Court Enjoins California’s Bar on Doctors Giving “False Information” on Covid

With the recent passage of AB 2098, California took a highly controversial step in barring doctors from offering “false information” on Covid-19 and related subjects. The law is an extension of Democratic efforts to block  or censor “misinformation” and “disinformation” in society from social media to medicine. However, this effort involves direct government action. As will come as little surprise to many on this blog, I opposed the measure as unconstitutionally vague and a threat to free speech. Nevertheless, Judge Fred Slaughter (C.D. Cal.) in McDonald v. Lawson held that this statute was likely constitutional and rejected a motion for a preliminary injunction. Now, however Judge William Shubb (E.D. Cal.) has reached the opposite conclusion in Hoeg v. Newsom, granting an injunction.

The law bars doctors from providing “treatment or advice” “to a patient” “related to COVID-19” when that treatment or advice includes (1) “false information” (2) “that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus” (3) “contrary to the standard of care.” If a doctor goes against this ill-defined “consensus,” the doctor is guilty of  “unprofessional conduct” and can face disciplinary action.

The law was enacted despite the fact that many doctors who questioned aspects of Covid treatment (and were attacked for their views) have been largely vindicated. Among the suspended from social media were the doctors who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdowns as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination.  Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.

As the prior “consensus” over the efficacy of masks or other Covid measures was being placed in greater doubt, California moved to make future dissenters even less likely by threatening their licenses. While the law only limits comments to patients, it sends a chilling message to physicians to toe the line on Covid statements.

Previously, Judge Slaughter found this presumptively constitutional despite the vagueness of this standard. In McDonald v. Lawson he held:

[T]he Supreme Court has permitted “restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality” without the application of strict scrutiny…. The Ninth Circuit … [has] proceeded to recognize the “long (if heretofore unrecognized) tradition of regulation governing the practice of those who provide health care within state borders.”

…The Ninth Circuit cautioned against discounting the “long tradition of this type of regulation” in a way that “would endanger centuries-old medical malpractice laws that restrict treatment and the speech of health care providers,” emphasizing that “[w]hen a health care provider acts or speaks about treatment with the authority of a state license, that license is an ‘imprimatur of a certain level of competence.'”

…Accordingly, the court finds it fits comforably within the long tradition of California’s, and the states’, regulation of medical practice, which further supports the court’s finding it is constitutional.

Judge Shubb took a very different view of the matter in finding the language to be unconstitutionally vague. He started with the vague reference to “scientific consensus”:

The statute defines “misinformation” as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” The statute defines “disinformation” as “misinformation that the licensee deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead.”

“Contemporary Scientific Consensus”

[B]ased on the record before the court, it appears that the primary term at issue—”contemporary scientific consensus”—does not have an established technical meaning in the medical community. Physician plaintiffs provide declarations explaining that “scientific consensus” is a poorly defined concept. …

Defendants provide no evidence that “scientific consensus” has any established technical meaning; the expert declarations they offer are notably silent on the topic….

In Forbes, the Ninth Circuit considered a vagueness challenge to a law prohibiting medical “experimentation” or “investigation” involving fetal tissue from abortions unless necessary to perform a “routine” pathological examination. The court relied on testimony from the plaintiffs (who were physicians) and expert witnesses to evaluate the challenged terms, which were not defined by the statute. The experts “highlight[ed] doctors’ lack of consensus about what procedures are purely experimental” and pointed out difficulties arising from the changing nature of scientific understanding, by which some “experiments” will eventually become recognized as “treatment.” The terms “investigation” and “routine” were problematic because multiple common definitions could apply in the medical community, which “[lacked] any official standards to help” define the terms. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the contested terms lacked sufficiently clear, commonly understood definitions in the medical community, and the statute failed to provide narrowing definitions, the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The lack of definitional clarity failed both to give doctors fair notice of what conduct was prohibited, and to give courts and law enforcement sufficient standards by which to narrow the terms’ meanings.

…The statute provides no clarity on the term’s meaning, leaving open multiple important questions. For instance, who determines whether a consensus exists to begin with? If a consensus does exist, among whom must the consensus exist (for example practicing physicians, or professional organizations, or medical researchers, or public health officials, or perhaps a combination)? In which geographic area must the consensus exist (California, or the United States, or the world)? What level of agreement constitutes a consensus (perhaps a plurality, or a majority, or a supermajority)? How recently in time must the consensus have been established to be considered “contemporary”? And what source or sources should physicians consult to determine what the consensus is at any given time (perhaps peer-reviewed scientific articles, or clinical guidelines from professional organizations, or public health recommendations)? The statute provides no means of understanding to what “scientific consensus” refers.

Judicial references to the concept of scientific consensus—in the context of COVID-19 as well as other disputed scientific topics—confirm that the term lacks an established meaning…. Because the term “scientific consensus” is so ill-defined, physician plaintiffs are unable to determine if their intended conduct contradicts the scientific consensus, and accordingly “what is prohibited by the law.” As discussed in greater detail in Section III of this Order, plaintiffs represent that they have provided and would like to continue providing certain COVID-19-related advice and treatment that contradict the positions of public health agencies like the CDC. If the “consensus” is determined by United States public health recommendations, physician plaintiffs’ intended conduct would contradict that consensus; if the same term is defined by other metrics, their conduct may be permissible. The language of the statute provides no way to determine which of multiple interpretations is appropriate.

