. However, I don't know anyone who would trust Cali lawmakers to actually craft bills well.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    "We passed a bill to show those right-wingers that we mean business!" "Did you consider <insert obvious edge case here>?" "Oh..."

LanceH 4y ago

As with all laws, they should first be applied to the politicians supporting them.

keneda7 4y ago
I fully support this idea. Though in this case would it only apply to doctor lawmakers?

exabrial 4y ago

Just remember if you're wanting to leave California to escape this non-sense, please leave all the bad ideas there too.

Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
Already did. I love my new state.
- dudeDDRrulez 4y ago
  Where’d you end up?
  - Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
    Not doxxing myself...but in a much happier & smaller place :).

Justin_K 4y ago

Who keeps voting for these fascists coming up with these bills.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
I believe the standard of today is that these ideas, proposed by liberals, can not be fascist by definition. Now, were a non-progressive to propose such an idea, that would undoubtedly be fascist authoritarian nationalism.

peteradio 4y ago

What happens when mainstream ideas turn out wrong? Does that land a whole bunch of doctors in hot water?

nradov 4y ago

Up until 1984, a doctor stating that stomach ulcers were caused by H. pylori bacteria would have been spreading "false" information. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/when-scientists-experiment-on-themselves-h-pylori-and-ulcers/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/when-scienti... This law is a disgusting level of political interference in the practice of medicine. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have broken people's brains and caused them to discard fundamental principles for the sake of expediency.

dekhn 4y ago
another example (also rewarded with a nobel prize): Prusiner discovered that some diseases are transmitted by infectious proteins (not viruses, not bacteria) that propagate through misfolding. It was vehemently denied for decades until the final experiments which were heroic.

anonygler 4y ago

Vinay Prasad, who has been wildly correct/vindicated would’ve been punished. Speaking out about learning loss and child masking would’ve been punished. This is legislation from the new authoritarian left. Liberalism is dead.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nishs 4y ago
Vinay Prasad. “Wearing an n95 to avoid the virus after vaccination is futile. You will eventually stop wearing it. And then you will eventually get hit with a subsequent epidemic wave. Or catch the virus between waves.” [1] “So ‘I'm done with COVID’ is the honorable, equitable, altruistic, egalitarian, pro-science message that we need right now to combat the delusional thinking that ignored trade-offs for so long and would have us live in a bunker forever.” [2] And seemingly, his warped definition of “Duty” [3] includes recommending children to be repeatedly exposed a virus that has deleterious, long-term effects effects on multiple organ systems, basing his arguments on comparing SARS-CoV-2 to a common cold virus (“Stop testing kids”). [4] More of his egregious stuff is noted on a parody Twitter account. [5] [1]: https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1485312764297891843 https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1485312764297891843 [2]: https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1485312770635538435 https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1485312770635538435 [3]: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/stop-testing-kids https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/stop-testing-kids [3]: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/duty https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/duty [4]: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/stop-testing-kids https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/stop-testing-kids [5]: https://twitter.com/vpwndf https://twitter.com/vpwndf

donsupreme 4y ago

20 years Atkins diet was vilified. Now ketogenic diet is widely considered safe and even prescribed by doctor for various condition.

kiawe_fire 4y ago
And was, and still is, frequently mischaracterized by critics as “all the bacon you want”, failing to mention the core tenant of “healthy natural greens and unprocessed meats”. I wonder if the people spreading what may have been deliberate misinformation about the diet would fair better under such a law, than the author of the diet information itself?
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  tenet
  - kiawe_fire 4y ago
    Actually, I totally meant tenant in a metaphorical sense, in which the precepts of a teaching takes up metaphysical residence in the soul of the —- alright, fine. Yes, tenet is the word I was reaching for. Thank you. :)

ralusek 4y ago

How can we have all just gone through the same pandemic and have anyone come out the other side thinking "You know what that needed? More authoritarian control of information."

