In all the millions of words spoken and written about Covid vaccines, have you heard – even once – about this problem?

The law requires that INFORMED CONSENT be obtained from the patient before a medical treatment is given.

In Cobbs v. Grant (1972) the California Supreme Court explained that patients generally do not have medical knowledge and rely upon their doctors for information.

• A person of adult years and in sound mind has the right, in the exercise of control over his own body, to determine whether or not to submit to lawful medical treatment. To be effective, a patient’s consent to treatment must be an informed consent.

The California Supreme Court held that a physician has a duty to disclose to a patient ‘the available choices with respect to proposed therapy and . . . the dangers inherently and potentially involved in each.

Under Cobbs, the scope of a physician’s duty to disclose is measured by the amount of knowledge a patient needs in order to make an informed choice.

So why is it that if we mention possible side effects of the vaccine, we risk being banned from social media? Isn’t that the very definition of UNINFORMED consent? Oh wait. Isn’t MANDATE the opposite of consent in the first place?