If there is one aspect of cranks that is almost universal (besides the aforementioned tendency to want to prove themselves through things like "live televised debates"), it's a tendency to want to shut down the criticism of its opposition. True, such a tendency is a human trait as well and used far too often by, say, corporations, but it's one that seems to be cranked up to 11 and beyond, as they say, in cranks.
We've seen it time and time again. Most often, it takes the form of some sort of legal bullying, such as when the British Chiropractic Association bit off more than it could chew by suing British writer Simon Singh in essence over his use of the word "bogus" to describe chiropractic. Fortunately, they were ignominiously defeated and had to retreat like the scum that they are. Sometimes the legal thuggery takes the form of going after the ISP of whomever the crank doesn't like, such as when quack extraordinaire (in my not-so-humble opinion) Joseph Chikelue Obi temporarily silenced Andy Lewis of The Quackometer. Other examples abound, such as when the Society of Homeopaths forced Andy Lewis to take down an article criticizing homeopaths in the U.K. for claiming that homeopathy can treat malaria. And don't even get me started on the vacuous legal threats by a man associated with the Burzynski Clinic, legal threats so hilariously over-the-top and embarrassing that even a man with no shame (Stanislaw Burzynski) was forced to disavow Marc Stephens, the man making the threats against a teenaged U.K. skeptic.
Over and over and over and over again, the story is the same. A skeptic aims the light of reason and science into a crevice of unreason and pseudoscience, the target of that light doesn't like it and, instead of slithering back under the rock from which he came, decides to try to abuse the legal system to get back at the skeptic. Legal thuggery is a feature, not a bug, of crankery and quackery. Perhaps the most popular new mechanism for silencing opponents, be it by cranks, quacks, or even big corporations, is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. About three months ago, I linked to and embedded an excellent YouTube video by C0nc0rdance. Go to my link right now and try to play the video. What do you see?
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Merola Productions, LLC.
Yes, apparently Eric Merola has issued a DMCA takedown notice against C0nc0rdance, and Google, as it so often cravenly does, simply complied. At least, that's what C0nc0rdance has stated, and I have no reason not to believe him. The problem with the DMCA, of course, is that once a takedown notice has been issued, it's devilishly hard for the YouTube user to contest it, which has led to a cottage industry of bogus DMCA takedown notices. Punishment of issuers of abusive DMCA takedown notices is rare, and ISPs and other web hosts often have little choice but to take DMCA notices at face value because of how the law is written. In fact, C0nc0rdance posted a brief video explaining what was going on, but if you go to that link you will rapidly find this notice:
This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content.
Gee, I wonder who complained to YouTube about that video so rapidly, given that it hadn't been up more than a day or so before it was taken down? Could it be...Eric Merola? That would be my first guess, of course. This is, after all, a man who complained to Bob Blaskiewicz's university about his online activities opposing Burzynski, an act that was so reminiscent of the Jake Crosby-inspired attempt to get me fired from my job as surgical faculty at my current university three years ago that I completely related to Bob's discomfort.
Amusingly, though, the Internet, being the Internet, does not react well to bogus DMCA takedown notices. Already, C0nc0rdance's video about the Burzynski Clinic has been mirrored here, here, and here. I'll embed one of these mirrored versions of the video for your viewing pleasure. It's really worth taking a look at because it explains the essence of skeptical objections to Burzynski concisely and clearly, so that everyone can understand:
No doubt Mr. Merola will take the mirroring of C0nc0rdance's video as "evidence" of some sort of grand conspiracy by "The Skeptics," given that he has repeated claims about such grand conspiracies at both of his Q&As after screenings of his new movie. Mr. Merola, assuming he really was the one issuing this DMCA takedown notice, should Google the "Streisand effect." It really is applicable here. There's no grand conspiracy. There never has been, as getting skeptics—excuse me, "The Skeptics"—to paddle in the same direction on anything is much like the proverbial herding of cats. Mirroring like this and more people writing about the criticisms that Merola has tried to suppress is just what happens on the Internet, in particular on social media, whenever a person being criticized tries to use legal thuggery to silence or eliminate that criticism. The examples are legion and include the ones I briefly mentioned at the beginning of this post. There are more, of course. Many more. In an case, although I'm not a lawyer there was nothing in C0nc0rdance's video that I could see that was anything more than obvious fair use. Early in the video there was a scene showing a shot that included a low resolution shot of the poster for Eric Merola's Burzynski propaganda movie. Later, there was another shot with that poster, and some random images associated with Merola's filmmaking business as well as a photo of what looked like him. Quite honestly, if I were C0nc0rdance, I'd just re-edit the video to remove the Burzynski Movie poster and any images of Merola, replacing them with either cartoons or a blank screen with a notice that the images had to be removed because Merola had issued a highly dubious DMCA takedown notice.
