Dr. Azadeh Khatibi
speaker
128 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Apr 2025
last heard Apr 2025
Dr. Azadeh Khatibi’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
You know, it's so important to support great nonprofits, legal nonprofits like the New Civil Liberties Alliance, like the Pacific Legal Foundation that's heading up as counsel for the current lawsuit that I'm involved in for free speech for doctors.
She was very interested, but she ended up not being involved in that lawsuit. But she was one of the people who reached out to me and was like, do you wanna fight this? And so I really appreciate her fierceness that gave me that feeling that, hey, this is possible, we could do this. And she's a role model. So what ended up happening is that multiple, so there's a couple different groups that sued.
Children's Health Defense Fund was one of them. We had individual doctors. I was also suing in the capacity of a patient because I, you know, as a patient, I also said I want to be able to hear my doctor's speech because the First Amendment not only affects the speaker, the First Amendment is also supposed to protect the rights of the listener to hear that speech.
So if the government is interfering with the First Amendment rights of the doctor, then the patient's First Amendment rights to hear that speech are also being interfered with. So I sued in both capacities as a doctor and a physician. And there were several other doctors. There was... Another legal nonprofit that was also fighting.
So it's nice to have different groups fighting the same law, because it gives you more opportunity for the nuance in the discussion, the arguments to get better as well. And so we got a preliminary injunction when we were fighting the physician consensus law, and that's very rare to get. And our judge had come and He was like, what? This law doesn't make grammatical sense.
This law doesn't make it clear on what a doctor can say and what they can't say. Who's deciding what they can say and what they can't say? And he was asking these questions. of the state's lawyer. By the way, the state's lawyer is the same lawyer in this current case. So at both lawsuits, the state's lawyer is the same person. And so she really couldn't answer some of these questions.
She did her best in that first case. And she, I mean, he just pointed out how ridiculous the state's arguments were. He's called the law nonsense. And when he said that, I felt so much better. It's like finally someone can see how nonsense is. Gavin Newsom didn't see the nonsense. Rob Bunta, the Attorney General, didn't see the nonsense.
All those Democrats who voted for this bill didn't see the nonsense, didn't see the gross ethical First Amendment rights violations in it. But he gave us the preliminary injunction, which meant that they couldn't come after us if we broke the law. And then he decided to hold off on ruling. And in the meantime, one of the other groups of doctors that had lost went to the appellate level.
And in the appellate level, the three-judge panel was really cooking the— state attorney basically giving her lots of questions, like this doesn't make sense, and really questioning her. So it looked like they were gonna lose at the appellate level. And what happened, this is the back insider story, is that one of my friends had Gavin Newsom come up to him.
And what he did is he said, and this is actually after the fact, what ended up happening is they repealed the law very quietly. And Gavin Newsom went up to my friend and he said it was my idea to repeal the law. and he took credit for it. And I think what ended up happening is that he saw how grossly unethical and a violation of free speech this was, and he wanted to look good.
So he saw that it was gonna make him and the state look bad. And so he got the Democrats to push for the repeal.
He's been watching a lot of Dr. Drew lately.
This is a bust of Washington.
Here, I'll put it over here so Georgie can be seen. I got this as an award for, I got this as a bravery award for speaking out against AB 2098.
You know, I didn't look at the article overall, but I did look at who was involved and some background work. And I did look at the FOIA email, FOIA email record. So I have some stuff to say about it.
Well, so this was an article that came out in 2020. It was called Physician-Patient Racial Concordance and Disparities in Birthing Mortality for Newborns. So what this means is basically patient-physician racial concordance is like if the doctor's white and the patient is white. If the doctor's black... the patient's black, they're racially concordant.
So they were looking at, are there disparities in the death rates of babies, newborn babies, based on whether or not the babies are black and the doctors are black, or the babies are black and the doctors are white? If there's differences in race between the doctor and the patient, will the babies die at a higher rate? And this was published in the journal Economic Sciences in 2020.
And the authors are Brad Greenwood, Rachel Hardiman, Laura Huang, and Aaron Sojourner. Guess how many of these people are doctors? Zero. Zero. So from what I could tell, their backgrounds were in economics, electrical engineering. One person had an MPH and a PhD, but no MDs, no nurses, no DOs, no medical background. And I think that's also one of the reasons that the article came out being such a
poor quality and had such a gross error in it. But the article when it was published came out to much fanfare because what they were saying is that it showed that when black babies are taken care of by white doctors, they have a higher mortality rate than when black babies are taken care of by black doctors. And this got a lot of press.
Also a lot of backlash, people were upset about it because some people really don't want us to look at racial concordance data. And I think it's gotten so much bad press. One of the people, Rachel Hardiman, the MPH PhD, you can't see her tweets unless she approves you as a follower. So some of them have felt this backlash against them. And rightly so, because what happened is that
Showing 61–80 of 128 · page 4 of 7
← Previous
Next →