WOW: California Assembly Bill 2098 seeks to control doctors’ speech and professional opinions, by expanding State power to discipline those who don’t comply with their narrative.
California is turning tyrannical.
An AFLDS Issue Brief for Citizens and Policymakers
Unconstitutional California Assembly Bill 2098 Seeks to Mandate Doctors’
Speech, Professional Opinions, and Interferes with Private Doctor/Patient Relationships
Official government censorship is an egregious violation of our beloved First Amendment and as such is blatantly unconstitutional. Nevertheless, in April 2022 the Biden administration, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), apparently undeterred by the Constitution which they all swore to uphold, launched their own (and widely criticized) Disinformation Governance Board (Ministry of Truth). Biden then appointed Nina Jankowicz as its executive director, a bureaucrat with her own lengthy history of pushing many major false disinformation “narratives,” as the head of this new Orwellian Ministry of Truth. If this weren’t so tragic it would be funny. Thankfully, as of May 18, the Ministry of Truth is on “pause.”
Proposed California Assembly Bill 2098 Jumps on the Ministry of Truth Bandwagon
Now, sadly, a similar official government censorship bill has been introduced into the California Legislature, California Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098). AB 2098 has numerous fatal legal defects and is also founded on several false premises which are recited as “truths.” Essentially, AB 2098 attempts to create a new category of “unprofessional conduct” on the part of physicians and surgeons, which the proposed AB 2098 defines as to “disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” (CA AB 2098, Sec. 2, 2270 (a))
First and most obvious, the bill is unconstitutional on its face as it violates the broad freedom of speech and privacy protections afforded by our federal Constitution and by the California Constitution. California doctors enjoy the constitutional protections of freedom of speech along with everyone else. California doctors and patients are also entitled to privacy in their doctor/patient relationships.
Essentially, AB 2098 attempts to create a new category of “unprofessional conduct” on the part of doctors and surgeons, which AB 2098 defines as to “disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” (CA AB 2098, Sec. 2, 2270 (a))
Doctors do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they earn their medical degrees. On the contrary, they are well-trained professionals who can deliver considered professional opinions based on their experience, research, and clinical practices with numerous patients. Other doctors may have different considered professional opinions. Professional opinions, of course, sometimes differ. We are all familiar with the “battle of the experts.”
Can you imagine the outrage which would ensue if the California (or any) state bar association tried to label certain legal opinions as “misinformation”? What would happen if the California state bar association decided that lawyers’ legal opinions would henceforth be subject to “content moderation” (a.k.a. censorship), in order to ensure lawyers’ legal opinions were not classified as “misinformation” as determined by the state? The justified outcries would be unceasing.
California doctors should not be subjected to official government censorship either. Legal malpractice and medical malpractice standards are well established throughout the nation. California doctors and their patients do not require — and certainly don’t deserve — unelected state or federal bureaucrats condescendingly attempting to determine the “official truth” of what may or may not be classified as “misinformation.” This is particularly true when those same bureaucrats have a track record of being completely wrong on many important matters.
Ms. Nina Jankowicz is one such bureaucrat. Fortunately, as of May 18, she resigned from the Ministry of Truth on May 18, citing death threats. We know very little about Jankowicz, which is another possible reason for such nationwide condemnation over her new role. She’s an author she majored in Russian studies at Jesuit controlled Georgetown University and studied at the Herzen State Pedagogical University in Russia. Her religion and ethnicity are unknown.
What we know with certainty – ironically – Jankowicz is guilty of spreading misinformation. She spewed spurious and defamatory claims (as espoused from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign) against former President Trump accusing him of colluding with Russia. Promoting Trump-Russian collusion propaganda by a Russian-studies major is analogous to promoting the efficacy of face-mask propaganda by a medically trained and non-practicing doctor like Fauci. Anyone can have an opinion. But academic training alone is insufficient when the person making claims provides no hard evidence. To date, neither Jankowicz nor Fauci has produced any evidence whatsoever. However, Trump was exonerated from colluding with Russia. And, face masks don’t work.
