The US state of New Jersey has moved ahead with plans to crack down on what its legislature wants to brand as “misinformation” spread by healthcare professionals.
Early this week, the New Jersey Assembly’s Health Committee approved a bill (sponsored by three Democrats) that provides for penalizing doctors and other sector workers who are deemed to be promoting false health-related claims to patients.
If it becomes law, New Jersey Bill A1884 will provide a legal basis for filing professional misconduct allegations against doctors. The whole legislative effort is framed as yet another battle in the “war on disinformation.”
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
And one would think they knew better than to refer to the pandemic, during, or after – since hindsight on that is 20/20 now with anyone willing to look back – but one of the A1884 sponsors, Assemblyman Herb Conaway, went there.
“Sadly, we have a number of such licensed persons who, in my opinion, given their public statements on vaccines or other questions, do not seem to be taking their responsibility as a health care official as seriously as they should,” the local press is citing Conaway as saying.
Now, clearly, those “licensed persons” should fear losing their licenses even if all they do is express their professional opinion.
A good old rule of skepticism being at the heart of any serious scientific effort, apparently aside – Conaway wants this behavior to officially be branded, and sanctioned as, “misinformation.”
And yet, the bill actually does not specify what penalties should be, coming across instead as yet another likely futile “war on disinformation” battle during the current US presidential campaign, meant to rally the troops, but in the end, provide little in terms of concrete action.
According to reports, under A1889, “each professional board (will be allowed) to draft their own regulations.”
Opponents are saying this will further stifle the speech of doctors and other health professionals unless they toe the line toed by legacy media at any given time; proponents, on the other hand, still cite things like ivermectin “not being effective in treating Covid.”
But the narrative at the time President Trump was “endorsing” the medicine was that it was actually “harmful.” Saying now that “ivermectin” is not effective, however, puts it in the same category of “harm” as, water.
Still, this proposed NJ bill’s text speaks of ostracizing “any health-related claim of fact that is false and contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”
But who “licenses” the authors of the definition of what is in scientific reality, always a fluid “contemporary scientific consensus”?
