Joahochim L dagg - Research data plagiarist is a proven pseudo-scholar. Proven by his own words.

Here is the article by "Dagg the Plagiarist" that slyly plagiarizes Sutton's Selby cited Matthew discovery. It sidesteps all the main New Data findings to try to argue Darwin was not a plagiarist. Disgrace to science! @LinneanSociety should be ashamed: https://t.co/Q6Colo3Oz8 https://t.co/naTZm3oxah pic.twitter.com/hll7Pzcb85

— BentSociety @The Veracity Institute (@OnNavalTimber) February 14, 2020

The Selby (Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper journal Chief Editor and friend of Darwin's great friend Leonard Jenyns) cited Matthew's (1831) original theory of evolution by natural selection was not discovered first by Dagg, nor anyone else before Sutton uniquely unearthed it from the historic publication record with his BigData IDD method in 2013/14.

Sutton's Selby cited Matthew unique discovery was first published by Sutton in 2014 In the 500 page E-book Nullius in Verba (Thinker Media)   - "Dagg the Plagiarist" wrote a childishly jealous malicious pseudo-scholarly review of the 2017 book Nulius in Verba archived here and admits to reading Sutton's 2014 book here

In two peer reviewed academic articles Sutton's original research discovery of the Selby cited Matthew original finding was published here in 2014 and here in 2015

 Empirical data underpins proper science. And all data is of interest to science.

Here is the concrete empirical data scientific evidence of Joahochim Dagg's knowing malicious plagiarism of research data first unearthed by Dr Mike Sutton and published by Thinker Media in 2014, Vae Victus (2017) and Curtis Press (2022) and various peer reviewed academic articles in between and Dagg's clear pseudo scientific weird gloating refusal to admit such original and paradigm changing research findings plagiarism is wrong. Image below can be seen on Dagg's Twitter account archived,

Clearly Darwin Superfans (and Dagg is just one of many of them) cannot behave like proper academic scholars and scientists or historians of science - so mentally disturbed are they by the new empirical data that bursts their beloved paradigm based on the now completely debunked Darwin Supermyth. Theirs is a credulously unshakable blind belief and empirical fact denial "religious" worship of Charles Darwin. This explains their malicious anti-science behavior.

I have been asked to tell about the abuse and other malicious communications from academics

Following my original unearthing of new data that disconfirms the much loved science myth of Charles Darwin's honesty and originality, I have been asked to talk to the Teesside Skeptics about the malicious and vindictive attempts made by academics to have me fired from university employment and other abuse. This will be a no-holds barred presentation, and will be made in the public interest in the presence of the press. Details here

Whac-a-Mole Wikipedia

The Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia has been taken over by those obsessed, corrupt and pseudo-scholarly malicious falsehood spreaders known as 'The Darwin Deification Lobby'

The Darwin-Lobby on #Wikipedia cannot bear fact that New Data on Darwin's plagiarizing science fraud https://t.co/3XMQL72PHL is peer reviewed in criminology journal @BritSocCrim So consistently publish the malicious falsehood that it was not peer reviewed. https://t.co/VOn05utmiA pic.twitter.com/9VSm5JPa22

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 24, 2018

+

Dealing with corrupt Wikipedians @Wikipedia and their editors is like playing Whac-a-mole. In my opinion, it is better to do what professors Ben-Yehuda and Oliver-Lumerman have done, which is to publish in scholarly books exactly what Wikipedia is up to: https://t.co/icMMOyZIgT pic.twitter.com/hsIPO9nlKP

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 24, 2018