Unfortunately, lawsuits ensue when unfounded claims are made. Indeed, many revolve around the “battles of the experts”, where different experts present differing expert opinions. However, there is no basis in American law or society for a government bureaucrat (like Jankowicz), other than the fact-finding judge assigned to that particular case, to declare one expert or the other to be the government-approved version of the truth. And there is certainly no basis to threaten or attempt to silence experts — including California doctors as suggested in AB 2098 — with license restrictions or revocations for not supporting a government-approved version of the “truth.”
The Professional Medical Opinions of Doctors are Protected Free Speech
This is not the first time protected free speech and privacy rights of doctors in the doctor/patient relationship was attacked by American government officials who disagreed with those opinions. In fact, one of the most famous free speech and privacy cases of modern times, Griswold, et. al. v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), was just such a case.
In Griswold, a doctor was criminally convicted under a Connecticut statute for counseling a married couple regarding contraception. In reversing the doctor’s conviction, the Supreme Court found that the doctor’s treatments, associations and doctor/patient privacy rights were protected by the penumbras emanating from the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, affirming the principle that the concept of liberty protects personal fundamental human rights.
This conclusion is not startling, and is consistent with California jurisprudence. In Grafilo v. Wolfsohn, 33 Cal.App.5th 1024 (2019), the California court rejected the California Medical Board’s attempt to subpoena a doctor’s patient medical records. The court found that when information about patients’ medical records is sought, California’s constitutional right to privacy places procedural and substantive limits on the California Medical Board’s subpoena power. A similar result was reached in Grafilo v. Cohanshohet, 32 Cal.App.5th 428 (2019).
Most importantly, in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, dba NIFLA, et. al. v. Becerra, Attorney General of California, et. al., 585 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 201 L. Ed. 2d 835 (2018), the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (“FACT Act”) similarly attempted to impose analogous “content moderation” (i.e., mandatory medical speech) upon health care providers. The FACT Act required pro-life health care clinics to inform patients that free or low-cost abortions were available in California and required the clinics to give the patients a telephone number to call for those services. The United States Supreme Court held that this law was likely an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The Court noted that content-based laws targeting speech based on its communicative content, which compel speakers to speak a particular message, are presumptively unconstitutional. CA AB 2098 is just such a law and is presumptively unconstitutional under National Institute of Family and Life Advocates.
Such content-based speech laws can only be justified if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests (Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015)). The Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit categorization of “professional speech” as not requiring strict scrutiny. The Court expressly stated that “Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals.” Strict scrutiny is applicable. Doctors also obviously have free speech rights, and any interference with doctors’ free speech rights must be strictly scrutinized.
State Attorneys General Support Medical Freedom
Many state Attorneys General have joined the United States Supreme Court in its support of medical freedom, medical privacy, and freedom of speech. This multi-state coalition of Attorneys General support, combined with the major factual mistakes in AB 2098 (discussed in greater detail below) makes it virtually impossible to prove that AB 2098 is “narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests” for purposes of Reed. A survey of state Attorneys General around the country reveals that the Attorneys General and Surgeons General from many states, including Nebraska, Missouri, Louisiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, Florida, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, all share similar views.
Last September, for example, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry endorsed his support for ivermectin prescriptions. In a letter to the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy, he wrote, “I find nothing that would allow the Board to second guess the sound medical judgment of a doctor when it comes to prescribing legal drugs.” See here.
