By Raïssa Robles
Yesterday, I wrote that Senator Vicente Sotto had copied from FIVE bloggers.
Last night, I was sent information that he copied as well from a briefing paper. The information came once more from Vincent D. Bautista. Thank you, Vincent.
UPDATE as of 8:23 AM, August 17, 2012:
In 2002, Senator Vicente Sotto vowed to push for tougher measures against film and music piracy. He even delivered a privilege speech condemning the matter. Is what he just did a form of piracy too?
Senator Sotto and his staff’s predilection for lifting verbatim without attribution has elicited much comment and reaction on the Web.
One commenter named Kiko wrote the following reaction:
Yikes, what an embarrassment for the Philippine Senate as an institution. How can you stand up in front of your peers and read off a paper whose sources you haven’t reviewed personally?
Kiko also sent what he called Sotto the plagiarist meme:
On the social networking site Facebook, someone passed on this poster to me –
This was before I learned that Sotto’s copy-and-paste approach to scholarship extended to briefing papers. Hindi lang pala bloggers.
This morning, someone posted this as well on Facebook:
Sotto copied from 5 bloggers plus a briefing paper
Sotto’s speech delivered August 16 Wednesday contained the following passage. Again, I have highlighted in red what was copied:
2.United Nations agencies are using UN resources to advocate their agenda on a local level in order to bypass cultural and religious resistance. Gamal Serour, president of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), reported that UNFPA has a program in 25 countries to lobby religious leaders into dropping objections to the agenda. These programs are aimed at “re-educating” religious leaders and convincing them to accept their population control programs.
He had lifted this verbatim from a briefing paper entitled ” Six More Problems with Women Deliver: Why Attempts to Redefine Maternal Health as Reproductive Health Threaten the World’s Women”:
Problem #4: UN staff and NGOs target religious leaders and youth to undermine traditional culture and values.
UN agencies are using UN resources to advocate their agenda on a local level in order to bypass cultural and religious resistance. Gamal Serour, president of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), reported that UNFPA has a program in 25 countries to lobby religious leaders into dropping objections to the agenda. These programs are aimed at “re-educating” religious leaders and convincing them that family planning does not go against their religious values, especially when taken from a medical point of view.
The paper can be downloaded here.
So far, one blogger named Sarah has reacted to Senator Sotto’s copying from her blog, thehealthyhomeeconomist.com in a post entitled On Plagiarism, the Pill and Presumptuousness. This time, Sarah has taken the trouble to protect her post. You can no longer simply copy and paste it. You have to screencap it like this:
Sarah called Sotto “esteemed”, but the picture that accompanied the post said what she really meant –
Senator’s chief-of-staff Hector Villacorta took the trouble to contact Sarah. Jojo Malig of ABS-CBNNews quoted Villacorta as telling Sarah –
“We are both indebted to the book’s author but if you wish that you also be credited with the contents of the book, let this be your affirmation. I can do it and by this message, I am doing it. Hope it satisfies you. But if it does not, what would you want us to do?”
All I can say is – WOW. Villacorta’s grudging tone says it all. It’s as if he’s saying it’s Sarah who should be grateful for the honor of having been quoted by a senator because she is a mere blogger.
To hear what Sen. Sotto himself said on the issue, click on this link –
Some commenters have asked me why I’m making such a big deal over this. Perhaps because as a writer I have tried to take the trouble to attribute sources and craft my words. When someone merely copies and pastes other people’s thoughts and passes them off as his, he is taking all the credit for doing all that hard work.
Did Sen. Sotto just lie on national TV?
Did Sen. Sotto copy from 5 bloggers?
Part 2 of Sen. Sotto’s anti-RH speech
Rowena A. Burden, M.D. says
the “lying thief” has done it again… this time, he levelled up… the closing portion of his speech is the tagalog translation of a speech delivered by Robert F. Kennedy… it’s no longer copy-paste, it’s now copy-paste then google translate :-(
Gene Simmowns says
Looks like we haven’t seen the last of the “good” senator.
