Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
silent about a medical problem or tell a patient he has a clean bill of health when he does not. Pickup was justified on the same basis. SOCE therapy is analogous to prescribing a harmful drug. Liability could attach for providing SOCE therapy because the therapy had the chance to harm minors psychologically. As Pickup and Lowe recognized, however, even if quack medicine (or what the State deems to be quack medicine) can be prohibited without scrutiny, doctors cannot be prohibited from talking to their patients about quack medicine. See 472 U.S. at 231, 105 S.Ct. at 2584 (White, J„ concurring) (“I do not think [the State] could make it a crime ... privately to speak urging persons to follow or reject any school of medical thought.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); 740 F.3d at 1228 . I believe, apparently unlike the Majority,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding only that a doctor may not counsel a patient to rely on quack medicine but recognizing that a doctor may talk to patients about quack medicine such as soce emphasis added internal quotation marks omitted
B. holding that disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak but they  do not prevent anyone from speaking citation and internal quotation marks omitted
C. holding that provisions in a contract established only the tribes willingness to face suit in tribal court and not an explicit waiver of tribal immunily like that in c  l enterprises emphasis added internal quotation marks omitted
D. holding that competency is appropriately defined as the mental capacity to understand the nature of the death penalty and why it was imposed upon the convict emphasis added internal quotation marks omitted
E. recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.