3 ms·

California approves bill to revoke MD license for speaking Covid misinformation

18 points by Jimmc414 4y ago

Jimmc414 4y ago
Ironically, section 1 of the bill contains declarations of facts and references to news media reports that could potentially change and, when viewed in retrospect, become subject to accusations of 'misinformation.'
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Do not become the bad guys, darn it! Conservative states should not be able to force words into the mouths of physicians (or teachers, or whoever), and neither should liberal states. And wtf does "science-based" mean in this context? Supported by the majority of peer-reviewed articles? Likely based on currently understood principles? Possible based on known similar instances? What? Edit: Will this be used against the county health officials who parrot the federal line about "community COVID levels" being low when "community *transmission* levels" are still high?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yucky 4y ago
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said "Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that it's not just in the clinical trials, but it's also in real-world data."[1] Not only does she still have her license, she's still the Director of the CDC. Then again, she isn't in California. But it raises an interesting point about how they would enforce it. Does anybody believe it would be used to do anything other than force all medical professional to toe the official line, even when it's 100% incorrect like with the above egregious example? [1]https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-director-says-data-suggests-213728435.html https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-director-says-data-suggests-21372...
- sn0w_crash 4y ago
  Of course nothing will happen to Walensky, or anyone else who was saying now known false information. This is meant to pressure people into not wanting to bring these things up publicly.
  - mansion7 4y ago
    Nothing will also happen to those who smeared critics as "deniers", a term previously reserved for those sympathetic to Nazism and mass genocide.
Jimmc414 4y ago
If misinformation is defined as false or inaccurate information with or without the intent to deceive, it raises the question of how many doctors could potentially be accused of unprofessional conduct. It is difficult to see how this Bill, which aims to address the issue of misinformation, can be reconciled with the first amendment's protection of free speech. edit: key definitions "(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 contrary to the standard of care."
- amalgamated_inc 4y ago
  Looking forward to seeing the entire ADA and AHA lose their licenses for pushing low-fat for decades.
  - barbazoo 4y ago
    This seems to be specific to COVID-19 or am I missing some broader impact of this? > 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.
    - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
      I was pointing out the hypocrisy, of course.
      - barbazoo 4y ago
        Oh I didn't get that at all, sorry. You're absolutely right obviously.
sn0w_crash 4y ago
This is just mind boggling.

18 points by Jimmc414 4y ago

Ironically, section 1 of the bill contains declarations of facts and references to news media reports that could potentially change and, when viewed in retrospect, become subject to accusations of 'misinformation.'

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

Do not become the bad guys, darn it! Conservative states should not be able to force words into the mouths of physicians (or teachers, or whoever), and neither should liberal states. And wtf does "science-based" mean in this context? Supported by the majority of peer-reviewed articles? Likely based on currently understood principles? Possible based on known similar instances? What? Edit: Will this be used against the county health officials who parrot the federal line about "community COVID levels" being low when "community *transmission* levels" are still high?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yucky 4y ago

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said "Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that it's not just in the clinical trials, but it's also in real-world data."[1] Not only does she still have her license, she's still the Director of the CDC. Then again, she isn't in California. But it raises an interesting point about how they would enforce it. Does anybody believe it would be used to do anything other than force all medical professional to toe the official line, even when it's 100% incorrect like with the above egregious example? [1]https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-director-says-data-suggests-213728435.html https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-director-says-data-suggests-21372...

sn0w_crash 4y ago
Of course nothing will happen to Walensky, or anyone else who was saying now known false information. This is meant to pressure people into not wanting to bring these things up publicly.
- mansion7 4y ago
  Nothing will also happen to those who smeared critics as "deniers", a term previously reserved for those sympathetic to Nazism and mass genocide.

Jimmc414 4y ago

If misinformation is defined as false or inaccurate information with or without the intent to deceive, it raises the question of how many doctors could potentially be accused of unprofessional conduct. It is difficult to see how this Bill, which aims to address the issue of misinformation, can be reconciled with the first amendment's protection of free speech. edit: key definitions "(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 contrary to the standard of care."

amalgamated_inc 4y ago
Looking forward to seeing the entire ADA and AHA lose their licenses for pushing low-fat for decades.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  This seems to be specific to COVID-19 or am I missing some broader impact of this? > 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.
  - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
    I was pointing out the hypocrisy, of course.
    - barbazoo 4y ago
      Oh I didn't get that at all, sorry. You're absolutely right obviously.

sn0w_crash 4y ago

This is just mind boggling.