Rather than merely providing the statute with “flexibility and reasonable breadth,” the term “scientific consensus” makes it impossible to understand “what the ordinance as a whole prohibits.”

The court goes on to address the rather glaring problem that the consensus may have been wrong on Covid:

…Physician plaintiffs explain how, throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific understanding of the virus has rapidly and repeatedly changed. Physician plaintiffs further explain that because of the novel nature of the virus and ongoing disagreement among the scientific community, no true “consensus” has or can exist at this stage. Expert declarant Dr. Verma similarly explains that a “scientific consensus” concerning COVID-19 is an illusory concept, given how rapidly the scientific understanding and accepted conclusions about the virus have changed. Dr. Verma explains in detail how the so-called “consensus” has developed and shifted, often within mere months, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. He also explains how certain conclusions once considered to be within the scientific consensus were later proved to be false. Because of this unique context, the concept of “scientific consensus” as applied to COVID-19 is inherently flawed….

The court then eviscerates the reference to being “contrary to the standard of care” and concludes that

… far from clarifying the statutory prohibition, the inclusion of the term “standard of care” only serves to further confuse the reader. Under the language of AB 2089, to qualify as “misinformation,” the information must be “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” Put simply, this provision is grammatically incoherent. While “statutes need not be written with ‘mathematical’ precision, they must be intelligible.” It is impossible to parse the sentence and understand the relationship between the two clauses—”contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus” and “contrary to the standard of care.”

One possible reading, as defendants argue, is that the two elements are entirely separate requirements that each modify the word “information.” However, this interpretation is hard to justify. If the Legislature meant to create two separate requirements, surely it would have indicated as such—for example, by separating the two clauses with the word “and,” or at least with a comma. Further, the concept of “standard of care” pertains to the nature and quality of treatment that doctors provide or fail to provide. It is thus difficult to accept defendants’ contention that the term “standard of care” modifies the word “information.” By its very nature, the standard of care applies to care, not information.

The court also rejected the claim that the inclusion of “false information” helps clarify the matter:

While this reasoning may appear sound at first, drawing a line between what is true and what is settled by scientific consensus is difficult, if not impossible. The term “scientific consensus” implies that the object of consensus is provable or true in some manner. This is evident in the examples of “consensus” given by defendants—that apples contain sugar, that measles is caused by a virus, and that Down’s syndrome is caused by a chromosomal abnormality. These propositions are so universally agreed upon that they are considered factual. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which the Boards consider a proposition to be settled by the scientific consensus, yet not also “true.”

Moreover, as discussed above, because COVID-19 is such a new and evolving area of scientific study, it may be hard to determine which scientific conclusions are “false” at a given point in time. The term “false information” thus fails to cure the provision’s vagueness….

The court then grants the injunction.

Both opinions are well written and now present an excellent foundation for a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court. I obviously favor Judge Shubb’s opinion, but this is likely to cause the same divisions on appeal where “consensus” may be equally difficult to establish.

170 thoughts on “Court Enjoins California’s Bar on Doctors Giving “False Information” on Covid”

  1. Let’s discuss the “false information” that was proven true:

    1. That the outbreak likely was a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology
    2. That Covid was in the world prior to December 2019
    3. The paper condemning Hydroxychloroquine was actually published by a porn star based on aggregates and was highly flawed
    4. That vaccinated people began to get and spread Covid
    5. That myocarditis and other heart related problems increased, especially in young, healthy men, after vaccination
    6. That hospitals were either accidentally or purposefully grossly overestimating Covid deaths. Someone who died in a car accident who tested positive for Covid would be included in stats.
    7. Cloth masks do not prevent the spread of Covid and in fact collect germs
    8. Kids who wear cloth masks are exposed to more germs, not less
    9. Kids would drop their cloth masks on the floor, even in the bathroom, and then put them back on their faces, or sneeze into them
    10. Making a 2 year old wear a cloth mask, when he or she instinctively is afraid of anything that feels smothering on their face, neither protects the child nor prevents the spread of Covid
    11. Rhetoric that Covid was a severe threat to the health of children was demonstrably false
    12. Covid school shutdowns and masking has lead to severe developmental and social delays in children, increased suicide, and significant learning loss

    There are more, but all of these have been condemned and censored by social media, and Democrat politicians, as “misinformation”.

    It is not the government’s purview to silence free discussion and exchange of ideas. It may certainly produce PSAs and other materials, but not censor. Various government agencies coordinating with social media to censor private citizens is de facto government censorship, and unconstitutional.