Set forth below is an additional list of resources regarding Louisiana’s and other states’ support of doctors, as it pertains to their right to prescribe medications for treating the SARS-CoV-2 virus:
Public support for AG Landry was also reflected on twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/marybethpf/status/1440586447925350404?s=20
Also see: “Jeff Landry, Ivermectin, COVID, And Louisiana’s Pharmacies”: https://thehayride.com/2021/09/jeff-landry-ivermectin-covid-and-louisianas-pharmacies/
“States Finding Ways to Support Ivermectin Treatment for COVID-19 Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Hampshire lawmakers show there is now a preference cascade toward early treatment options for covid”: https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/02/states-finding-ways-to-support-ivermectin-treatment-for-covid-19/
“Oklahoma AG OKs prescribing ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine” https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/oklahoma/articles/2022-02-08/oklahoma-ag-oks-prescribing-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine
“The Scotfree | South Carolina Attorney General Confirms Support of Ivermectin Bill: https://www.scag.gov/about-the-office/news/attorney-general-alan-wilson-issues-opinion-on-the-legality-of-doctors-prescribing-alternative-drugs-to-treat-covid-19/
Nebraska AG issues opinion on Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-ag-issues-opinion-on-ivermectin-and-hydroxychloroquine-as-covid-19-treatments/37973809#
In a further offensive against content-based, government-mandated speech, on May 5, 2022, the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana filed The State of Missouri, etc., The State of Louisiana, etc. v. Biden, etc., et al, 22-cv-01213, WDLA, against the Biden administration. See here. Additionally, more detailed information can be found here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/republican-attorneys-general-sue-joe-biden-colluding-big-tech-censor-information-hunters-laptop-covid/
The case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Biden Ministry of Truth. The lawsuit makes the point on page 9 that labeling speech as “misinformation” or “disinformation” does not remove First Amendment protections. The lawsuit then enumerates many ways the government has spread its own misinformation (e.g., Hunter Biden laptop, security of mail-in voting), and includes the lab leak theory of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 virus, the efficacy of face mask mandates, and the effectiveness of Covid Lockdowns). California should not be allowed to violate the free speech rights of doctors or of anyone else.
Moreover, AB 2098, if passed, would be official government censorship and is unconstitutional under National Institute of Family and Life Advocates.
AB-2098 is Founded on False Premises
AB 2098 is purportedly designed to prevent doctors from spreading COVID-19 misinformation; a term the bill’s authors define as, “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to an extent where its dissemination constitutes gross negligence by the licensee.” However, AB 2098 contradicts itself, as it’s rife with medical and scientific falsehoods. While the entirety of AB 2098 is alarming, there are two key provisions in particular that include blatantly false premises, as reflected in Sections 1(b) and (c) set forth below:
Section 1(b) Data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that unvaccinated individuals are at a risk of dying from COVID-19 that is 11 times greater than those who are fully vaccinated.
This is a false and misleading statement with no hard evidence by the CDC (or any other organization) to back such claim. The “11 times greater” is an unsubstantiated reference that is over 9 months old. Moreover, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has seemingly waned and mutated to a less virulent strain. Even the CDC admitted it downgraded it on April 14 to a variant that is simply “being monitored.” As well, the CDC concluded “[v]accines are not 100% effective at preventing infections, some people who are fully vaccinated will get COVID-19 [emphasis added]”
Per a May 7 article by Steve Kirsch, he reveals startling statistical evidence to support that “the vaccine kills 15 people for every person it saves dying from COVID. Below 80, the younger you are, the more nonsensical vaccination is [emphasis added].” See here 
As Dr. Mercola astutely points out in a May 3 article according to the CDC’s own data, more than one million (1,000,000) deaths have occurred since the pandemic. Importantly, these deaths cannot be attributed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus but to the injections. He also points to a recent Walgreens study in April 2022 where most patients who apparently tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus were the injected. See here. 
Additionally, worldwide scientific reports reveal damning evidence that refute AB 2098’s absurd claim it’s the “vaccinated” who are at risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In Israel, a country with a highly inoculated citizenry, a report on April 28 underscores the correlation between the injections and heart issues. See here.  Incredibly, despite this data, the country continues to aggressively encourage boosters (they’re now on their fourth).
