In this episode, Jay Bhattacharya interviews Laura Powell, a lawyer who fought against a law in California that restricted doctors from discussing their opinions with patients. The law, known as AB 2098, aimed to silence doctors who were expressing views that went against the mainstream narrative. Laura discusses the unconstitutional nature of the law and the chilling effect it had on doctors' free speech rights. She also highlights the erosion of trust in public health institutions and the importance of allowing doctors to prioritize their patients' interests over public health agendas. Laura Powell discusses her motivation for taking on the fight against a California law that would have restricted doctors' free speech rights. She explains that she started Californians for Good Governance before the case because she saw a lack of opposition to the law and wanted to speak to liberals who still believed in civil liberties. She describes the process of testifying in front of the California legislature and the positive response she received from the judge. She also discusses the role of various organizations, such as the California Medical Association and the No License for Disinformation group, in pushing for the law. Despite facing personal blowback, she is proud of the work she has done and the friendships she has formed.KeywordsAB 2098, doctors' free speech, unconstitutional law, chilling effect, erosion of trust, patient interests, public health agendas, California, law, doctors, free speech, civil liberties, opposition, testimony, legislature, judge, organizations, blowbackTakeaways* AB 2098 was a law in California that restricted doctors from discussing their opinions with patients, particularly on topics that went against the mainstream narrative.* The law was deemed unconstitutional as it violated doctors' free speech rights and had a chilling effect on their ability to express their views.* The erosion of trust in public health institutions has contributed to the skepticism towards mainstream narratives and the importance of allowing doctors to prioritize their patients' interests over public health agendas.* The law aimed to silence doctors who were expressing views that contradicted the established narrative, but it failed to define what constituted misinformation, leading to confusion and uncertainty among doctors.* The victory in the Hoag v. Newsom case highlighted the importance of protecting doctors' free speech rights and ensuring that laws are narrowly tailored and not overly vague. Laura Powell started Californians for Good Governance before the case because she saw a lack of opposition to the California law that would have restricted doctors' free speech rights.* She wanted to speak to liberals who still believed in civil liberties and saw herself as the one who would take on the fight.* She testified in front of the California legislature and received a positive response from the judge, who granted a preliminary injunction against the law.* Various organizations, such as the California Medical Association and the No License for Disinformation group, played a role in pushing for the law.* Despite facing personal blowback, Laura is proud of the work she has done and the friendships she has formed.Titles* The Chilling Effect of AB 2098 on Doctors' Speech* The Erosion of Trust in Public Health Institutions Facing Personal Blowback and Finding Pride in the Work* The Role of Organizations in Pushing for the Restrictive LawSound Bites* "It's just frustrating because we actually we weren't paid and people were telling lies in order to as an ad hominem attack against us to say we're only doing this because we're because we're getting money."* "It's a great free speech victory."* "I had been a public defender."* "I'm Laura, you're, you're the one who's going to do this."* "This is grammatically incoherent. This is nonsense."* "Nobody else was doing this."Chapters00:00 Introduction and Background03:23 AB 2098: The Uncon