Let me also say this. I know that Eric Merola obsessively reads pretty much everything I write about Burzynski; so I know he'll see this. I also know that @BurzynskiSaves (whose identity I now think I probably know with around 95% certainty) and Didymus Judas Thomas (whose identity I'm probably about 75% sure of and whose Twitter handles mutate as fast as the genome of cancer cells) also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media. Finally, I believe that people like Eric Merola are hypocrites, feeling free to paint "The Skeptics" as "white supremacists" and puppy-eating evildoers to their heart's content (from what I've heard about Merola's second Burzynski movie, in it skeptics are all but portrayed as Satan Incarnate) but running like whipped puppies to the DMCA when either they or Burzynski are criticized, no matter how civil, reasonable, or science-based that criticism is (and C0nc0rdance's video was all of the above). The reason is, of course, clear. Having no convincing science, no convincing medicine, and no convincing evidence to support their hero's antineoplastons or "personalized gene-targeted therapy for dummies," they resort to legal thuggery, the difference being, of course, that puppies are cute, lovable, and of great comfort to many people.
Same as it ever was.
One more thing: If Eric Merola, Stanislaw Burzynski, and his crew of sycophants, toadies, and lackeys are offended by my opinion, my characterization of them that I have based on analyses of Burzynski's claims and observation of the behavior of Burzynski and his propagandist Eric Merola, they should try something different to shut me up. I have just the thing, too. Publishing the results of some of Burzynski's allegedly completed phase II trials for the scientific community comes to mind first. If Burzynski really has the goods, as Merola and company claim, then he can best shut up critics by bringing the science—solid, convincing science, that is. I've said it before many times, and I'll say it again: I can be convinced by strong preclinical and clinical evidence. I have yet to see anything resembling strong evidence from Burzynski. At least, if he has such evidence he hasn't published it yet, preferring to publish a mixture of case reports, tiny case series, unimpressive basic science, and the like in bottom-feeding journals, some of which aren't even indexed in PubMed. A conspiracy among editors of journals is not the reason, contrary to the claims in the second Burzynski movie. Nor is a conspiracy of skeptics—excuse me, "The Skeptics"—the reason why trying to suppress criticism will boomerang on Merola. It's all because of Burzynski's own behavior and Merola's willingness to distort, misinform, and slime Burzynski critics.
ADDENDUM: C0nc0rdance has now posted a "scrubbed," "Merola-friendly" version of his original video. It's well worth watching:
Go. Spread the word (and the link)!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The guy clearly cannot tolerate any criticism of either his video or his beloved hero on YouTube. He routinely blocks users and removes their posts if they are critical or negative. It wouldn't surprise me in the least If he has taken to abusing the service in other ways through the DMCA.
Simply put, he is an intellectual coward. Of course I doubt YouTube takes kindly to people making false claims and could give him the boot. Wouldn't that be funny?
Also, users who are blocked can file a counter notification for fair use reasons. So if they're using clips of his video for critique or his interviews they should do that.
This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content.
IANAL, but C0nc0rdance may have grounds for a slander suit against the person who made that complaint.
DMCA is bad law, full stop. Services like YouTube could not exist without a safe harbor provision; the problem is that the law presumes takedown notices to be valid, and forces the service provider to comply promptly in order to preserve the safe harbor defense. The law presently allows someone to plagiarize your content and then file a DMCA takedown notice on the grounds that your publication of the material they plagiarized from you infringes their copyright. That needs to change.
This sounds like a job for PopeHat....
My thanks to you, Orac, for bringing this to light. The outpouring of support in the form of YouTube mirrors is very heartening. I have, as you suggested, re-uploaded a "Merola-friendly" version of the video. Rather than making a point about censorship, I wanted to make sure that it served its original purpose of raising the level of critical thinking about the red flags at the Burzynski Clinic.
Challenging this DMCA would require disclosing my home address, phone number and legal name to Merola (and likely then the Internet at large). Someone who exploits cancer patients for profit would have no ethical quandaries in harassment and intimidation tactics. It's for that reason that I will probably not counter the original DMCA. That doesn't mean I lack the will to fight... but I will not let it intrude into my real-world life. Streisand Effect is a powerful thing, and a lesson to censorship thugs to beware a skeptical community united.