In Germany, according to a May 10 article by Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D. of the Children’s Health Defense, a survey by Dr. Harald Matthes found up to half a million (500,000) Germans experienced side-effects following the injections, 80% suffered severe reactions and recovered within three to six months, but for 20% the symptoms still persist [emphasis added].
The UK reveals equally disturbing data. Apparently, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has now morphed into the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant. A study on the efficacy of the injections on 18- to 64-year-olds concluded they are ineffective. In an April 2022 paper by the UK Health Security Agency (still in pre-print mode but nonetheless valuable) scientists concluded “the (omicron) variant has been associated with reduced vaccine effectiveness against infection and mild disease with rapid waning, even after a third dose [emphasis added].” See here.
Section 1(c) The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the vaccines continue to undergo intensive safety monitoring by the CDC.
This is another false and misleading claim. The “safety and efficacy” purportedly claimed by the FDA is wholly deceitful. In fact, as recently as May 5 the FDA admitted the inefficacy of some injections. As announced in May 5 article the FDA is now restricting the use of the Janssen (J&J) injections due to reported side-effects including thrombosis and thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), which is a rare but potentially fatal blood-clotting disease. See here. 
Interestingly, according to Dr. Pierre Kory, the FDA’s decision to halt the J&J injections was planned. As he explained to Julie Comber, Ph.D. of the Children’s Health Defense in a May 6 article “My only hypothesis is this action is some attempt for the FDA to be able to claim that they took at least some action to protect the safety of the public, akin to ‘virtue signaling’” and he added, “[I] find this action to be completely insufficient and demonstrates a calculated attempt to ensure vaccinations with similarly dangerous vaccines continue [emphasis added].”
Moderna’s website admits their Covid-19 injection has not been FDA approved or licensed. It also warns women who are pregnant to notify their provider and it lists known side-effects, including myocarditis and pericarditis. Per the CDC’s own website, known allergic reactions including anaphylaxis (a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction) after receipt of the first doses of Modern’s injections given in December 2020 through January 2021 were reported.
Regarding Pfizer, in January 2022, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas rejected the FDA’s absurd request to withhold Pfizer’s safety data from the public for up to 75 years. As of March 2022, the Pfizer documents are now being released to the public in monthly tranches. What’s been gleaned thus far reveals deeply troubling facts that Pfizer and the FDA were aware of serious and adverse side-effects to the injections.
One particularly incriminating document entitled “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Averse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BN 162B2) Received Through February 28, 2021,” includes a shocking 9-page list of 1,291 adverse side-effects to the Pfizer injection, including reactions affecting the nervous system, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, skin, and procedural complications; infections, cardiac, vascular, psychiatric, blood and lymphatic, eye, immune, and ear complications.
The side-effects affected both men and women in ages 0.01 to 107 years. According to the data, the most serious side-effects occurred in women (29,914) compared with men (9,182). However, the number of actual cases among men is likely underreported, as women typically tend to report physical symptoms more than men. The largest proportion of adverse side-effects based on age occurred in people ages 31-50 (13,886). Disturbing hard data regarding side-effects of the injections on pregnant women were also revealed. A total of 1,223 cases were reported to have ended fatally within the first few months and, despite this and the aforementioned facts, the rollout of the injections continued.
On page 6 of the same document, Pfizer acknowledges it was aware of the side-effects and to that end planned accordingly to “[h]elp alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports.” The company planned to hire 600 additional full-time employees, with plans to hire a total of 1,800 by June 2021, in order to process the huge volume of side-effects reports they anticipated. See here. 
Another alarming document titled “Request for Priority Review,” (in which Pfizer requests approval from the FDA for its Comirnaty injection), the company admits on page 14 to an aggregate of 158,893 adverse events reported from cases in 63 countries through February 28, 2021, and an aggregate of 108,671 cases of combined nervous system disorders, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders. See here. 