    1. Karen S: please! You really have to stop your nonsense.
      1. the origin of the 19 strain of coronavirus has not been established, much less proven “true” as coming from the Wuhan lab. You just made that up and/or are repeating some lie you heard on alt-right news.
      2. I have a 1970 -copyrighted copy of “Control of Communicable Diseases in Man”, published by the CDC, which I obtained from my local county Health Department when they replaced it with later editions of this publication. Coronavirusus are listed in that publication as a cause for respiratory cold and flu-like symptoms. COVID-19 is a variant of this longstanding virus, which wasn’t new in 1970.
      3. Multiple studies have proven that Hydroxychloroquine is not only ineffective in treating or preventing COVID 19 infections, but people who take this drug fare worse than taking nothing at all. I’ve posted links to articles numerous time proving this, but it doesn’t sink into your consciousness.
      4.. the CDC has always said that immunization would not necessarily prevent getting COVID–only that those vaccinated were far less llikely to end up hospitalized and/or dying. That was and still is, true.
      5. People got myocarditis long before COVID-19. The connection between mild myocarditis and COVID 19 is being studied, but people who contract COVID can get myocarditis, too. The myocarditis associated with vaccination is mild and easily treated. It is a risk that is outweighed by the benefits of vaccination.
      6. You are just parroting lies you heard on alt-right media about hospitals exaggerating and/or lying about COVID being the cause of deaths. That’s just not true.
      7. COVID is spread by respiratory droplets. Cloth masks stop respiratory droplets, which is why they were used in surgeries long before there were disposable paper masks.
      8. Children are not more exposed to germs by wearing masks.
      9. Just HOW many kids drop their masks on restroom floors, anyway? And, if they do, they should be properly taught to ask a parent or teacher for a replacement. Sneezing into a mask is a good thing because it prevents the spewing of respiratory droplets. It’s like sneezing into your elbow, something that is recommended for everyone.
      10. This is just so dumb it’s not worth my time to respond. Every 2 year old doesn’t react like you claim. If a parent and other adults wear masks, kids want to, too, because they like to imitate the adults in their lives.
      11, This statement is demonstrably false. Children also died from COVID, but not in the same numbers as adults. Importantly, they spread the disease to the adults in their lives, who were at greater risk of dying and/or serious illness.
      12. Talk about gross exaggerations–most children who had distance learning did not have SEVERE developmental and social delays, increased suicide and/ or SIGNIFICANT learning loss.

      This foregoing list of lies you apparently believe SHOULD BE condemned because they aren’t true. There’s no such thing as an “exchange of ideas” when it comes to the truth about science, communicable disease and responsible means to control the spread of contagious diseases. That’s more of the harm Donald Trump has done to America and the world at large because he couldn’t get the CDC doctors to kiss his ass.

      1. From “Wikipedia”: “The History of Coronaviruses”

        The history of coronaviruses is an account of the discovery of the diseases caused by coronaviruses and the diseases they cause. It starts with the first report of a new type of upper-respiratory tract disease among chickens in North Dakota, U.S., in 1931. The causative agent was identified as a virus in 1933. By 1936, the disease and the virus were recognised as unique from other viral disease. They became known as infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), but later officially renamed as Avian coronavirus.

        A new brain disease of mice (murine encephalomyelitis) was discovered in 1947 at Harvard Medical School in Boston. The virus causing the disease was called JHM (after Harvard pathologist John Howard Mueller). Three years later a new mouse hepatitis was reported from the National Institute for Medical Research in London. The causative virus was identified as mouse hepatitis virus (MHV),[1][2] later renamed Murine coronavirus.

        In 1961, a virus was obtained from a school boy in Epsom, England, who was suffering from common cold. The sample designated B814 was confirmed as novel virus in 1965. New common cold viruses (assigned 229E) collected from medical students at the University of Chicago were also reported in 1966. Structural analyses of IBV, MHV, B814 and 229E using transmission electron microscopy revealed that they all belong to the same group of viruses. Making a crucial comparison in 1967, June Almeida and David Tyrrell invented the collective name coronavirus, as all those viruses were characterised by solar corona-like projections (called spikes) on their surfaces.[3]

        Other coronaviruses have been discovered from pigs, dogs, cats, rodents, cows, horses, camels, Beluga whales, birds and bats. As of 2022, 52 species are described. Bats are found to be the richest source of different species of coronaviruses. All coronaviruses originated from a common ancestor about 293 million years ago. Zoonotic species such as Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a variant of SARS-CoV, emerged during the past two decades and caused the first pandemics of the 21st century.

        This addresses Karen S’s point #2.

        1. While I do not see any error in your long cite from Wikipedia which risks geting deleted for violation of copyright,
          that does not make Wikipedia a trusted cite.

          Regardless, what is your Point ? Nothing in your citation challenges what Karene stated

          From Wkipedia also
          “Well over 200 virus strains are implicated in causing the common cold, with rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses and enteroviruses being the most common.”

          From the CDC

          1. Karen S said the following was proven untrue: “That Covid was in the world prior to December 2019”. “COVID”, standing alone, without any modifiers like “SARS-Co-v”, “MERS Co-v” or COVID 19, simply means “coronavirus”, and they’ve been “in the world” for about 293 million years. Just another example of how Karen S. tries to pretend to be a medical expert.

            1. Your claim that Covid standing alone, is just a generic reference to corona viruses is False.

              Over the past 2+ years the phrase Covid always or nearly always refers to the virus responsible for the pandemic.
              Frankly I am not aware of the term Covid being used prior to that – vertainly not in the general population.

              Karen and anyone else is free to Refer to the Virus causing the pandemic as Covid without modifiers.

              I am sure if I look through past posts I can find YOU having done so.

              Next, There is no direct intermediary between the virus causing the pandemic and the Bat or Pangolin Coronavirus’s that is the bridge to humans. The Bat and Pangolin Coronavirus’s are hundreds possibly thousands of mutations from C19.
              If they transition to C19 occured in nature rather than a lab – we should have atleast half a dozen examples of intermediate steps somewhere in nature.

              It took less than 2 weeks to find the immediate MERS precursor in camels.