My initial reaction was shock that Merola was the one to try to silence me. I assumed the attack would come from the Burzynski clinic PR/social media department itself, though I suppose they may have learned a lesson from Rhys Morgan.
Thanks again.
Indeed. I'm pretty sure he probably already knows about it, but in case he doesn't...
I'm afraid Merola is pretty thin-skinned; so I can't say I'm as surprised. As you say, the Burzynski Clinic's PR department, once burned by hiring Marc Stephens, is probably now twice shy about this sort of thing. At least, I hope so. Merola, however, totally convinced that he's a crusading documentary filmmaker exposing the depredations of the FDA and big pharma persecuting poor, poor Stanislaw Burzynski and the evil machinations of "The Skeptics" trying to attack Burzynski patients for going to Burzynski (which we do not do) and him for trying to let the world know about a "cancer cure that The Man Doesn't Want You To Know About," is more likely to plunge bravely ahead into such stupidity that has already burned Burzynski. Whatever you say about Burzynski (and I say a lot), he is not stupid and he can learn from experience, at least tactically. I'm not so sure the same can be said about Eric Merola.
It says it has been removed due to Google's policy on scams. I wonder if there are any other videos on YouTube that could fairly be described as promoting a scam? I do hope Merola doesn't suddenly get flooded with down votes and people flagging his propaganda...
@ Guy Chapman:
Regarding those I survey, I could name you a bunch that would be in the same boat as Merola if truth be told.
Not You-Tube, but Woo-tube.
C0nc0rdance, I published your original video. I'll see how long it stay put.
Alain
Did you change the headline, Orac? I could have sworn it was different when I clicked on it about 10 minutes ago.
Oh, I will. Filing the counternotice is trivially easy. Merola then has 14 days to bring a bona fide infringement suit, or it goes back up and the "strike" is taken off the YouTube account (note that three "strikes," and it sounds like c0nc0rdance now has two, will nuke all of your YouTube accounts; you should definitely protest removal of the second video, although there doesn't appear to be a formal procedure).
One thing to note is that I cannot for the life of me find a registration for any of Merola's material, so his recoverable damages are sorely limited, and 17 USC §§ 411–412 [and posters are explicitly not works of visual art for the purposes of 17 USC § 106(a)] may in fact preclude such a suit in the first place in certain jurisdictions.
Furthermore, by failing to take into account fair use, Merola opens himself up to claim of failure to act in good faith (Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2008)).
No, this would come under section 512(f) of the DMCA.
They're all right here. Feel free to flag anything that's misleading; they're not in short supply.
Get a life, Orac.
Wow, Sandrop, that was a scorching retort. Can "so's your old man!" be far behind?
Techdirt has the Twitter where Eric Merola gives people detailed marching orders on how to falsely report the video as harassment against disabled people.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130419/02554422762/takedown-non-dmc…
Sandrop is the new Marg!
@Scote
Wow. Somehow I missed Merola's marching orders to intentionally try to get "The Skeptics'" Facebook accounts yanked for hate speech. What a despicable little turd.
@Orac
Yeah. I wonder what he'll do next? Falsely report people as drunk drivers? Maybe some swatting (false calls to 911 to elicit a SWAT response)?
(And I missed that the instructions were for Facebook...doh..)
Methinks somebody needs to look into Google's violations of copyright and trademark law.
Made a few copies of the movie from the mirrors and stored them on a few online sites as well as on a few hard drives on my computers.
Have emailed a few friends links to the mirrors as well as send them links to merola's actions.
Also have a few video sharing accounts too to post the video if necessary.
It's a small thing, but I will do what I can.
What would be of use here is copies of the second video. (Paging c0nc0rdance.) The first one appears to have nearly two dozen repostings up on YouTube already. Given the method used to take down the second one, this seems like the place to focus further Streisanding effort.
One of the Skeptical OB's critics did something similar - practically invited her to copy and paste a photo from her blog, then used the DMCA to shut her site down with two successive ISPs for supposed copyright infringement, and asked her readers to try the same, with the express goal of shutting down the criticism rather than protecting her copyright. Dr Amy returned with a lawsuit alleging bad faith, and now it's somewhere in legal wrangleville.
Whether this is a good idea for other cases depends upon everyone's resources.
