Let that sink in.
My second point is that professionals should already accurately tell the truth to their patients.
Professionals should be sticking to positive statements [1] though. So saying something like, the covid vaccine will give you austim I think should be grounds for losing your license.
On the other hand, saying something like, there's a high change you'll have flu like symptoms if you get the vaccine would not be grounds (the symptoms are disclosed as part of the vaccine trials).
But saying something like, I would like to try X treatment that isn't typically done but I've done it a few times recently and had good results I think should also be fine.
The law makes the claim of "contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care" which I think is a very reasonable statement. In general, you want people to recommend treatments that historically have worked for a condition. And for experimental type situations all the Licensee needs to do is to make it clear that the treatment isn't backed up by existing studies.
One thing I have observed - a lot of what people call “scientific consensus” is not the consensus of the research literature, rather it is the “consensus” of position statements put out by professional bodies. The later often lack much of the tentative and provisional nature of the former, with doubts and uncertainties being hidden rather than highlighted. While even peer-reviewed research is not immune to political pressures, these kinds of “position statements” are much more susceptible to political influence than the former are.
What if, you know, accurately representing a course of treatment required contradicting CDC/FDA? Say, suppose you’re a medical researcher, doing science, and you find that CDC/FDA are completely wrong on some count (as they have been many, many times in the past). Are they supposed to just repeat CDC-blessed falsehoods that they know to be false? Do you want to institute an office of the arbiters of truth, such that it is legally forbidden to disagree with them?
> 270. (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.
> (3) “Disseminate” means the conveyance of information from the licensee to a patient under the licensee’s care in the form of treatment or advice.
This only applies to a Doctor advising their patients. If you don't think professional conduct means accurately representing a course of treatment and it's risk I don't know what to say to you.
Sure, there could be a slippery slope to where disseminate doesn't mean only between a Licensee but that was always true.