47.9 F
Thousand Oaks

Protecting Doctors’ Free Speech

An almost unbelievably un-American new California law buries doctors’ free speech rights by restricting the medical advice they can give to patients regarding COVID-19.

Assembly Bill 2098, signed on September 30 by Governor Gavin Newsom, authorizes the Medical Board of California (MBC) to pursue professional sanctions and potentially license revocation against doctors who share information about COVID-19 that challenges the “contemporary scientific consensus.”

Who defines “contemporary scientific consensus”? Ultimately, the same legislators and others who will punish doctors for disseminating any information that deviates from their opinion regarding COVID-19 — or any other medical issue. This is blatantly unconstitutional and disastrous policy.

On October 3, three days after the bill was signed, two doctors filed the first federal lawsuit to stop the law from being enacted in California. Mark McDonald, M.D., a Los Angeles psychiatrist, and Jeff Barke, M.D., an Orange County primary care physician, are represented by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to protecting Americans’ constitutional rights. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the MBC and the attorney general of California. The plaintiffs also filed papers seeking a preliminary injunction to protect their free speech rights as the case unfolds.

The bill explicitly restricts speech based on content and, as such, is presumptively invalid. It could only be upheld if the government proved that the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. This stringent standard reflects the fundamental principle that governments have no power to prohibit expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content.

The state might claim that providing the public with accurate information (regarding COVID-19 or any other medical issue) is a compelling interest. But the state couldn’t possibly argue that the blunt instrument AB 2098 provides is narrowly tailored.

Like it or not, “misinformation” is protected by the First Amendment. No general exception to the First Amendment applies to false statements. It is a long-held precept of free speech jurisprudence that the appropriate remedy to false speech is not censorship but more speech. As Justice Kennedy wrote, “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a

free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.” (United States v. Alvarez, 2012) 

The new law’s prose is so broad and ambiguous that it would likely cause doctors to self-censor, violating both free speech rights and due process. And, perhaps more importantly, it would suffocate scientific inquiry in a general sense.

There isn’t a crisis of misinformation today more than in the past. The possibility of misinformation has always existed. The actual crisis of our day is institutional credibility. The public no longer trusts governments and medical institutions as reliable sources of information. Censorship only further damages that trust.

Only California lawmakers could believe this free speech-destroying law can survive intact — or at all. It’s outrageous that it passed in any legislative body in America and was signed by any governor.

Damages to Male Fertility

In the October issue, I wrote about female fertility issues related to the COVID-19 vaccine. Sadly, the news regarding men and fertility is equally devastating.

Amy Kelly, program director for the DailyClout Pfizer Document Analysis Team, took a deep dive into the documents to examine the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on male fertility. The investigation into the Pfizer documents and other medical studies revealed the following:

  • The mRNA vaccine ingredients can be transmitted from one person to another via inhalation, skin-to-skin contact and bodily fluids. In other words, vaccinated men can expose (“shedding”) his sexual partner to the vaccine ingredients (e.g., lipid nanoparticles, spike protein, and polyethylene glycol/PEG).
  • Pfizer did not test male reproductive toxicity. Male reproductive toxicity is defined as adverse effects related to sexual function.
  • The mRNA components travel throughout the body and cluster/converge in organs, including testes, ovaries, liver, spleen and adrenal glands.
  • Pfizer did not test for adverse events from men’s semen on the development of their babies.
  • Antisperm antibodies literally attack the sperm like a “foreign invader” to damage or kill the sperm. “The presence of antisperm antibodies (ASA) in the ejaculate is an immune cause of male infertility. The adhesion of antibodies to sperm affects their motility, making the sperm’s journey to the egg highly difficult or even impossible.” ( InviTRA, 8 Jan. 2019, https://www.invitra.com/en/antisperm-antibodies/.). This was a known adverse event of special interest per the documents.
  • Pfizer documents exposed an astonishing drop both in semen concentration and total motile count.

Pfizer knew all of this. In the company’s clinical protocol, male trial participants had to follow “Male Participant Reproductive Inclusion Criteria,” which read in part:

“Male participants are eligible to participate if they agree to the following requirements during the intervention period and for at least 28 days after the last dose of study intervention, which corresponds to the time needed to eliminate reproductive safety risk of study intervention(s).”

The inclusion criteria requirements stated:

  • Refrain from donating sperm

Plus, either:

  • Abstain from heterosexual intercourse with a female of childbearing potential as their preferred usual lifestyle (abstinent on a long-term and persistent basis) and agree to be abstinent.


  • Must agree to use a male condom when engaging in any activity that allows for passage of ejaculate to another person.
  • In addition to male condom use, a highly effective method of contraception may be considered in WOCBP (women of childbearing age) partners of male participants.

Let’s unpack this. Men had to agree to abstain from heterosexual intercourse with childbearing women, or if they chose to have intercourse with women who could bear children, they had to agree to use a condom and add an additional effective method of contraception.

A reasonable person would ask, why? Are we to assume that Pfizer suspected that vaccinated men’s ejaculate might affect not only women but unborn children conceived during the trial or perhaps subsequently?

Pfizer suppressed discussion of this information and, as a result, denied and continues to deny legitimate informed consent by men who take the mRNA shots. If men had been provided this critical information regarding their sexual function and fertility, would they have opted out of taking the COVID-19 shots? I believe the answer for many is “Absolutely.”

The data about the mRNA vaccines is shocking and is conclusively proven to reduce men’s fertility. This prompts important questions such as:

  • When, if at all, will men’s fertility recover from a radical decline after just a two-dose vaccine course?
  • What impact does the vaccine have on pre-pubescent and adolescent males? Will it affect their sexual development and ability to reproduce?
  • How is the decline in male fertility going to affect birth rates?

The disastrous rollout of unproven medical treatments and the strong-arming of American citizens into taking them may have far more drastic consequences on the next generation of Americans than anybody thought.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here