On January 25, 2023, the federal judgment on William Shubb prohibited the state of California from enforcing the questionable AB 2098. This law states that physicians who “disseminate erroneous data or erroneous data similar to COVID-19, adding false or misleading data related to the nature and dangers of the virus, its prevention and treatment, and the development, protection, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines” would be guilty of “unprofessional conduct. “Such “erroneous data” when treating patients.
In his ruling to block the law, Judge Shubb found the state’s definition of “disdata” problematic. The law explained “disdata” as “false data that contradicts itself through a new clinical consensus contrary to the law. “
Judge Shubb asked some specific questions, including: “For example, who determines if there is a consensus to begin with?If there is consensus, among whom it exists (e. g. , practicing physicians, professional organizations, medical researchers, or public fitness). On which geographic domain is there consensus (California, United States, or the world)?Which point of agreement constitutes consensus (perhaps a plurality, a majority, or a large majority)?Since when has the consensus been established to be considered as “contemporary”? »
In addition, Judge Shubb noted that “COVID-19 is an evolving scientific box that, in many ways, is beyond consensus. “
Judge Shubb concluded that this uncertainty placed physicians in an untenable position: “Because the term ‘clinical consensus’ is so ill-defined, complaining physicians cannot determine whether their intentional conduct contradicts clinical consensus and therefore ‘what is prohibited by law. ‘”‘”
The ACLU took a similar position in opposition to the California law. ACLU attorney Hannah Kieschnick wrote, “Doctors are reluctant to talk and share their reviews with patients about an evolving disease with many unknowns. “(Kieschnick also noted that the existing law already includes many provisions to protect patients from physician misconduct, a view I fully agree with. )
Protesters opposing covid-19 vaccine mandates and vaccine passports through the government gather at Array. [ ] New York City Hall on August 25, 2021. (Photo by Angela WEISS/AFP) (Photo by ANGELA WEISS/AFP Getty Images)
I am pleased that Justice Shubb and the ACLU have raised the factor of the evolutionary nature of clinical “consensus” related to covid-19. In recent weeks, we have noticed 3 distinct histories in which what was described as an ago has undergone significant clinical reconsideration.
The first example the subject received of “natural immunity” when contracting Covid-19 versus immunity acquired through vaccines. A recent study in The Lancet concluded that immunity from a past Covid-19 infection is at least as strong as that achieved through two doses of the mRNA vaccine.
The moment focused on the effectiveness of the mask mandates of the population to prevent the spread of Covid-19. A recent meta-analysis of 12 clinical trials in several countries concluded that “wearing a mask online makes little or no difference to the final results. “of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 compared to not wearing a mask. “
Tom Jefferson, Cochrane review leader and senior associate tutor at the University of Oxford, put his conclusion on mask mandates much more directly: “There is simply no evidence that makes a difference. Full stop. My task, our task as a review team, was to review the evidence, we did.
(Others have counterarguments that oppose this conclusion; see this through Tomás Pueyo for an example. )
The third example was about the origins of the Covid-19 virus itself. According to the Wall Street Journal, the U. S. Department of Energy has been in the process of the U. S. Department of Energy. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration now believes the virus originated from an inadvertent “lab leak” that jumped herbs from animals to humans in an audience. market. Their revised conclusion is based on new information, however, they noted that this conclusion was one of “low confidence”.
(Other U. S. agencies disagree. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby explicitly stated that there is “no consensus” within the federal government on this issue. )
These 3 questions are still being discussed and debated within the clinical community. Moreover, on those debatable topics, someone who had expressed the “wrong” opinion two or 3 years ago on social media could have risked being blocked or banned from the social network. Platform to spread “disinformation”.
I don’t take any position on any of those issues. On the contrary, I wish to point out that the very fact that these are debatable issues means that science is not yet fully established. These ongoing debates only illustrate Justice Shubb’s observation, “COVID-19 is an evolving science box that, in many ways, is beyond consensus. “
Not all dissents of mainstream opinion are equally valid. But when public officials describe their privileged position on a debatable issue as “consensus” and label credible opposing perspectives as “disinformation,” they threaten to squander credibility when that supposed consensus then collapses under the weight of new evidence and analysis.
Similarly, when government officials try to force doctors to adhere to a false or nonexistent consensus, they are causing serious harm to doctors and patients. For my part, I’m glad AB2098 is no longer on the table, at least for now – and I hope it never comes back.
(Note: As a practicing physician who performs invasive procedures on patients, I have gladly earned my covid-19 vaccines in accordance with my private tastes and applicable state law. )