              It is 2+ years and there is no precursor to C19 that does not require hundreds of mutations.

              It is not impossible that C19 cam directly from nature – it is HIGHLY improbable at this time.
              It is not certain it came from a lab – it is HIGHLY likely.

              That is the current ACTUAL state of our knowledge.

          2. Editors Choice
            CDC Vaccine Safety Director Admits People ‘Experiencing Debilitating Illnesses’ After Covid Jabs
            by Kelen McBreen
            January 27th 2023, 1:59 pm
            Is the Covid truth dam about to break?
            Government employee says agency trying to better understand ‘adverse events’
            Image Credit:
            Philippe Degroote / Getty

            CDC Immunization Safety Office Director Tom Shimabukuro admitted during an FDA advisory panel on Covid vaccines this week that his agency is aware of citizens suffering “debilitating illnesses” after taking the jabs.

            “We take vaccine safety very seriously,” he said. “With respect to reports of people experiencing debilitating illnesses, we are aware of these reports of people experiencing long-lasting health problems following Covid vaccination.”


            1. Oky1: You cited “Infowars”? Where the hell have you been for the past couple of years? Didn’t you hear about Alex Jones of InfoWars getting hit with a multi-million dollar judgment for lying about Sandy Hook? What you cited is PROOF of nothing–the CDC is looking into what are nothing but “reports”.

      2. Gigi…drinking that much Kool aide at one time is probably more deadly than Covid…I’d slow down and get back in that vax line like a good little sheep. Nothing to fear but death itself.

        1. Mike: no, there’s plenty to fear–stupid people who are disciples to alt-right media and who form opinions based on lies and who will defend such lies because they are immune to the truth. That’s how our Capitol got attacked, with a mob of Trump disciples hunting down the Vice President and planning to lynch him because they believed his Big Lie. The video of Paul Pelosi’s hammer attack was just released–the assailant claimed he was there to attack Nancy because she “lies”–a persistent alt-right theme. Then, there’s people who fall for the anti-vax rhetoric and who won’t even get their children immunized from polio, measles, rubella, mumps, diphtheria, tetanus, the flu and other contagious diseases that could cause them to die and/or spread infection to other unvaccinated people, including pregnant women who would be placed at risk for giving birth to a deformed baby. The safety and efficacy of these vaccines has been proven for decades, but they persist in believing alt-right media. All of this is fallout from Trump’s utterly incompetent handling of COVID, his intentional lying about the seriousness because it made him look bad and to vindicate him because Drs. Fauci and Birx wouldn’t go along with his lies.

        2. mike,

          Play little attention gigi, she’s suffering from the mental illness, TDS.

          Here is just a small glance of what she’s been advising people to stab into their blood veins.

          Note in the video below the safety and efficacy of the mRNA clot & death shot, they’re doing pretty good, but Bill Gates & Pharma are promising do better on their next bio-chem-attack on us.

          Govt has the latest rounds of New Boosters available just for you! They’re all Experts! LOL;)


          1:15 minutes

          Brought To You By Pfizer!



          Jan 10, 2023
          Darrin McBreen
          Darrin McBreen

          This message brought to you by Pfizer. Trust The Science. Shocking video montage puts a spotlight on Pfizer’s conflict of interest hiding in front of our eyes the whole time.


      3. “the origin of the 19 strain of coronavirus has not been established, much less proven “true” as coming from the Wuhan lab.”
        Correct, but the odds of C19 having direct natural origens today is very near zero. It is almost 3 years after the first cases appear and there is No natural intermediary that is anywhere close to C19. With Sars and Mers the natural source was found within weeks.
        A Bat Corona Virus is almost certainly a precursor, though it may have come through Pangolins. But there is not an in the wild precursor that is anywhere near close to able to jump to humans and spread. There is a minuscule possibility that at some time in the future some other natural intermediary may be found – but the amount of effort the Chinese put into finding somethng was extraordinary and in nearly 3 years Zip, Zilch, Nada. The odds of a direct natural precursor is approaching Zero.

        Conversely the Furin Cleavage site found in the genetics of C19 has attracted the addention of micro biologists all over – and it appears highly unlikely to have evolved naturally.

        At this time the likelyhood of coming directly from nature is 1:3,000,000,000 or less, The odds of coming from a lab are near 100%.

        The next question is did it come from the Wuhan lab. Given that all the initial cases showed up along a subway line that runs right by the Wuhan Lab, that appears highly likely.

        “You just made that up and/or are repeating some lie you heard on alt-right news.”
        Nope, there are lots and lots of sources for this.

        John Stwert is neither a scientist, nor an alt-right asource, But he certainly debunks your idiotic claim that the lab leak theory is alt-right.
        It is what the majority of thinking people see as likely today.

      4. “I have a 1970 -copyrighted copy of “Control of Communicable Diseases in Man”, published by the CDC, which I obtained from my local county Health Department when they replaced it with later editions of this publication. Coronavirusus are listed in that publication as a cause for respiratory cold and flu-like symptoms. COVID-19 is a variant of this longstanding virus, which wasn’t new in 1970.”

        Covid is distantly related to SOME cold virus’s. It is closely related to Bat Corona Virus’s

        1. It’s all the same family of viruses that contain spikes on the outer cell membrane that attack the respiratory system.

