It’s not a free speech issue.
I have a license, and if I tell someone with treatable cancer they will be cured by eating red grapes, I will lose my license. I can’t defend myself with a First Amendment defense - I’m free to say it, the State can’t arrest me or jail me for saying it, but my license has conditions, one of which is that I will treat patients correctly.
This is an internal power struggle that could not have occurred 50 years ago. Since then, something called “evidence based medicine” has become very important, and, as Alvan Feinstein pointed out in 1996, EBM gave extraordinary power to people who got to define just what constituted evidence.
In the beginning of EBM, it was pretty clear. But once PAYMENT for treatment got wrapped into it, the fact that evidence for many things was weak or nonexistent made “expert opinion” a major factor - and then politics came into it, and expert opinion changed into “WHOSE experts” and created the mess we see today.
This escalated further as the regime experts became obsessed with Orange Man Bad.
But no doctors, not Dr. Nass and not Dr. Noble have a first amendment right to say ANYTHING WE WISH and stay licensed.
Not sure what the way out is - end licenses, end regulation, or sharply restrict regulation to cover only wrong site surgery and corrupt financial practices.
It’s a mess.
The problem is that she’s not a very sympathetic case. If it were just about HCQ and Ivermectin she would be on solid ground, but her case involves all kinds of idiocy that SHOULD get a professional license suspended — like falsifying patient records, prescribing medications for patients without examining them, etc.