Alfred Dawes | Follow our science or else!

The ‘Physician Misinformation Bill’, AB-2098, has come into effect as law in California. It was designed to sanction or revoke the licences of physicians who spread misinformation or disinformation about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, designating these actions as unprofessional conduct.

Misinformation in medicine and in science in general is dangerous to public health and the proper functioning of society, and efforts to stem their spread are necessary. My grievance is that the bill itself is replete with misinformation declared as scientific fact, and who determines in an era of rapidly evolving knowledge, what exactly is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care”?

For example, in the era of the considerably milder Omicron strains, the bill states confidently that data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that unvaccinated individuals have a risk of dying from COVID-19, 11 times greater than those who are fully vaccinated. If a doctor questions this absolutely absurd claim, then they can be banned from practising for life! Apparently, some of the “worst offenders in spreading misinformation regarding vaccines, are licensed healthcare professionals”. The same professionals who patients rely on to dissect the available evidence and present it to them with an individualised treatment protocol based on their unique circumstances.

FORBIDDEN

It is now forbidden for doctors in California to question the efficacy and safety of the vaccines, in the face of mounting evidence, that they are not as effective against newer strains, and that the risk of serious complications including clots and cardiac arrest, outweigh any potential benefit in some groups. They are not even allowed to discuss early treatment options not sanctioned by the regulatory authorities. If this article were to be published in California, I would have lost my career by simply stating the above.

Probably the most polarising issue in our lifetime has been whether or not there should be freedom of choice when it came to vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccines. The discussions surrounding the mass vaccination campaigns drew lines between pro-vaccine mandate advocates, and pro-vax, non-supporters of mandates, lumped together with antivaxxers. We were told that the vaccines were safe for everyone, having undergone rigorous trials, and that the only way out of the pandemic was for everyone to be inoculated. That was the science that we should follow. This premise was initially rooted in the belief that herd immunity would be achieved, and the virus would die out as it ran out of immune-naïve people to infect.

The idea of herd immunity was crucial to the vaccine mandate argument, as it was those who refused to take the jab who were prolonging our suffering. Even when the virus mutated and began to infect the vaccinated, those who ought to know better disregarded the evidence and still advocated for vaccination as a reason to work, travel, be entertained and even simply to enter households. The science of herd immunity was ignored when it did not fit the narrative.

CHERRY PICKING

“The science”, became “our science” – cherry picking of data to support mass vaccinations, mandates and discrimination against the unvaccinated. As the vaccinated got repeatedly sick with new strains, the arguments shifted that the hospitals and intensive care units were filled with the unvaccinated, thus displacing others with serious medical problems from accessing healthcare. “A pandemic of the unvaxxed.” Whereas this has some truth in it, there was never any meaningful discussion as to how to keep infected persons out of hospitals until big pharma developed their early treatment tablets that reduced the risk of hospitalisation.

Doctors who were advocating early treatment for COVID-19 paid a terrible price with lost jobs and damaged reputation for sticking to their pledge to first do no harm. It was painful to see those who had only recently digested talking points or done a little research, categorising free thinking experts as quacks and snake oil salesmen. The concerted efforts of major powerhouses to suppress the voices of those who dared to go against the official narrative, was only recently confirmed in the Twitter Files. No mercy was shown by these entities that colluded to silence and destroy the reputations of those who had given so much to science and medicine before they went “rogue”. We were told to follow the science. And even when it was obvious that herd immunity was an impossible target and hospitals were devoid of critical COVID-19 patients, we had vaccinated-only events. To this day we need to prove that we are vaccinated before we can travel to some countries. Yet we follow the science.

Moderates encouraged vaccination as a way to boost the immune system and decrease the chance of hospitalisation. That, and that alone should be the rationale behind taking the jab. In my column of March 20, 2022, ‘Time to end vaccination mandates’, I concluded with the statement: “It is no longer enough to be silent on the matter, as silence equates with implicit, passive support of the policies of oppressors. We must choose to be an oppressor, or to fight for the oppressed. That is the true division in our society.”

The fact that medical professionals are being forced to disseminate falsehoods enshrined in law as being scientific fact is a call to arms for all members of the medical fraternity who still value our oaths. To the masses who have not realised that the fascist takeover of medicine in the name of profits is almost complete, wake up before this contagion governs your freedom to breathe.

- Dr Alfred Dawes is a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, and CEO of Windsor Wellness Centre. Follow him on Twitter @dr_aldawes. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and alfred.dawes@gmail.com.