It doesn't get much better than this: http://i.imgur.com/I7cdq49.png
Just to reiterate, IANAL, but it strikes me that Merola has now admitted in no uncertain terms that the claim is frivolous.
They never learn, do they? The Skeptics have enough Pharmacom lucre to respawn every time someone like Merola tries to take them out.
@Sadflop - no doubt your devastatingly cutting blow has left poor Orac mentally exsanguinated. Must you be so incisively cruel?
Does anyone know why the 21st Floor is offline again, another DMCA claim? It's becoming a regular occurrence.
Thank you Orac, and others at RI, for continuing to speak out against the charlatans. Today, one of my mentors, a former professor when I began my academic career, lost her life to cancer. She was 37. Her original prognosis was 6 weeks. She was lucky to have access to the best evidence and science based treatments in Australia which gave her nearly three years to spend with her children and new husband.
Thank you again for keeping the true victims of scum like burzynski in your minds.
Thank you Orac, and others at RI, for continuing to speak out against the charlatans. Today, one of my mentors, a former professor when I began my academic career, lost her life to cancer. She was 37. Her original prognosis was 6 weeks. She was lucky to have access to the best evidence and science based treatments in Australia which gave her nearly three years to spend with her children and new husband.
Thank you again for keeping the true victims of scum like burzynski in your minds.
I'm having trouble seeing the tactical rationale for this preemptive move on Tuteur's part.
As publicized by Merola, The New York Times in 2010 posted a review of Burzynski the movie, in which a gullible Jeannette Catsoulis wrote:
"Topically Fertile" "Tickles the Mind"
However, that isn't exactly what she wrote:
"Plain, plodding and relentlessly expositive, “Burzynski” tries to wrestle medical clarity from a snarl of science and human suffering. The price paid, however, is a documentary as visually arid as it is topically fertile."
"Mr. Merola’s ferocious commitment to documentation may bolster his argument, but it destroys his film. Clogged with court transcripts,
medical records and repetitive (if moving) patient testimony, “Burzynski” tickles the mind only at the cost of trampling the eyes."
The reviewer in the Village Voice did a much better job of providing quotes for Merola's movie poster:
"..."Burzynski" violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking..."
"...why is this conspiratorial rubbish being released into theaters?"
I'll bet THEY didn't get a takedown notice.
Burzynski crowd is out in force commenting on Peter Lipson's article in Forbes. Could use some balance over there.
Here's the link
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-ca…
is a documentary as visually arid as it is topically fertile.
A kind of fertiliser, then?
No, that is not a reasonable request. Either the use is fair use or not. It does not hinge on some demand by Merola. As to trying to get an email recalled from the web, that just isn't going to happen, more reason why it is an unreasonable, Marc Stephens-style request.
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore
I suspect it's a fatal request, but as c0nc0rdance has stated, he doesn't want to out himself over the matter, which is perfectly reasonable. However, if Merola has the balls to send similar claims to other uploaders of the video and is so stupid as to initiate a federal infringement suit in response to a counter-notice, in which his possible recovery is almost certainly actual damages (i.e., zero), rather than statutory, it will come in quite handy.
Narad,
Your post fail to compute; are you saying if he sue us, that the actual damage he could win is zero?
Alain
IANAL
but
Merola/Burzinksi have deeper pockets than most here, pockets which depend on continued faith of their followers and laxity from the law, and thus much more to lose. They are skating just outside the jailhouse gate, you are not.
If the clinic has in some way sponsored the film and has a business or legal relationship to Merola perhaps there is joint liability.
Being sued by Merola is
i) probably an empty threat
ii) possible a substantial win for the target is s/he wise about how to deal with it.
Hint: Agreeing to anything which appears like an admission of fault for exercising free speech, exposing fraud or stating truth is going to come back and bite. Having some 2nd hand exposure to slippery characters, I can confidently state that one is a fool to offer them wiggle room as if they deserve a gentleman's agreement.
Think of it like alligator wrestling, but with a small, oil coated 'gator.
Perhaps we should find individuals +/or groups which will pledge assistance should the rabid toy poodle attempt to bite?
"possible" ==> possibly is==> if
And consider that this is free legal chatter from a non-lawyer, YMMV
IANAL. However, I think that is both true and false.
I believe that you generally can sue for copyright infringement but only for actual damages, damages which have to be proven in court. However, if you register the copyright you can sue for statutory damages, arbitrarily and legally **presumed** damages, of up to $150,000 per work if the work is infringed *after* you register the copyright.