AB-2098 Smacks of Similar Laws Propagated by Prior Communist/Fascist/Totalitarian Regimes
Although there is overlap and interplay between communist, fascist, and totalitarian regimes, the basic definitions are as follows: a communist regime is modeled after Karl Marx, who advocated for a classless society in which all property and wealth are communal versus private. A fascist regime is characterized by complete government rule with no opposition permitted. Finally, a totalitarian regime all aspects of the citizenry by a certain political party and is comprised of massive censorship and conformity or cultism.
Throughout world history we’ve learned nations can succumb quickly to rogue regimes at the hands of despots and subversive political parties. In America, we collectively rely on our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the interplay of our legal system as predicated on natural law and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. California’s AB 2098 is clearly designed to unconstitutionally castrate California doctors’ free speech rights, but should the rest of the nation be concerned? Colloquially, as it’s often been said, “As goes California, so goes the nation.”
California, our most populous state, often serves as the inadvertent (or deliberate) litmus test for how the rest of our nation responds to generally progressive and liberal policies, cultural transformations, and laws. For example, once marijuana and minimum wage laws changed in California, those laws, whether they are good or bad, unequivocally influenced other state lawmakers nationwide. Thus, if AB 2098 passes in California it’s highly probable other states will follow suit.
To date, California boasts it invested a whopping $11.2 billion to “Fight Covid-19.” It appears this exorbitantly financed mass media propaganda effort paid off. Estimates vary, but according to Los Angeles Times statistics as of May 10, most Californians (78.4%) received at least one dose of the injections, and most (71.2%) are considered fully injected.
However, if the SARS-CoV-2 virus is waning, and it’s known to have a 99% survival rate that can be quickly and easily treated with medicines, and if the vast majority of Californian’s are already injected – then why the sudden urgency to pass AB 2098? Perhaps it’s because the masses are becoming aware of the dangerous side-effects of the injections. The injections are also being contemplated as a yearly requirement. Or is AB-2098 an attempt to prevent ethical doctors from having candid conversations with parents about known and deadly side-effects, thereby preventing children from being injected? Perhaps. However, it’s important to note California Democrat Senators Scott Wiener and Richard Pan (also the coauthors of AB 2098) are attempting to bypass parental control over their children. The Senators introduced “Senate Bill 866,” which would allow kids as young as 12 to be injected with the injections without their parents’ consent.Unfortunately, on May 13, Senate Bill 866 passed the California Senate 21-7.
Fortunately, Republican Assemblyman Kevin Patrick Kiley vows to prevent Senate Bill 866 from passing the Assembly. (It should also be noted Wiener and Pan previously advocated another odious bill, “Senate Bill 871,” which would have required California school-aged children up to age 17 to get experimental Covid injections to attend school. Fortunately, Wiener and Pan withdrew the bill after potential legal conflicts. Senate Bill 866 must also be withdrawn immediately.
Nefarious Communist/Fascist/Totalitarian Regimes Historically Try to Control their Version of the “Truth”
In the event that the unconstitutional AB 2098 somehow actually passes, and in the unlikely event that it is not eventually overturned by the Supreme Court, California legislators should be highly cautioned. Historically, every prior regime that previously attempted to control and manipulate its doctors in an attempt to implement its self-serving ideological agendas ultimately failed. Various global governments who previously attempted to control and coerce their healthcare professionals or partake in any dangerous ideologies, such as eugenics, genocide, or other forms of democide have always failed. Infamous and numerous examples abound. However, a few of the more notorious examples are set forth below:
Cambodian Pol Pot Regime (1975-1979):
The healthcare system was completely transformed from the preceding health care system during the communist Khmer Rouge regime. Doctors who didn’t join or conform to its totalitarian policies were swiftly expunged. The vast majority were killed, deported, or prohibited from practicing medicine altogether. Estimates vary but some historians believe Cambodians died from starvation, execution, and work during a mass genocide of approximately 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians. As there were no doctors, the sick were left to die. Because of the catastrophic deaths, bodies were buried in mass graves coined the “killing fields” by Cambodian journalist Dith Pran.
