How to Defeat California's AB2098 -- A Modest Proposal

The entire bill relies on ONE word "consensus"... Show them that there is no consensus!

There is a major furor happening over California’s AB2098, a bill intended to silence California’s doctors over Covid matters. I fully share the indignation. Fortunately, we are lucky because this law is very poorly written and should be easily defeated.

As I will explain, the construct of the entire law — due to the stupidity of its non-lawyer, pediatrician author Richard Pan — is literally standing on one word “consensus” mentioned in Section 2.

Mind you, “consensus” means “near-unanimous agreement”. It is fairly obvious that by October of 2022, such a unanimous agreement about most matters of COVID does NOT exist, not only among “scientists” or “doctors”, but also among the world’s health authorities or governments.

Therefore, all we need to demolish this law is to have Covid-skeptical luminaries of the world write an open letter showing that CONSENSUS REGARDING COVID-19 VACCINES AND TREATMENTS DOES NOT EXIST!

I would like to post my analysis of this law and an explanation of what specific action to take to defeat it, based on several specific mistakes in the bill that makes it very vulnerable to a challenge.

Take a look at this law:

This law is just one page of fairly simple text, that is written very poorly and is open to several challenges. I will ONLY discuss one — but the most important — way to challenge it. This law is also open to other challenges such as First Amendment-related concerns that people endlessly wrote about. I will not discuss First Amendment-related matters in regard to this law, because I have nothing to add there.

The Law’s Defective Logic

What is the law saying?

• It is unprofessional conduct to disseminate misinformation or disinformation

• Disinformation means misinformation (no kidding) disseminated with “malicious intent”

• “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus

So, what the law boils down to, is that it is unprofessional conduct to disseminate medical opinions “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus”.

Hm…

Contemporary Scientific Consensus? What Consensus?

Is there really a contemporary scientific consensus regarding Covid-19 or Covid vaccines? To answer this question, we need to revisit the word “consensus”. This old Latin word has a very definite meaning of a “near-unanimous agreement”.

Consensus only exists when almost everyone agrees. Otherwise, there is no consensus — by definition!

There is absolutely no “consensus” or “group solidarity” in matters of Covid or Covid vaccines — even in public health! Consider, for example, Covid vaccines for children aged 0-5.

• Covid vaccines ARE recommended for kids 0-5 in California

• Covid vaccines are NOT recommended (but available) for any children in Florida

• Covid Vaccines are BANNED for kids 0-5 in Denmark or in the UK — not a single child can get them

Now look at Covid boosters:

• Covid boosters are recommended for everyone over 12 in California

• Covid boosters are NOT GIVEN in Denmark and in the UK for the general population under 50.

Where is the consensus, exactly?

Similarly, there is no “scientific consensus” among scientists, either. We are all familiar with dozens of articles in the most prestigious medical journals, calling for a halt in Covid vaccinations, questioning Covid vaccine trials and efficacy, and so on. I would not belabor this point because it is so obvious.

In short — the “consensus” that this law refers to does not exist.

And all we need to do to show that there is no consensus is… drumroll…

We Need to Write an Open Letter

We need to write an open letter to the state of California, authored and signed by members of the scientific community, doctors, and other medical professionals — and by laypeople.

The letter would explain that there is NO CONSENSUS on Covid, vaccines, on who needs or needs not to receive the vaccines, and so on — and state OPPOSITION to at least some Covid vaccinations to further buttress the proof that there is no consensus.

So…

• if the so-called “Covid Consensus” does not actually exist,

• then a doctor cannot contradict a consensus that does NOT exist,

• and therefore the doctor’s opinions are NOT misinformation,

• and therefore there is no unprofessional conduct!

The entire law would simply UNRAVEL, like a badly knitted hat, if we demonstrated that the purported consensus does not exist — which can be done with just one powerful letter signed by thousands of doctors, scientists, and citizens worldwide.

I cannot write such a letter because it would be improper for me to do so. All I am proposing is that someone much better positioned writes it.

If you know someone who would like to spearhead such an open letter, please share this post with them. I do not need any credit for this idea, just write a letter without mentioning me, please.

Conclusion

We got lucky that AB2098 was written by a pediatrician (Richard Pan) and not by a professional lawyer! Lawyers should not attempt to treat sick infants, right? Similarly, pediatricians should not attempt to unprofessionally write contentious laws. When they do, the result is like AB2098. The bill is riddled with poor wording and legal mistakes, and funnily, its most important paragraph 4 is a broken sentence (consensus contrary to the standard of care). All of that makes the law open to numerous challenges.

Had a decent lawyer tried to write AB2098, the law would refer to “California medical board consensus” instead of general “scientific consensus”, and say “California-approved standard of care”, as opposed to just “standard of care”. It would be much harder to challenge such a law, then. Fortunately, the law was written by Richard Pan himself and is open to a challenge based on its bungled language.

Hopefully, AB2098 will be in the dustbin of history and Richard Pan will be the laughingstock of the legal world. We will soon be able to laugh together at one pediatrician’s pathetic attempt at authoring law.