Here’s from rappler:
“On Wednesday, August 29, Sotto delivered a privilege speech to defend himself from backlash after he failed to attribute passages in speeches against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill to American blogger Sarah Pope and other articles online.
“Ako na yata ang kauna-unahang senador ng Pilipinas na naging biktima ng cyber-bullying,” lamented Sotto. (I am probably the first Philippine senator to be a victim of cyber-bullying.)
Sotto added, “Ang iba pa’y may sinusulat na gusto daw ako kasuhan. Nais kong ipaalam sa kanila: walang krimen na plagiarism sa Pilipinas.” (Others write that they want to sue me. I want to inform them: there is no such crime as plagiarism in the Philippines.) ”
We elect this clown to the Senate and then we wonder why he walks and talks the way he does? Honestly, we can continue to lambast, curse and mock Sotto (God knows he deserves it and more) but really, we have no one to blame but ourselves (the electorate)
Sotto’s speech is full of deceit.
Sotto’s speech contains:
-text from 5 bloggers
-misuse of Barbara Seaman’s Book see
-Diane of Bayer Schering Pharma – mentioned by Sotto in his anti-RH
bill speech last August 15 was introduced in 1978., but his wife Helen
was taking it in 1975
-Sottos speech contained this 1976 study:
“In a cohort of 50,282 pregnancies, 19 children with cardiovascular
defects were born to 1042 women who received female hormones during
early pregnancy (18.2 per 1000). Among 49,240 children not exposed in
utero to these agents there were 385 with cardiovascular malformations
(7.8 per 1000). Six children with cardiovascular defects were born to
a subgroup of 278 women who used oral contraceptives during early
pregnancy (21.5 per 1000). After the data were controlled for a wide
variety of potentially confounding factors by multivariate methods,
the association between utero exposure to female hormones and
cardiovascular birth defects was statistically significant”.
(Source: Cardiovascular Birth Defects and Antenatal Exposure to Female
Sex Hormones by Olli P. Heinonen, M.D., M.SC., Dennis Slone, M.D.,
Richard R. Monson, M.D., Ernest B. Hook, M.D., and Samuel Shapiro,
But the above source was debunked by Wiseman and Dodds-Smith in 1984.
The conclusions of Heinomen and associates10,11 were questioned.
Wiseman and Dodds-Smith12 reevaluated original data from the US
Collaborative Perinatal Project and found several shortcomings. First,
a priori risk of anomalies were dissimilar between subjects and
controls. In four of the 17 hormone-exposed cases, a previous
pregnancy was characterized by a major malformation (ventral septal
defect, Down syndrome with a cardiac defect, neonatal death with
serious malformations, and a stillborn); only one case in a control
group of 100 (selected from the 1023 who had a noncardiac malformation
and were exposed to progestogens) had a previous history of a major
anomaly. Thus, subject and control groups were not comparable. In
addition, two infants with cardiac anomalies in the exposed group had
Down syndrome; the cardiac anomaly was surely related not to drug
exposure but rather to underlying trisomy. Timing of exposure was also
implausible in many cases. Among the 19 progestogen-exposed infants
with cardiac defects, four were exposed during the first lunar month,
a period when anomalies are not ordinarily produced (all-or-none
period); three other infants were exposed only in the fourth month,
long after heart development is completed (42 embryonic or 56
gestational days). Wiseman and Dodd-Smith12 concluded that no
significant association between hormone use and cardiac anomalies
existed in the US Collaborative Perinatal Project data.
Johnny Lin says
In a few months a contraceptive for men might come out of the market.
It works before fertilization because it affects the physical properties of sperm, thus it should not interfere with catholic church stand on reproductive health
How would the catholic church address this pill? Will they approve it for the benefit of their prodigal clergies? Will it be incorporated in the amended RH bill?
What are the chances men would take them if given free by the government?