The Cambodian healthcare system under the Khmer Rouge (a communist group led by leader Pol Pot) was extremely totalitarian and the doctors that practiced medicine during this period only treated the upper classes and were banned from treating lower classes. It is estimated by some historians only about a few dozen or so doctors survived of the 500 who initially practiced medicine before this failed regime took control of the nation.
Mussolini’s Italian Fascist Regime (1919–1938):
Mussolini compared doctors to priests. In predominantly Catholic Italy, this propaganda tactic undoubtedly impacted on the average Italian’s mindset and reinforced his preexisting reverence and obedience to his doctor. Mussolini appointed Dr Nicola Pende, who mandated the state should take control of people’s health to build the “right” population — referred to as “Fascist orthogenesis” — so that they were always in good health pursuant to Fascist ideology. Doctors were required to be the ministers of Fascist orthogenesis.
Italians were encouraged by their doctors in almost every aspect of their lives, including in what they ate. For example, they were told to eat more rice versus pasta. Because wheat was used to create pasta, and was imported from other countries, Mussolini demanded Italy be independent. Mussolini also required doctors to pressure women to produce offspring to expand his regime. He was eventually ousted from power and killed by anti-fascist two days before Hitler’s suicide.
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (1921 – present)
Although the CCP hasn’t fallen yet, it’s worth noting a few salient points regarding this regime. The government regulates every aspect of healthcare in Communist China, a country of more than 1.35 billion. The medical and health services system in China is a legal system run by the government. It regulates and manages the practice of medical and health services via political, economic, legal, and other measures.
Unfortunately, horrifying reports of tyrannical control by the CCP are beginning to surface. According to a May 12 article by Health Impact News, major cities in China including Shanghai and Beijing reveal the CCP’s COVID-19 policies are requiring the masses to partake in PCR testing every 48 hours; mass lockdowns of residents who have little to no access to food have been imposed on the people. Those who can shop must do so under highly controlled circumstances. The situation has reached a crises level with suicides becoming common. Mass groups of citizens deemed to be “sick” have been sent to CCP quarantine “camps.”
Although it’s beyond the scope of this paper to reveal the many diabolical policies of the CCP it its entirety, for a comprehensive understanding, the reader is encouraged to read Dr. and Mrs. Breggins’ exceptional book, “Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey.”
Nazi Germany (1933-1945):
The Nazi healthcare system enacted the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases”, which encouraged sterilization and murder of certain individuals they deemed “mentally ill” and “physically deformed.” The initial method of murdering these innocents was via lethal injections. (German company Pfizer’s BioNTech injection-production factory is in Marburg, Germany.) Jewish doctors and women were banned from practicing medicine during this period. Whether by coercion or consent, the majority of male doctors joined the Nazi party. Many participated in horrific medical atrocities including medical experimentation and euthanasia. After doctors euthanized “mentally ill” and disabled children, they escalated to the murder and mass extermination of Jews and other so-called “dissidents.” The Nuremberg Trials involved the prosecution of primarily Nazi doctors — not soldiers.
In addition to their obvious war crimes, the abolition of Germany’s civil rights was indeed criminal. The death knell of Germany’s once thriving and democratic nation and its descent into a tyrannical and dictatorial Nazi regime began in large measure with its own government’s (the Nazis) propaganda machine and censorship of the rank-and-file Germans’ right to free speech. The same scenario (somewhat remote but still possible) can happen in America if we don’t actively remain vigilant and cognizant to ensure constitutional rights remain intact.
It’s important to emphasize pre-Nazi Germany enjoyed many civil rights including free speech and other civil rights like ours. Once the Nazi’s seized power they modified the German constitution. One of the first changes made was to create a propaganda department called the “Reich Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” (RMVP). Hitler appointed Dr. Joseph Goebbels – a masterful propagandist – as its “Propaganda Minster.” Books were burned and the German press was required to follow the regime’s mandates.
