I interviewed Cindy Eaton who is a clinical psychologist. The interview was in downtown Los Altos. I asked her what she thought of AB2098. She had not heard of the bill, so I described that it prohibited doctors from talking to their patients only for COVID freely; they had to restrict their speech to the "medical consensus." She thought this was a bad idea. 15 minutes later she came back and DEMANDED I delete her interview. I asked her why. She said I misled her and mischaracterized the bill. She said after the interview that she read the NY Times article on AB2098 which said it was a bill that regulated COVID-19 MISINFORMATION bill. She's said she's in FAVOR of censoring COVID misinformation so she wanted to take back what she said. She demanded I delete the video immediately or else she would tell everyone not to talk to me. After all, that's what respectable medical professionals do. Then she stood around telling everyone not to talk to me. When that wasn't enough to get me to delete the video, she called the cops. Two officers arrived and agreed she had no standing. If she had been nice about it and made a polite request I would have not used the video. But by calling the cops on me and standing around shooing people away telling people I misrepresented the bill (which you can see that I did not), she went over the line. Once you agree to an interview, you can't un-ring the bell. For example, I'd imagine the people who participated in the Jan 6 event at the White House probably regret what they did and would like CNN and others to delete their footage of the event. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. But what was fascinating about this incident is when censorship is described as prohibiting speech which doesn't agree with the mainstream medical consensus, Cindy thinks that is bad. But when the NY Times characterizes it as "medical misinformation" suddenly Cindy thinks censorship is good and absolutely the right thing to do! The bill itself defines misinformation as disagreeing with the medical consensus: " “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care." So nothing changed other than using the term misinformation. Once it is misinformation, then censorship goes from being bad to good. I asked Cindy about the war on fat where all the doctors thought fat was bad. If a doctor told a diabetic patient to reduce carbs and increase fats, he would have his license to practice medicine taken away. Cindy had no comment. Also, one doctor from Stanford Hospital walked by but he refused to comment on the bill. I got the sense he wanted to keep his job. So doctors don't feel safe talking about a bill that censors them. Are you surprised? Source: https://rumble.com/v1n6su6-clinical-psychologist-cindy-eaton-says-medical-censorship-is-good-and-bad.html