Copyright law is a mess. This is not legal advice and may be partially incorrect.
Hilariously, Squidymus has check in late on the Forbes piece.
^ "checked in"
Alain, nothing that I say should be taken as legal advice. Moreover, you're not in the U.S. However, since he has not registered the copyrights, it appears likely that he could not recover for statutory damages or attorney's fees, just actual damages, which are zero. This is crucially dependent upon whether he submitted an application far enough in advance of the alleged infringement, as some jurisdictions might recognize this.
In other words, he would likely being paying out to bring a federal suit with nothing to gain aside from costing the defendant to defend the case. Personally, I'm willing to try to seek out pro bono representation if he tries pulling this shıt on my copy.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/04/weekly-wrap.html#comments
Measles outbreaks are the fault of the CDC!
Anj, it is not off topic on the article just before this one:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/18/andrew-wakefield-wants-a-l…
Oh, I do like this phrasing:
crew of sycophants, toadies, and lackeys
This comment was posted in the guest book of the Healey family website, New Providence, NJ. Their young daughter has been diagnosed with DIPG and they are looking for a clinical trial. So..this Melissa Szpala calls herself a friend? Really? Wasting the family's time, money and giving false hope. Nice friend! It is amazing just how many people are brainwashed by this Stan B. Hopefully the parents know better and don't follow through.
Melissa Szpala said: April 22nd, 2013 1:21 pm
"Hello stef and ateve... attached is a link to a WONDERFUL cancer center that i think would at least be worth a call to if you have not done so already... Just a suggestion.. but it comes highley reccomended.. xoxoxo http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/"
I think I will own up to being part of a conspiracy... a conspiracy of people who prefer truth and free speech to legalistic chilling effects.
So do I get a prize for guessing that Squidy was only playing dumb and can actually be well-spoken when he wants? Honestly, he makes a good parody of cranks, even if he is one himself. If his brother, then it also makes it clear that the trolling was indeed aimed at baiting people into making parodies of skeptics too.
@AdamG
Ah man, I've been missing all the fun!
Melissa Szpala said
Ah. Reiki, bodywork, raw-food vegetarianism, meditation teacher and now cancer-quack shill. Truly a versatile person.
I realized I posted these comments in the wrong Count Stan thread.
I haven’t paid any attention to the lunatic rantings of DJT for weeks, but Guy Chapman just updated the list of his sockpuppet Twitter spam accounts (he’s on his 10th account)so I checked out his latest incarnation. He’s now been reduced to writing poems and limericks about the Forbes article and his “free speech” being censored by Dr. Peter Lipson. This is truly hilarious. The man has deep, deep psychological problems:
https://twitter.com/QbertQbert
From what I can glean from his incoherent babble, he posted a comment on the Forbes article that purported to have uncovered some conspiracy that Dr. Lipson and Orac are friends (or “buds”) and that prompted Dr. Lipson to delete the comment. As far as I know, the authors of Forbes articles doen’t even have the power to delete comments, so maybe Forbes smelled the crazy and deleted the comment themselves.
It’s not quite along the same lines as Alex Jones’s conspiracy rantings about the Boston bombings, false flag attacks and “The Craft” but loony tunes nonetheless.
Since DJT has already proven to be a 9/11 truther, he probably also believes that Navy Seals planted the Boston bombs with the cooperation of the FBI and the two brothers were just “patsies” who were set up and/or framed.
Well, actually Peter and I are buds. There's no secret about that.. :-)
If your going to get cancer - you will die because no treatment works.
save your money, seek alternative treatment and when all else fails, get heavy painkillers and say goodbye
jin hason
That's not what my boss found, when he had standard treatment for his prostate cancer. That's not what other boss's GF found when she had standard treatment for her breast cancer. That's not what my wife found when she had surgery for her intestinal cancer.
Those examples were seven to ten years ago, and all the patients are still around – no alternative "treatment" or painkillers.
My father, OTOH, didn't have time for any treatment, standard or alternative, for his brain cancer – six weeks from way-too-late diagnosis to expiration. My daughter-in-law is a year into her (standard) treatment for GBM – she's fairly stable, prognosis indeterminable at this point.
I'm pretty sure the cancer survivors around here would like to spit (or worse) upon your lies. The friends and relatives of the victims of "alternative treatment" would likely have the same response.
@jin
[citation needed]