          1. And they are very distant relatives of C19. C19 is not one of the 4 major catagories of Cold virus’s that cause colds.

            It is in one of 3 other catagories of Corona Virus’s that do not infect humans – until now.

      5. “Multiple studies have proven that Hydroxychloroquine is not only ineffective in treating or preventing COVID 19 infections, but people who take this drug fare worse than taking nothing at all. I’ve posted links to articles numerous time proving this, but it doesn’t sink into your consciousness.”

        There are hundreds – I believe over 400 now that found HCQ to have varying degrees of positive effect against C19.

        It is absolute total BS to claim that taking HCQ is worse than doing nothing.
        The only study that found that was a VA study that has been thoroughly discredited.

        HCQ is dirt cheap and abundant, and one of the safest drugs in existance. It is safer than Aspirin. It is OTC in most of the world.

        Is it a C19 wonder drug ? Probably not – but then nothing so far actually is.

        If I had serious Covid would I be doing everything possible to find HCQ – absolutely.

        Regardless and most importantly HCQ meets Hipocrates requirement “First do no harm” – The Vaccine has a higher risk than HCQ.

        1. NO reputable scientific source recommends Hydroxychloroquine to treat or prevent COVID 19. None whatsoever, including, and especially our FDA. Those phony “studies” you cite are just that–phony–flawed. The ONLY reason anyone thinks that there could possibly be any efficacy for Hydroxychloroquine to be used for treating or preventing COVID is to defend Trump for lying about it. Hydroxychlorquine is only approved to treat conditions like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, and Trump’s lie about Hydroxychloroquine resulted in a shortage for these people who needed the drug and who used it for approved uses. This is alt-right lying, and hurts people. Hydroxychloroquine has side effects, just like everything else. Please stop trying to create medical abbreviations, too.

          1. “NO reputable scientific source recommends Hydroxychloroquine to treat or prevent COVID 19.”

            I thought your standard was studies ? There are hundreds of those.

            “None whatsoever, including, and especially our FDA.”
            Actually there are several countries that have done so.

            “Those phony “studies” you cite are just that–phony–flawed.”
            Right hundreds of RCT’s are flawed.

            “The ONLY reason anyone thinks that there could possibly be any efficacy for Hydroxychloroquine to be used for treating or preventing COVID is to defend Trump for lying about it.”

            That is absolute nonsense. Trump did not personally recomend Ivarmectin. Information about its effacacy came out After Trump left office – yet there are studies demonstrating that it has value – more than HCQ in treating Covid.

            “Hydroxychlorquine is only approved to treat conditions like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis”
            False, HCQ is used both on label and off to treat many many things. Its primary use is against malaria and other infectuous blood born diseases.
            It is one of the top 10 safest drugs in existance and on WHO’s list of Drugs that Every doctor should have in stock.

            “and Trump’s lie about Hydroxychloroquine resulted in a shortage for these people who needed the drug and who used it for approved uses. This is alt-right lying, and hurts people.”
            Proof that YOU are in a bubble. HCQ is ABUNDANT AND CHEAP – DIRT CHEAP – at any given time there are atleast a billion doses readily available throughout the world. As I said before even WHO says that EVERY doctor should stock it.

            “Hydroxychloroquine has side effects, just like everything else.
            Correct watter has side effects. Taken without a doctors evaluation first – HCQ is less dangerous than Aspirin.
            Absolutely you can overdose on it, and a tiny percent of people have an adverse reaction – just like Aspirin.

            “Please stop trying to create medical abbreviations, too.”

          2. Your virulent antipathy to HCQ and that of the these organizations you tout reflects your own controling and immoral nature.

            HERE as early as late MArch 2020 I noted that biolabs accross the country were busy testing every single existing FDA approved drug to see if any of them were effective against C19.

            To any RATIONAL person – that is EXACTLY what we should be doing.

            Further we shoudl ABSOLUTELY expect that MANY previously FDA approved drugs will be effective against C19 in a lab.

            And of those MAYBE some of them will be effective in real life.

            That is how actual science and medicine works.

            Yet fromt he start YOU and YOUR ILK – have sought Total control over everything.

            You have worked to actively thwart labs looking at the possibility that existing druges might be effective – or at doctors trying existing approved drugs off label.

            You and your ilk have done something never before done – attacking censuring and prosecuting doctors for using drugs off label.

            A substantial portion of drugs today are used off label. Drug companies are constantly looking for new uses for existing drugs – that is the NORM.
            When they find something it gets published and then more doctors start using it for that, and the drug companies work to inform doctors of off label uses.

            SOMETIME the work is done to get FDA to add the new use to the label – but that is NOT the norm.

            Yet, you left wing nuts do not want anyone to find anything done outside your top down tightly controlled world.

            The fight over HCQ and Ivarmectin are NOT about how effective they are.

            They are entirely about the fact that they came about through processes that YOU did not control.

            At this time there is ample evidence that HCQ and Ivarmectin are effective Treatments of C19.

            But it is also fairly clear that there are a number of other variables that we do not understand. HCQ works for some people and not others.
            It appears to work better in combination with Zithromax and Zinc, but not always.

            BTW these results should not surprise.

            Completely independent of HCQ and Ivarmectin is the effectiveness of Vitamin D.

            We KNOW that people with normal levels of Vitamin D get Covid less frequently and have much better outcomes.
            In fact normal Vitamin D levels have a record of better results than the Vaccine.

