With the implementation of tougher legislation in the New Year, California has shockingly moved one step closer to totalitarianism. Famous Dr. Jay Bhattacharya was astounded by this most recent development in this worrisome tendency. “California doctors serve the CDC over their patients.”
It seems that knowledge about COVID therapies was suppressed, with possibly disastrous results for susceptible people, according to the discoveries in “The Twitter Files.” With the fear of disciplinary punishment against physicians who depart from this narrative, California’s Assembly Bill 2098 has now been put into effect to stifle viable alternative methods.
TRENDING: NEW Trump Diamond Bills Will Drive Liberals Crazy!
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University epidemiologist and co-author of the well-known Great Barrington Declaration, spoke on Tuesday night’s episode of “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News about why he thinks states shouldn’t put CDC recommendations in front of patients’ doctors.
“In California now, essentially, if you go to the doctor, you have the CDC in the same room with you as your doctor and the doctor has to decide whether they’re going to serve the CDC or the patient,” he said. “It’s an absolutely incredible thing that’s happened.”
As it is expressed in A.B. 2098, “This bill would designate the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or ‘COVID-19,’ as unprofessional conduct,” the definition of false information is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care,” i.e., whatever the authorities decide.
“Normally you would want the doctor to serve the interest of the patient rather than just public health in general and now under law, under threat of losing their license,” Bhattacharya said, “California doctors serve the CDC over their patients.”
While injections have yet to establish a long-term benefit or safety profile, Ingraham questioned why preventive therapies for COVID-19 have been rejected and ignored despite the existing research demonstrating their usefulness.
This proved to the doctor that he was right when he said “these issues are complicated. There’s a lot of differences of opinion…among experts on these issues. What this law does…is essentially tells doctors if you express your honest opinion you could lose your license. That’s the purpose of the law–is to take qualified doctors out of that conversation so that there’s an illusion of consensus on all of these complicated issues when in fact what we really need is all minds at the table talking, considering, honestly saying what they actually think instead of this sort of oppression of opinion by government edicts.”
When the complaint was first filed in November challenging this statute, Jenin Younes, a prominent member of the NCLA Litigation Counsel team, spoke out.
“I think this is a horrendous First Amendment violation and violates the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, and it jeopardizes doctors’ ability to treat their patients to the best of their ability.”
“Doctors are supposed to use their own judgment and experience to treat each patient individually, not to parrot some supposed consensus that may or may not even exist,” she added.
the cdc and all other alphabet agencies are not deserving of our trust….these past weeks have shown more and more, by friends and strangers alike, they are not deserving of our trust or faith because it’s all coming out now…