Goebbels is famous for saying, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” In cognitive psychology, this is known as the “illusory truth effect.” It’s easy to see parallels between American propaganda as used today by our mainstream media and tactics used 70-80 years ago in Nazi Germany. Goebbels used tactics to psychologically control the masses such as: “appeal to the emotions,” “constantly repeat a few ideas,” “give only one-side of an argument,” and “continuously criticize your opponents” Will our Ministry of Truth borrow its policies from the RMVP?
Hitler committed suicide on April 30, 1945 and Goebbels, his wife, and kids committed suicide on May 1, 1945 – a week before the fall of the Third Reich.
California’s Gavin Newsom Regime (2010-Present) – Where are the “Berkeley Free Speech Movement” Members and its Supporters?
In 1964 Berkely student Mario Stavio and several thousand students protested in support of our First Amendment and free speech rights. It is known as the “Berkely Free Speech Movement”, and it was a momentous event with Berkely now known as the birthplace of the free speech movement. It was common for thousand throughout the ‘60s to protest for free speech and other civil rights. But in response to bills like AB 2098 and other COVID-19 induced mandates, where are the mass numbers of outspoken free speech and other civil rights activists today?
On April 13, 2022, a ‘Defeat the Mandates’ rally was held in Los Angeles to oppose injection mandates. The rally was against mandates. While a peaceful crowd of activists and concerned citizens attended, many were from out of state. The crowd of over 1,000 paled in comparison to the over 70,000 that attended the California Super Bowl on February 13, 2022.
The mainstream press claims to misunderstand the movement and naturally mocks it. Also, it’s possible fear-based propaganda prevented untold numbers of California’s closet anti-mandate, pro-free speech, and constitutional rights supporters to avoid the rally. However, activists of the ‘60s weren’t intimidated to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Once again, it appears likely our mainstream media propaganda machine has sway over large swaths of the American psyche.
Understandably, patriots are fleeing California to live in less tyrannical states. But what will happen if all the California patriots leave? Hopefully, those patriots who stay in California will loudly vocalize their disapproval of AB 2098 and fight vigorously to maintain the constitutional rights of the doctors in this beautiful state.
The Doctor/Patient Relationship as it relates to AB 2098
Many people consult with their doctor for medical guidance – including inoculations. Like all doctors, a California doctor has a moral and ethical duty to provide informed consent to his patient before administering an inoculation, as per the Nuremberg Code. This requires an the unbiased, objective and unobstructed conversation between him and his doctor — a licensed, and decades long, medically trained professional. A doctor is also bound by his Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm.” How can he do so if he’s forced to work as an agent for the state?
A doctor should never be coerced or intimidated (and certainly never threatened with punishment) to answer patient-related questions about injections (or any other medical treatment) pursuant to a bureaucratically approved and sanctioned script like the one prepared by the American Medical Association (AMA). The “AMA COVID-19 Guide, Background/messaging on vaccines, vaccine clinical trials & combatting vaccine misinformation” (Guide) is 12-page how-to for doctors on overcoming legitimate patient concerns such as “vaccine hesitancy” and gives them a “Template talking points” with instructions including: “Physicians should talk with their patients about the health risks associated with not being vaccinated and make a strong recommendation for vaccinations, unless medically inadvisable [emphasis added].”
Several other extremely concerning statements in the Guide include, “The AMA strongly supports efforts to eliminate non-medical exemptions from immunization and will continue to actively urge policymakers to do so. The AMA’s policy advocates for legislation, regulations, programs, and policies that incentivize states to eliminate non-medical exemptions from mandated pediatric immunizations” and “[e]xemptions based on religious or philosophic grounds, or personal belief, endanger the health of the unvaccinated individual and the health of those in his or her group and the community at large [emphasis added].” See here. 