            That said, the evidence that taking Vitamin D supliments is beneficial against Covid is poor.

            To those not morons it is OBVIOUS that there is something that we need to look into.

            We Know that naturally high levels of Vitamin D prevent C19 and reduce its severity if you get it.

            But increasing Vitamin D levels with pills does not appear produce the same benefit.

            Again there is obviously something that we need to look itno.

            Another holy war was over Gym’s.

            The evidence we have now is that regular excerise is effective against C19 – both reducing your odds of C19 and reducing the harms of C19.

            All these and many many other areas of exploration is what we should WANT.

            And what YOU are trying to thwart.

            You are not hostile to HCQ Or Ivarmectin.

            You are hostile to anything you do not control.
            And that hostility goes far beyond medicine.

        2. From “Drugs. com”:
          An Update: Is hydroxychloroquine effective for COVID-19?
          Medically reviewed by Last updated on Sep 4, 2021.

          Official answer
          Multiple studies provide data that hydroxychloroquine (brand name: Plaquenil) does not provide a medical benefit for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine, an FDA-approved prescription drug used for malaria, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus erythematosus, has been suggested as a possible treatment or preventive for COVID-19 based on demonstrated antiviral or immune system activity.

          In June 2020, the FDA revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) of oral hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of COVID-19. An EUA can allow quicker access to critical medical products when there are no approved alternative options.

          Based on an evaluation of the scientific data to date, the FDA concluded that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not likely to be effective in the treatment of COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA.
          In addition, the risk for serious side effects with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine phosphate are a concern. This includes the possibility of adverse cardiovascular (heart) events such as an abnormal heart rhythm which could be fatal.
          Additional worldwide studies are still ongoing to assess the use of these agents for the treatment or prevention or COVID-19, including early-stage outpatient and use with supplements such as zinc or vitamin D or with azithromycin. However, the FDA states hydroxychloroquine should not be used outside of clinical trials in the U.S.
          The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) have also stopped studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 due to a lack of benefit. Current NIH and US treatment guidelines do not recommend use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine phosphate for COVID-19 treatment outside of clinical studies.

          Although earlier studies suggested that hydroxychloroquine could inhibit the SARs-CoV-2 virus and was more potent than chloroquine, recent studies do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine phosphate. The FDA stated on June 15, 2020 that the suggested dosing regimens for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19.

          Do studies show hydroxychloroquine is not effective for COVID-19?
          Multiple studies have provided data demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 disease.

          The RECOVERY Trial from the University of Oxford is a large, randomized, controlled, open-label study evaluating a number of potential treatments for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The study is being conducted by researchers at the University of Oxford in the UK (the hydroxychloroquine arm is now halted).

          In the RECOVERY Trial, investigators reported that there was no beneficial effect or reduction of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving hydroxychloroquine.
          In this study, 1561 patients received hydroxychloroquine and were compared to 3155 patients receiving standard care only. No difference was found in the primary endpoint, which was the incidence of death at 28 days (26.8% hydroxychloroquine vs. 25% usual care, 95% CI 0.96-1.23; p=0.18).
          In addition, hydroxychloroquine treatment was associated with an increased length of stay in the hospital and increased need for invasive mechanical ventilation.
          Based on this data, investigators stopped enrollment in the RECOVERY hydroxychloroquine arm on June 5th, 2020.
          In a multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial published in July 2020 by Cavalcanti and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), hydroxychloroquine use was studied in patients who were hospitalized with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

          Patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 7 days), hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily + azithromycin 500 mg once daily for 7 days), or standard care only.
          The clinical status of these patients at day 15 was not improved as compared with the patients receiving only standard care.
          In addition, researchers noted that prolonged QT intervals (which may lead to abnormal heart rates and death) and elevated liver enzymes were higher in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin.
          A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from Skipper and colleagues was conducted in 423 outpatients (not in the hospital) with early COVID-19. It was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in July 2020.

          Patients received oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or a placebo (inactive treatment).
          Researchers found that over a 14 day period a change in symptom severity and the percent of patients with ongoing symptoms did not differ significantly between groups, signaling no effect from the hydroxychloroquine treatment.
          However, side effects were significantly greater in the group receiving hydroxychloroquine compared to placebo (43% hydroxychloroquine versus 22% placebo (P < 0.001). Rates of hospitalizations and deaths did not differ significantly.
          A retrospective, observational study conducted from March to early May of 2020 did report a positive effect with hydroxychloroquine on hospitalized patient mortality, used alone and with azithromycin when compared to no treatment. The study from Arshad and colleagues was published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases in August 2020. Authors note a limitation to their analysis was the retrospective, non-randomized, non-blinded study design.

          Researchers looked at 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days.
          Mortality, by treatment, was 20.1% for hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin, 13.5% for hydroxychloroquine alone, 22.4% for azithromycin alone, and 26.4% for neither drug (p < 0.001). The primary cause of death was respiratory failure in 88% of patients.
          Adjunct therapy with corticosteroids (methylprednisolone and/or prednisone) and anti-IL-6 tocilizumab was provided in 68% and 4.5% of patients, respectively.
          Factors such as greater glucocorticoid use in the hydroxychloroquine groups and the nonrandomized study design suggested this data may be flawed and that prospective, randomized controlled studies were needed to validate these results.
          Use of hydroxychloroquine is controversial, and has been politicized in the U.S. by various groups. Mixed studies have reported both a positive and negative effect, and data may not be robust or reliable: it can include data from study reviews, nonrandomized groups, retrospective research, observational data or from a statistically small sample size of patients.

