Whether it’s challenges to the claims about “man-made climate change,” the COVID vaxx, or other examples of “misinformation,”
a judge in California has issued an injunction against that state’s attempt to
muzzle and penalize any doctors who disagree with the CDC’s and other
government mandates on COVID (vaxx, masks, etc.). Mark Wauck at Meaning in History reports:
This tactic cleverly relies upon
the common misconception that “science” consists of a body of settled knowledge
that is above challenge, rather than being a process of continuing inquiry that
relies to a great degree precisely upon challenges to previous consensus (I
simplify, of course). This notion of a settled body of knowledge—identified as
such by Leftist ideologues without regard to evidence as such—is then used to shut
down debate on whatever happens to be the latest Leftist pseudo scientific
cause—”settled science” so just shut up! You’re an ignoramus if you dare
object, or if you demand evidence to back up the Left’s latest campaign.
We’ve seen this tactic employed
repeatedly, first in “social science” fields and now even in the “hard”
sciences. Most recently, with the use of the charge of “misinformation—it has
evolved into a full assault of the First Amendment and an instrument of social
control. The Covid Regime, with its numerous scientifically unjustified
mandates—masks, distancing, plexiglass screens, and so forth—has offered
fertile ground for the extension of draconian anti-freedom controls over the
populace. All in the name of an invented and often contradictory “scientific
consensus” which usually boils down to an uninformed and arbitrary bureaucratic
consensus.
. . . Specifically, [Judge William]
Shubb attacks the definition of “misinformation” as something that is contradicted
by a supposed “scientific consensus”—a highly problematic concept.
In an order Wednesday, Shubb
criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation,” which is “false information
contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard
of care.”
Shubb, who called the
definition “nonsense” at a court hearing Monday, said in Wednesday’s order
that it was “grammatically incoherent.”
Beyond that, Shubb’s order
also criticized the phrase “contemporary scientific consensus,” saying
that it doesn’t have an established meaning in the medical field.
“The statute provides no clarity
on the term’s meaning, leaving open multiple important questions,” the order
said. “For instance, who determines whether a consensus exists to begin
with? If a consensus does exist, among whom must the consensus exist (for
example practicing physicians, or professional organizations, or medical
researchers, or public health officials, or perhaps a combination)?”
That lack of clarity, the judge added,
makes it impossible to determine what the new law prohibits.
“I think he correctly analyzed the
facts and the law and understood that the concept of a ‘contemporary scientific
consensus’ is highly problematic,” said Richard Jaffe, an attorney representing
one of the challenges to the rule.
Mr. Wauck concludes:
Given that the federal
judiciary—right up to the SCOTUS—has largely been missing in action while the
Left has been running roughshod over our constitutionally protected freedoms,
it’s refreshing to see a judge directly challenging these tactics. Hopefully
this case will establish a precedent for dismantling this Leftist assault on
freedom.
Source links
are here and here.
# # #
