>The law would designate spreading false or misleading medical information to patients as “unprofessional conduct,” subject to punishment by the agency that licenses doctors, the Medical Board of California. That could include suspending or revoking a doctor’s license to practice medicine in the state.
>While the legislation has raised concerns over freedom of speech, the bill’s sponsors said the extensive harm caused by false information required holding incompetent or ill-intentioned doctors accountable. California doctors, give your brain its last meal, for you shall never think for yourselves again without fear of facing the wall.
California is fucking retarded lad. I seriously hope some fucking dipshit politician is liquidated over there soon. And yes, disagreeing with satanic sacrificial practices is anti semitic goyim.
Ayden Price
That's not an easy choice if you have an established practice though
Juan Turner
I still bet this works only one way.
Chase Perez
As a law for the enemies, not friends
Henry Russell
How much backwards does that work? I mean now that we know that vaxxxing was the human test, killed babies and caused miscarriages can we sue everybody saying "safe and 100% tested"?
Jonathan Watson
Translation: Not enough people took our vaxxine. They made us look like used car salesman selling junkers.
They did it to themselves really but its easier to blame them
Zachary Cook
The same state the decriminalized drugs, spreading AIDS and whose politicians stood behind pic related advice on how to carry on with the homosexual orgies if you've caught monkeypox.
the democrats are copying the CCP Spreading rumors is a criminal offense in china.
John Gomez
What you're talking about sounds like an ex post facto law, which is (supposed to be) unconstitutional. However, this is the same state that wants to award reparations for past harms when they were legal, which is a type of the same thing, if you ask me. This is the road you go down when you get obsessed with "accountability".
Eli Sanchez
Nature recently published new guidelines and warnings for scientists on how to conduct research in the future. You won't be able to research or publish results that may look bad for minorities or for the politically correct establishment. If you do, you can bet that your reputation will be on the line, with lost grants, modification of your study and suspensions. pic related
This could be a good thing, actually. If the COVID vaccine opposition is smart they'll get a test case doctor to say a lot of negative but true things about the vaccine to trigger censure, then take it to court and demand a jury trial, assuming that's possible with this type of case. Either way they should be able to at least get an evidentiary hearing where they can back up what they said in open court.
Brayden Diaz
They are just being jews. Because that is what jews have always done even before China you goofy son of a whore
>The teachings of the Church must not be undermined by heliocentrism or evolution research, so findings in those areas will be strictly filtered for heresy before publication. But those findings that support the Church will be permitted, and loudly trumpeted as scientific proof of our dogma.
Oh sure, enough will stick around that people will still be able to show up to an office after a long wait and go through the motions of being told they're receiving care. Especially the shitty ones. But many will leave, especially the best.
Jackson Sullivan
I think it's called liberal democracy. Any view of conclusion that clashes is a threat to said democracy.
Henry Cruz
So they will go after frauds who prescribe ivermectin. How is this a bad thing?
Jayden Davis
>point #1 does that mean we stop treating diabetes in niggers since they are more prone to diabetes? They're unequivocally inferior in terms of processing carbs.
