California is likely to have another stupid law overturned by the courts

Law was established to prevent doctors from giving "false information" on Covid

So California is being stupid... again. Passing a vaguely worded law designed to push the Fauci-led (now proven wrong) Covid strategy and criminalizing any disagreement or alternative treatments.

The law was challenged in court and the first district judge ruled against the plaintiffs and kept the law in place. A second appeals judge has overturned the original ruling based on two key elements. That there is no technical definition of "scientific consensus" and that the "scientific consensus" that was being protected by the law was largely proven to be wrong.

[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….

…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….

Well there you go. The truth shall set you free, huh? What California was attempting to do was to criminalize the use of Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and any suggestion by any doctor that vaccines were not safe or effective. What we now know is that the treatments that California was trying to ban worked and that the vaccines that they wanted to force on people by law did not work as advertised and actually had serious unknown (at the time) side effects. And how could we understand the side effects. There was never enough testing to have known.

So our response (or scientific consensus) was to ban the drugs that did work and push a vaccine that was technically in an experimental phase of testing and ended up only being marginally helpful. California wanted to make it a crime for your personal doctor to prescribe the drugs that worked or to advise you on the risks of a vaccine that didn't. There can be literally no argument as to the intent here.

The fact that California is still pushing this law today shows us exactly how far gone we are a country. As a matter of political stubbornness the state continues to push literal disinformation as fact and wants to criminally punish anyone who dares disagree with that politically driven medical viewpoint. Scary stuff people. Really scary stuff. Oh, and Newsome (the guy responsible for much of this) wants to push his California viewpoints and governing styles on the entire country by becoming President.