hayst4ck 4y ago
While you ask that indignantly, I would encourage you to try to steel man (rather than straw man) that very question, particularly without the use of loaded words like "authoritarian." If you want to be less surprised, replace the word authoritarian with "expert" or "merit based." You might not agree. You might not agree for very reasonable and well thought out reasons, but it will at least make sense without demonizing a person who thinks differently. Then there might be a chance of understanding, reconciliation, and eventually compromise. The people who developed the bill probably weren't evil fascists thinking about how to control peoples lives. They were probably thinking "how could we have had better outcomes in regards to this pandemic?"
- ralusek 4y ago
  > it will at least make sense without demonizing a person who thinks differently. I specifically do NOT demonize people who think differently, hence why I don't find it appropriate to leverage the authority of the state in order to prevent them from thinking differently.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    I think this is a fair re-statement of what you said: > "How can anyone believe we need more authoritarian control of information?" The direct implication of this statement is "it's unreasonable to want more authoritarian control of information", stated differently, "only an unreasonable person would support this bill because this bill increases authoritarian control of information." That is demonization. You've defined support as unreasonable with the presupposition of support for "authortarianism." The language you've used denies alternative explanations or that a reasonable person might support the bill. It denies curiosity for why someone would support it. They support it because they are unreasonable, clearly. If there was a good reason for support, it wouldn't flabbergast you that someone might support it. If I asked you "would you like your doctor to be vetted for competence by an authority?" You would probably say no, but many many people, myself included, would like to trust that our doctors have been vetted for competence by some authority so I'm not getting a snake oil salesperson or someone selling their expertise while having none. I don't want a lawyer who hasn't passed the bar. I don't want an electrician that has "unconventional" beliefs about how to wire things. I don't want to share the road with driver's who "think differently" about what lane they should drive in. Licensed positions have a level of authority and are given a level of trust. Licenses exist to protect that trust from abuse. I definitely think some doctors have been abusing trust for political purposes. We saw doctors falsifying vaccination records. I think a doctor can tell fellow doctors or the academics that do the research that informs treatment whatever they want because there's not a level of trust enforced by an authority, but a doctor patient relationship must be protected because a patient is fundamentally unable to evaluate what the doctor says and must rely on trust.

neonate 4y ago

https://archive.ph/x62lm https://archive.ph/x62lm

hayst4ck 4y ago

A licensing board has to have a mandate from the doctors it licenses, people who have spent years of pain and study becoming an expert on health. If this bill is as fascist as many seem to think it is, then the doctors themselves will walk away or not tolerate it. They will move to a "more enlightened, less fascist" state and be licensed there instead. On the other hand, if doctors think some of their peers were creating chaos and not acting in patients best interest by entertaining medicine they don't believe to be evidence based, then the licensing board will have the permission if not blessing of the doctor community to improve public health care by getting rid of those who detract from it. My money says more doctors will be happy with this bill than upset by it, but if we start seeing articles to the contrary I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. I am quite confident the vast majority of doctors would be very happy to have a doctor that says "vaccines cause autism" to a patient (not to the medical or academic community) lose their license. Incredible numbers of medical hours and wages are wasted assuring parents that vaccines are not harming their children because it's been politicized by entities that profit from fear and engagement or the destruction of public trust.

tpoacher 4y ago

"Ministry of Truth, Health Division"

illuminerdy 4y ago

False information such as "we don't know if the vaccine will actually prevent infection" when all the beaurocrats and "scientists" (the only ones who were allowed to speak) were falsely stating that if you took the vaccine, you absolutely would not get the virus? So when are they gonna punish those doctors?

anigbrowl 4y ago
all the beaurocrats and "scientists" [...] were falsely stating that if you took the vaccine, you absolutely would not get the virus Not actually true
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  Of course it's not true. It's not like we have them on video literally saying that. Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    I don't think your memory is all that great, because I remember plenty of caveats about how you could still catch COVID but symptoms would probably be mild - just like every other vaccine on the market has a percentage of effectivity. Perhaps drink less plandemic koolaid and read or watch more discourse from actual epidemiologists and doctors.

guilhas 4y ago

So who decides what is misinformation? We already know science is biased or corrupt, and medical experts seeing patients everyday must know a bit more to balance health decisions than politicians What do they do if they suspect an aproved treatment is causing death or disability? Talk about it? No that is illegal now. But so is malpractic. Who is going to jail?

nathanaldensr 4y ago
It won't be the politicians passing unconstitutional laws, that's for sure.