Washington Doctor Facing Probe for Criticizing COVID Policies Wins Emergency Injunction

[Wingnut]

A Washington state appeals court has granted an emergency injunction to a retired doctor facing disciplinary action from the Washington Medical Commission (WMC) over articles he wrote against the official COVID-19 narrative in 2021.

Dr. Richard J. Eggleston, a retired ophthalmologist in Clarkston, Washington, faces disciplinary action over articles published in the Lewiston Tribune he wrote challenged the prevailing information and guidance regarding the pandemic.

During the pandemic, doctors could be accused of spreading misinformation if they provided advice contrary to the official information. This included, for example, advocating or prescribing treatments such as ivermectin or disagreeing with the effectiveness of face masks and vaccines.

The United States officially ended the pandemic emergency on May 11.

The WMC filed charges against Dr. Eggleston, accusing him of unprofessional conduct, including spreading false information and misinformation about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its treatments. They assert that his actions violated state laws related to moral turpitude, misrepresentation, and interference with an investigation.

In response to the charges, Dr. Eggleston has maintained his innocence and has argued that his articles are protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. He sought to have the disciplinary proceedings dismissed on the grounds that the statutes applied by the WMC infringed upon his constitutional rights.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/washington-doctor-facing-probe-for-criticizing-covid-policies-wins-emergency-injunction_5295545.html?fbclid=IwAR3psGxMiQF2Wbd1NEzeuyBcW0kpMhS3-hcnyHvgkwSFwwa2UQovQw4kzdk

[Kamaji]

Let's hope the doctor wins.

[Wingnut]

Let's hope the doctor wins.

 

[bigheadfred]

I hope he wins too. But this is deep blue Washington.

[Kamaji]

I hope he wins too. But this is deep blue Washington.

Yes, but his claims are based on the First Amendment, so final appeal will lie to the Supreme Court.

[Smokin Joe]

Also in his favor:

Masks were, indeed, ineffective.

Ivermectin has been found to be effective (in conjunction with other supplements and medication, as had been stated). Still other uses off label are being discovered for this 'wonder drug'.

If the statements can be proven to have been correct despite the narrative, then they were not "misinformation". HE was correct and the purveyors of the narrative had no 'lock' on some isolated single truth, AKA: "the science".

Not only is this a First Amendment case, but the very essence of scientific inquiry is on trial. Demanding that one narrative be followed in the name of "science" and shutting down alternative hypotheses without proof that those hypotheses are wrong, and in the absence of evidence verifying the assumptions of the narrative is piss poor science.
In fact, regardless of motive, it amounts to demagoguery.

[Kamaji]

Also in his favor:

Masks were, indeed, ineffective.

Ivermectin has been found to be effective (in conjunction with other supplements and medication, as had been stated). Still other uses off label are being discovered for this 'wonder drug'.

If the statements can be proven to have been correct despite the narrative, then they were not "misinformation". HE was correct and the purveyors of the narrative had no 'lock' on some isolated single truth, AKA: "the science".

Not only is this a First Amendment case, but the very essence of scientific inquiry is on trial. Demanding that one narrative be followed in the name of "science" and shutting down alternative hypotheses without proof that those hypotheses are wrong, and in the absence of evidence verifying the assumptions of the narrative is piss poor science.
In fact, regardless of motive, it amounts to demagoguery.