          Research for COVID is often quick to be published in non-peer reviewed, preprint online services due to the urgency of the pandemic. However, in general, preprint data should not be used to guide clinical practice. In addition, some hydroxychloroquine studies have been retracted due to lack of confidence in the data, including a Lancet study and one from the NEJM.

          1. Gigi,

            All you do is make the point – this is all about Control for you.

            433 studies indicating a benefit as of Jan 2023.

            You do not seem to understand – I honestly do not give a schiff if HCQ is effective.

            What I care about is YOU and those like YOU engaged in a holy war to crush inquiry and use of HCQ.

            You want CONTROL.

            You have wanted CONTROL over everything from the start.

            I do nto care what CDC recoments of FDA or ….

            I care when you start converting “recomendations” into FORCE.

            The vast majority of HCQ “studies” have been done outside of the US – because the FDA and Big Pharma that OWNS FDA is openly hostile to ANYTHING that does not cost billions that works on Covid.

            I will be happy to See Big Pharma find an effective Covid counter measure – I have no problems with their efforts to do so.
            And if they succeed, they deserve the Billions they make off that.

            But I also expect that from ordinary doctors trying tthings – through small biolabs and medical research in other countries that LOTS of reseources will be directed at C19.

            I do not care who finds the effective solutions.

            But YOU do, You make that clear in every post. And not just about C19.

            In left wing nut world EVERYTHING must come through govenrment.

            You see yourselves as the gatekeepers, controling everything.

            There is plenty of evidence that you are wrong – and that you have LIED about HCQ and other treatments.

            But more important than that is that your goal is to CRUSH efforts outside your control to find solutions.

            And that is immoral.

            Your not about Science – you do not have a clue about actual science.
            Your about control.

          2. The link I provided provided links to every single HCQ study that has ever been done – those with negativate as well as positive results as well as how they were done.

            Rather than tell me about ONE study published where-ever. Actually learn something. Real science is rarely the result of one study.
            Nor are all studies of equal quality.

            What should be self evident – is that without cherry picking it is reasonable for some Doctors to use HCQ without interferance from you and your Ilk.

          3. To my knowledge the only actually retracted study was one that never actually took place – i.e. it was made up claiming that HCQ had higher mortaility.

            There are studies that find HCQ ineffective.
            There are many more studies that find it effective.

            It is self evident to anyone not a clueless moron, that there is a basis for using it, and a basis for further investigation.

            It is also self evident that we do not understand what is going on.

            We have something very similar with Vitamin D.

            We absolutely beyond any doubt KNOW that C19 frequency is lower and that outcomes are better for those with NATURAL normal vitamin D levels.

            But we are NOT reliably seeing the same effect reproducably from Vitamin D Supliments.

            Morons and those looking for power – shut the doors, and run away.

            Real Doctors and people trying to actually help – look to figure out what is going on and why.

            It is self evident you are not looking for a way to mitigate C19,
            But a way to use C19 to reach your political ends.

      6. “the CDC has always said that immunization would not necessarily prevent getting COVID–only that those vaccinated were far less llikely to end up hospitalized and/or dying. That was and still is, true.”

        False, I provided you with a link to the CDC in April 2021 claiming that the Vaccine would stop transmission.

        Regardless, myriads of government public health experts, and the media and left wing nuts have claimed exactly that and have censored those who disagreed.

        I do not care that the CDC was wrong and corrected their position.

        I was wrong about the Vaccine initially. Many people were. There is nothing wrong with having hope.
        There is nothing wrong with being initially incorrect regarding something new.

        There is a great deal wrong with imposing your position on others by FORCE – even if you are right.

        The HUGE error – which YOU and those like you are FULLY responsible for, is FORCING on the rest of us to comply with the positions of a small subset of actual experts.

        That would have been EVIL – even if you were RIGHT.
        It is completely unforgiveable given that not only were you wrong, but that it was clear from the start that there was a high degree of uncertainty in what you FORCED on the rest of us.

        Your personal FEARS are not justification to use FORCE against others.

        1. The fearful, like the miserable, love and crave company. They are weak of body, mind, and spirit.

      7. “People got myocarditis long before COVID-19. The connection between mild myocarditis and COVID 19 is being studied, but people who contract COVID can get myocarditis, too. The myocarditis associated with vaccination is mild and easily treated. It is a risk that is outweighed by the benefits of vaccination.”

        There has been an unexplained spike in myocarditis – especially in otherwise healthy people who were RECENTLY vaccinated.
        The resuilting myocarditis ranges from mild to FATAL.

        Contra your claim the risk of myocarditis – which CAN be FATAL or long term serious, is too great to overcome the benefits of vaccination for healthy Men under 40, and for anyone under 20.

        Myocarditis appears to be exclusively related to the mRNA vaccine.

        The mRNA vaccine seems to be more effective that the other vaccines. It ALSO has the highest rate of adverse events AND is most strongly tied to the significant post vacination increase in excess deaths that is occuring in ALL COUNTRIES that have used the mRNA vaccine.

