RIVERSIDE, Calif. (CNS) — A bill that could lead to penalties for doctors who express reservations about COVID-19 vaccinations is “fraught with peril” because physicians will fear speaking openly with patients, an Inland Empire doctor says, but an author of the bill counters that it’s intended to hold “physicians (who are) deliberately promoting misinformation accountable.”

“This Assembly bill undermines the patient-physician risk benefit discussion,” Dr. Sanjay Verma, a La Quinta cardiologist and Riverside County spokesperson for Physicians for Informed Consent, told City News Service. “What is deemed 'misinformation’' has changed in the last two years. Our Hippocratic Oath and the concept of legal, informed consent requires a discussion of risks and benefits, including with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.”

Assembly Bill 2098 would empower the California Medical Board to initiate investigations whenever there’s evidence that a physician’s COVID treatment decisions have “departed from the applicable standard of care,” and the practitioner has engaged in vaccine “disinformation” or “misinformation,” loosely defined as breaking from “contemporary scientific consensus,” putting a patient at risk.

Critics of AB 2098 say it would undermine the practice of medicine. However, Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, a pediatric physician and coauthor of the legislation, told CNS that it seeks to reinforce “the importance of upholding professional standards and ethics” in the medical field.

“Physicians who deliberately promote and profit from misinformation and disinformation are harming our patients, our community and our profession,” Pan said. “A small number of physicians use their stature as physicians to spread unwarranted doubt and anxiety about vaccination.”

According to Verma, one of the most contentious aspects of the legislation is that it tries to make “scientific consensus” a one-size-fits-all idea for combating COVID relying on the vaccines. But the “science” and treatment options have changed, just like the virus has mutated.

“The history of medicine and medical research is that, over time, new research contradicts previous research,” the doctor said. “This has been a rapidly evolving pandemic. There’s strong evidence of immunity from prior infection, and there’s a very clear profile of people who are most at risk from the virus ... while the risk of a vaccine might be greater than COVID complications.”

The most recent example, he said, was the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s announcement on May 5 that it was limiting ongoing use of the Johnson & Johnson-Janssen SARS-CoV-2 jabs because of analysis confirming “a syndrome of rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.” Those 18 years and older are still authorized to receive the J&J shot, but only if other vaccines aren’t available.

The FDA additionally reported findings in Moderna’s license application for the Spikevax therapeutic that post-vaccination “safety surveillance identified serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis,” but in small numbers, and mostly in men 18 to 24 years old. Documents being released by Pfizer in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit also reveal possible vaccine side-effects, along with thousands of unverified reports to the federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, Verma said.

Pan said the evidence is clear that the “vaccines prevent many infections, including lowering rates of hospitalization and death.”

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of fatalities nationwide connected to COVID have reached almost 1 million.

“Maximizing prevention of infections has the best and safest outcome for patients and the public,” Pan said.

Dr. Robert Wailes, president of the California Medical Association, told CNS that AB 2098 seeks to affirm “the ethical responsibility that physicians have to protect and promote the health of our patients.”

“Given the trust that the public places in the medical profession, betrayals of that trust are especially egregious and harm our patients and profession,” he said.

Verma argued the bill will put a chill on free speech, leading doctors to fear saying anything that might jeopardize their license.

“This is fraught with peril,” he said. “We learn from each other by being open and transparent, not by silencing those with whom we disagree.”

Assemblyman Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta, a firefighter and paramedic in Los Angeles County for 30 years, said that “people should be able to discuss medical issues without the state impinging on that.”

“The coronavirus is still a relatively new disease, and the vaccines are relatively new,” he said. “The doctor can decide the best course of treatment and shouldn’t fear that a recommendation will be deemed ‘disinformation.’”

Pan said that, as a doctor, he must be sensitive “to the concerns of my patients and their families and answer their questions with accurate information.”

“Honest physicians who put their patients’ health first and provide the standard of care have no reason to be fearful or concerned about AB 2098, (which) is about holding physicians deliberately promoting misinformation accountable for harming the public,” he said.

CNS asked all state legislators with districts in Riverside County how they intend to vote on the bill, which was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee Wednesday and appears headed for a floor vote, but along with Seyarto, only Assemblyman Randy Voepel, R-Idyllwild, and Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, R-Menifee, responded. Like Seyarto, they’re opposed.