This last statement is particularly troubling, as it’s reminiscent of the Nazi’s emphasis on Volksgameinshaft – a concept that required strict German conformity to cultural norms. In general, this German concept stipulates the German community always supersedes the rights of the individual. It also emphasizes the importance of one’s health, especially Germanic-blood. (As mentioned previously, J&J halted their injections due to blood issues; and while there’s currently a dearth of scientific studies, widespread reports of women worldwide suffering extreme menstrual and blood irregularities are far too numerous to ignore.)
Doctors are entitled to free speech as much as their patients are entitled to medical autonomy. Doctors must retain their right to free speech as afforded to them under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The government should never be an intermediary. Patients are not children, and the government is not their parents. If a patient doesn’t agree with his doctor’s advice, he may decline the advice or find another doctor.
And although the FDA and CDC continuously promote the oft-repeated mantra the injections are “safe and effective,” saying something repeatedly does not make it factually true. Ethical doctors have an obligation to give their patients the benefit of uncensored and accurate information, which includes accurate information regarding the numerous adverse reactions associated with injections and the availability of other safe and effective treatments.
Moreover, the injections were never “confirmed” by the FDA (another point raised in AB 2098). If they were, they would not be administered to the public under an “Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA). Rather. they would be fully FDA-approved medical interventions with historical and sound safety data to support their safety and efficacy. Actual scientific evidence must always be required, not pseudoscience. And certainly not “political science,” as retired scientist John Droz emphasizes.
What can be done to prevent AB 2098?
Meanwhile, as California bureaucrats and AMA lobbyists arrogantly ignore and disrespect our constitution – as they try to petition for the censorship and control of our doctors – the Executive Branch of our U.S. Government and the DHS openly petition for the mass censorship of all citizens via its fledgling Ministry of Truth. Therefore, it is incumbent on each of us – the American people – to seize control of our constitutional rights by resisting tyranny at every turn and stand our ground. We are obliged to defend our constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
Despite the endless drone of pandemic fear-mongering by the mainstream media, and government pressure to accept experimental injections while we simultaneously cope with other silly mandates issued by our leaders, the reality is – we have the power to simply resist and say no. We should never ask for our constitutional rights and freedoms. Rather, we assert ourselves and demand them and, perhaps most important, be willing to sacrifice and fight for them. As we know from past historical events, tyranny can manifest covertly, but quickly; and can abolish many preexisting human rights. Once abolished, they are hard to regain. Now is not the time to be complacent. Remind rogue and megalomaniac bureaucrats they work for us, not vice versa.
We at America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) hope the people of California, regardless of their political, philosophical, or injection status, recognize the devastating and potentially destructive ramifications of AB 2098. We urge California voters to call for an immediate cessation of this draconian and unconstitutional bill, and ensure the evolution of similarly crafted bills never see the light of day.
Let’s be thankful and support the countless individuals who are courageously confronting the great evil tyranny that’s gripped our nation. We owe a debt of gratitude to AFLDS founder Dr. Gold, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, the Attorneys General previously mentioned, and California Assemblyman Kevin Kiley. They and many other patriots are fighting relentlessly to preserve our God-given civil liberties and constitutional rights. We should all be inspired to do the same.
A list of AB 2098’s authors is set forth below:
Assemblyman Evan Low, Dist. 28 (409) 446-2810, https://a28.asmdc.org/contact-evan
Senator Dr. Richard Pan, Dist. 6, (916) 262-2904, https://sd06.senate.ca.gov/contact/email
Senator Scott Weiner, Dist. 11, (916) 651-4011, https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/contact
Assemblymember, Dist. 4, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, (916) 319-2004, https://a04.asmdc.org/contact
Assemblymember, Dis. 79, Akilah Weber, M.D., (916) 319-2079, https://a79.asmdc.org/contact
Assemblymember, Dist. 15, Buffy Wicks, (916) 319-2015, https://a15.asmdc.org/
 “Masking Lack of Evidence with Politics”, The Center for Evidence Based Medicine, July 23, 2020: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/