        1. From the CDC:

          Myocarditis and Pericarditis After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination
          Updated Sept. 27, 2022
          Español | Other Languages
          CDC and its partners are actively monitoring reports of myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination. Active monitoring includes reviewing data and medical records and evaluating the relationship to COVID-19 vaccination.

          Information about CDC’s ongoing study of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination can be found here: Investigating Long-Term Effects of Myocarditis | CDC

          Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle.

          Pericarditis is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart.

          In both cases, the body’s immune system causes inflammation in response to an infection or some other trigger. Learn more about myocarditis and pericarditis. Both myocarditis and pericarditis have the following symptoms:
          Chest pain
          Shortness of breath
          Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart
          Myocarditis and pericarditis have rarely been reported. When reported, the cases have especially been in adolescents and young adult males within several days after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna).

          More often after the second dose
          Usually within a week of vaccination
          Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who received care responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly.
          Patients can usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.
          Those who have been diagnosed with myocarditis should consult with their cardiologist (heart doctor) about return to exercise or sports.

          1. You do understan that “From the CDC” is pretty close to meaningless ?

            You also realize that your CDC “press release” – actually says NOTHING ?

            Whether you like it or not the number of excess deaths since the start of C19 and praticularly since Vaccination – is 100%+ more than explainable by C19. And a significant portion of those excess deaths are related to Myacarditis.

            Rather than hide from the problems as you seem intent to do.

            Why not actually engage in and support meaningful research.

            JCVI – the UK govenrment committee on Vaccination has just ceaseed recomending C19 vaccination for those under 55.

      8. “COVID is spread by respiratory droplets. Cloth masks stop respiratory droplets, which is why they were used in surgeries long before there were disposable paper masks.”

        Covid is either not spread by respiratory droplets or those droplets are so small that not only are masks ineffective, but the droplets remain airborne indefinitely. You can not get transmission rates of 30 by purely aerosole viruses.

        Let go – the “Masks work” claim is dead as a doornail.

        Studies using the original Wuhan virus found that n95 masks were 77% effective in the laoratory – that is PER EXPOSURE.
        Anyone knowing the slightes math can figure out that with a Virus with a spread rate of 2.8-3.5 – the original virus that is not going to work.
        At the current spread rate of 30 – first it is unlikely that the 77% figure holds and next – even if it did, C19 would laugh at that.

        You do not understand the math. There is a reason that humans have NEVER stopped a repiratory virus EVER.
        It is called MATH.

        It is likely that had we employed the swedish strategy – protect the most vulnerable – mask them, mask those arround them, isolate them,
        vaccinate them – and left everyone else do as they please we might have reduced the number of deaths.

        But applying everything to everyone MADE THINGS WORSE

        a 77% exposure mask does NOTHING except make the pandemic last longer and have more time to find the vulnerable. if EVERYONE masks.

        Again to defeat the virus you MUST reduce the spread rate SIGNIFICANTLY below 1.0 – like to 0.5.
        Get it down to 1.01 and the epidemic lasts longer and the same or a greater number of people DIE.

        Given that masks did not work against the Flu – R0 of 1.4 and we KNEW THAT before Covid, the mask nonsense was absurd theater from the start.

      9. 1) The preponderance of the evidence points to the Wuhan Lab.
        2) “COVID-19 is a variant of “ Not really. Covid 19 is a corona virus but that doesn’t mean all corona viruses are variants of one another.
        3) “Hydroxychloroquine is not only ineffective in treating or preventing COVID 19 infections, but people who take this drug fare worse than taking nothing at all.” There is evidence for both sides on the HCQ issue but medicine as practiced would not have eliminated HCQ from the treatment regimen. Gig/ Natacha makes things up when she states “fare worse than taking nothing at all”
        4) Gigi is making things up.
        5) Gigi is babbling. Myocarditis has multiple etiologies. Deaths have occurred in the young from the vaccine causing myocarditis with a strong likelihood of the cause being due to ventricular arrhythmias.

        After 5 in a row, Bib demonstrates complete incompetence in assessing Covid related issues. That tells everyone there is no need to read or respond further.

      10. There’s no such thing as an “exchange of ideas” when it comes to the truth about science, communicable disease and responsible means to control the spread of contagious diseases.

        Science is absolutely about the exchange of ideas.

    2. It is not the government’s purview to silence free discussion and exchange of ideas. It may certainly produce PSAs and other materials, but not censor. Various government agencies coordinating with social media to censor private citizens is de facto government censorship, and unconstitutional.


      It is not the government’s business if the moderators of a discussion forum on a privately-owned Holocaust education web site fail to remove posts and replies denying the Holocaust.

      Why would COVID-19 misinformation®™ be any different in this context than Holocaust misinformation.

  2. This is exactly why many of us do not live in California. Newsom and his minions have lost their ever-loving minds!

  3. Just one of the many problems with this law: Long after it became clear that hospitals were killing many people unnecessarily, the “standard of care” remained Remdezivir and a ventilator. The medical community has become politicized and is held tightly in the grimy grips of Big Pharma.

  4. Who determines what constitutes false information? We live in a world where the official information is misinformation, and anyone who dares to contradict that version is labeled as spreading disinformation. We need to get a grip on ourselves, the only way science can police itself is through the application of basic principles, all of which have been ignored in the coronavirus outbreak. No application of basic principles, no way to determine what is misinformation or disinformation!

Leave a Reply