Yet doctors are now standing up Richard Jaffe is helping lead a lawsuit against the California medical board arguing that its actions to silence doctors is a violation for constitutional rights Rick Jaffe thanks for being on Crossroads thank you thank you for having me well you have an interesting case right
Now arguing kind of kind of against what I think you say is rules against doctors you know under the label of going against misinformation but that’s actually undermining the First Amendment rights of doctors can you just explain to us a bit of what the California medical board has been
Doing like what is it that you’re having issues with that they’re doing okay well let me start from the beginning all right give the readers a complete picture of what happened in July 2021 the Federation of State Medical boards which is the trade group for medical boards issued a press
Release it wasn’t a white paper it wasn’t some thought out thing they just issued a couple paragraph press release and what they said is look doctors who knocked the vaccine and promote off-label coveted drugs like Ivermectin or hcq should have their licenses revoked or disciplined so that’s what they said
We’re the Federation of State Medical boards our members are all the medical boards around the country and we think that these medical boards should go after doctors who go out in public and spread what they call covid misinformation so they did that in July and that what happened as a result of
That some states are a few States anyway like California introduced legislation effectuating the federation’s policy so in California what they did is they introduced a bill that basically said if you spread what they call coveted misinformation a doctor can be disciplined the target of the bill where the doctors who were going around
On the internet and in public knocking the vaccine the safety and efficacy vaccine promoting these off-label drugs in public and the effect of which the the the the basically the people in support of uh all these covet edex was taking the position that these doctors were drowning out the message of the
Public health authorities and they were increasing what they call vaccine hesitancy so this bill in California uh carrying out the federation’s policy was trying to stop doctors from going out in public and saying things that would make it less likely that people would take the you know the covet
Vaccine or the second third fourth or semi-annual booster so that was the target of the bill and that was back in February and then what happened is it became very clear very quickly to the legislatures that you can’t stop doctors from speaking out in public I mean that
Just everyone understands that to be unconstitutional so what they tried to do to save the bill bill was they tried to limit the uh the information to information provided into the perp for the purposes of treatment or advice between a doctor and a patient and the hopes that that
Would basically avoid the Constitutional argument or the Constitutional the obvious constitutional problem now the board has already taken the position they don’t even need this law they can they can sanction doctors for their public speech they could sign to doctors for their private speech to patients even without this law but they figure
You know what let’s make it clear that we can do it so that’s their position and ending that they always had their right to do it which they I don’t think they did but right now the bill in California the law in California as of January 1st is that doctors can be
Sanctioned for speaking out against the mainstream coveted Media or that’s how we interpret the bill hmm well you know I think this raises a few questions um I want to dig into it and dig into these sure one of the issues he said is that it raises that they try to get
Around the Constitutional argument by saying that basically if a doctor gives advice to a patient that’s okay but I assume that means that if they for example post something on Twitter they consider that not okay can you explain this well like I say I mean it
The point of the bill was from to stop doctors from speaking out in public because it was they they said it it stopped hurt immunity because you have to have all 95 of people to get vaccinated and boosted and so it was really the public problem they were
Trying to address but they had to give that up so the way the law reads now is well the way the world is law reads now is it’s completely ineffective to do what the law was supposed to do which was to stop uh these doctors from uh drowning out
The public health authorities and and the notion that you can do that uh by targeting doctors in their individual in in their in their examination rooms by what they say to individual patients I mean that’s just not a good fit it’s more like they had to gut the bill
But they kept on promoting the bill as targeting the public information that doctor said So when you say you know when you you had some confusion about well there does it still affect uh public information technically no but that’s what the legislature was really worried about and continue to be worried
About even after the law was changed to knock out the whole public aspect and that’s part of the confusion is that you know there’s just a disconnect between the problem right which is you know Simone gold Joe Mercola and all uh uh uh Sherry tenpenney all of these so-called
Anti-vac stocks that were having a dramatic effect on the dialogue which was negating or undercutting the the you know Anthony fauci and you know uh uh pull off it and all these guys who are trying to get people at least back then we’re trying to get people to take every
Vaccine and every booster interestingly Paul Offutt who is Mr vaccine is now getting very reluctant to recommend all these boosters for a lot of reasons but but that is the whole Target of the bill which and this is really our point in court is that that Target is not being
Addressed in the bill because it’s it is limited and had to be limited to patients because the Constitutional considerations so I guess our point is what’s the point right and under constitutional law you know a bill has to be a reasonable fit to the problem the bill seeks to address
Right and there’s a concept called under inclusiveness and here’s the crazy thing about it this bill targets Physicians uh medical doctors and osteopaths there are plenty of other people who talk about vaccines chiropractors licensed and licensed natural pass and the bigger problem is what has happened in the pandemic and
I’m going to be I’m this is going to be a big part of our case what’s happened in the pandemic is that the concept you don’t need to go to a doctor to get a vaccine anymore if you want a vaccine and you think it’s
You know on the bee’s knees you go to your local pharmacy right I mean I mean everyone’s got a Walmart or a pharmacy or a Target whatever you got a grocery store that has a pharmacy so what’s happened is if you want a vaccine you go to a pharmacy or some other place
But if you really have concerns about about whether you should take that 12th booster you might want to go to a doctor and get some information and the board’s problem in this case and why I think we have a pretty good chance is that even in California which is pretty
Restrictive the courts have held that information about things even which violates the so-called standard of care is still protected and and or can’t be reached so from a legal point of view it’s very questionable whether the board has the power to discipline doctors basically censor doctors from providing information
That patients would like to hear about and and for so that’s that’s kind of where we are and why we are somewhat confident that even in California we might get a favorable result
