Clinical psychologist Cindy Eaton say censorship is bad, but then it is good by Steve Kirsch for Steve Kirsch’s Newsletter
I asked her about AB 2098, the California bill regulating speech between doctors and their patients about COVID-19. Whether Cindy is for or against it depends on how you describe it.
This video is just 3 minutes long and it’s really amazing. In the video, clinical psychologist Cindy Eaton says doctors shouldn’t be restricted following the medical consensus when talking to patients.
A mere 15 minutes after the interview, Cindy comes back and DEMANDS that I IMMEDIATELY delete the interview because the NY Times article referred to the bill as censoring medical misinformation. She’s in favor of such censorship!
The problem of course is that the bill defines medical misinformation as disagreeing with the medical consensus.
What this shows is that when the bill is described using only the bill’s DEFINITION of the term “misinformation,” she’s strongly opposed. When it is described by the term “misinformation,” she’s strongly in favor of the bill.
She stood around me for more than 30 minutes telling everyone not to talk to me. She said she’d leave when I deleted the video. When that didn’t work, she called the cops on me to try to intimidate me to delete the video. That failed too.
Here’s the video that Cindy doesn’t want anyone to see.
On October 8, 2022, I interviewed Cindy Eaton who is a clinical psychologist. The interview was in downtown Los Altos at 6:39pm.
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.
About 15 minutes after the interview ended, she came back and DEMANDED I delete her interview IMMEDIATELY and to show her I deleted it.
I asked her why.
She said after the interview that she read the NY Times article on AB2098 which said it regulated COVID-19 MISINFORMATION.
She said I totally misled her!
She’s said that now she understands what the bill is for, she is STRONGLY in FAVOR of censoring COVID misinformation so she wanted to take back what she said.
But as you can see from the video, her claims of misrepresentation are clearly false. I described exactly what the bill prohibited while avoiding the use of the pejorative term “misinformation.”