Beware "The Lads" of the Patrick Matthew Burial Project

 

How I came to research Charles Darwin’s plagiarism and what happened next

                                                                        By Mike Sutton

The power of the IDD research method (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) was first proven by detecting that Professor Stanley Cohen never coined the phrase or concept of moral panic. I blogged about this and someone then put the new fact on the Moral Panic Wikipedia page with a discoverer link to my name. Then Wikipedia editors deleted that attribution in 2013. By deleting it, they plagiarised my research, implying either they discovered it or else that it was already common knowledge and they had never been wrong in the past.

Wikipedia steals other people’s research without attribution all the time. When not doing that, its corrupt editors deliberately delete or else misrepresent verifiable facts for cash. If you think I am exaggerating, just Google ‘Wikipedia editor fraud’. And check this out https://gen.medium.com/wikipedias-top-secret-hired-guns-will-make-you-matter-for-a-price-a4bdace476ae

Did you know that Charles Darwin never coined the term "natural selection," and he never discovered the process of natural selection; although many scholarly books claim he did both. In fact, that term was used by William Preston (1803) six years before Darwin was born. And the scientific breakthrough of natural selection theory as an explanation for macroevolution — the entire detailed description of its evolutionary biological process, the hypothesis for it and the key examples used to explain it—are all unquestionably Patrick Matthew's (1831) unique prior-published discovery and literary creation.

Even though the discovery had been fully published by Matthew, 28 years before Darwin replicated and boldly claimed to have independently discovered the theory himself, Alfred Russel Wallace made his own claim to have independently discovered the exact same thing.

During my research I detected the first glint of a possible fraud behind Darwin's and Wallace’s discovery story. Darwin lied. He lied because Matthew told him, in published print (Matthew 1860, 1860b) of other naturalists who had read his book, who had understood the original hypothesis in it, before Darwin (Darwin and Wallace 1858; Darwin 1859) replicated that hypothesis and so much more of the book’s content. Darwin lied because even after receiving that information, he continued to claim in print and in his private letters to other influential naturalists that no naturalist whatsoever had read the unique ideas in Matthew's book before 1860.

With the IDD research method, I found other naturalists, known to have influenced Darwin and Wallace who read and then cited Matthew's book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the theory in it. The unearthing of these naturalist authors is essentially the most important finding of my research in this area. 

Fact denial and avoidance are human traits, especially when motivated by fear or money.

There is a status quo in science and its history, academics who dare to question it are at real risk of losing their job. Therefore, it is not only easier but also safer to reject all new facts that challenge the scientific establishment’s approved ‘knowledge.’ The problem is when objective and inquisitive investigators go through the process of documenting independently verifiable facts to question ‘establishment’ approved knowledge beliefs, they begin by putting what they find on the confirmatory side of the ledger, or else the disconfirming side. And they soon start to add up to a greater or lesser weight of facts on one side versus the other. If they come down on the disconfirming side that means trouble.

Immediately after the first edition of this book (Sutton 2014) was published, George Beccaloni, then Curator of the Wallace Collection at the Natural History Museum of London, wrote to deny that the newly unearthed facts in it that show the ledger is no longer in Wallace’s or Darwin’s favour. And he did so whilst failing to disclose that he had not even read it. Beccaloni was caught in the act and confronted by my then publisher on Richard Dawkins’ website (See: Beccaloni 2014).

Seven years later Beccaloni (2021) writes that he is employed by the Wallace Fund, which is supported by the Darwin Foundation.

At the time of writing these words, Wikipedia editors are, on their pages, brute censoring disturbing verifiable facts from my research, whilst publishing falsehoods and misrepresenting the facts by citing desperate fact denial nonsense from silly private blog sites on the topic. In so doing they falsify ‘the ledger’ of facts in favour and facts against the life of the book NTA regarding its newly proven influence on Darwin and Wallace via their influencers and their influencer’s influencers.

Equally ironically, Mike Weale (2015), then employed as a senior academic at Kings College London, earlier used findings from my (Sutton 2014a) research, without citing its source. Weale then escalated his behaviour to write malicious correspondence to Professor Edward Peck, a former research manager at Kings College London specialising in mental health. Peck was then and is at the time of writing, Vice Chancellor of my former employer Nottingham Trent University.  Weale pulled out all the stops to press Pecks mental health sensitivities when he wrote in his three-page email that in the comments discussion we had on his blogsite on Patrick Matthew, I insinuated he is stupid, deranged, or deceitful and that such insinuations attacked his integrity and academic abilities. His email insists Professor Peck investigate me promptly and take appropriate action.

I do not think I Insinuated he is stupid, deranged and deceitful. I try to write directly, especially on social media.

Weal’s correspondence to Peck (now securely forensically archived) was sent in an l effort to have me disciplined or else dismissed as a senior academic, because I criticised, Darwin scholar Dr John van Wyhe for emailing a Scottish journalist in 2015, that my research on the topic of this book is a silly “conspiracy theory”. Most tellingly, Van Wyhe at that juncture had just resigned from the editorial board of the journal that published a peer reviewed article on my research (Sutton 2015).

Scottish journalist Michael Alexander interviewed van Wyhe and reported back in the press, whilst quite rightly leaving out van Wyhe’s conspiracy theory nonsense from his earlier email (Alexander 2016):

 ‘Dr John van Wyhe, a senior lecturer at the Department of Biological Sciences, at the National University of Singapore, said the recent claims by Dr Mike Sutton … were “so silly” and ‘based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

Nottingham Tent University (NTU) appointed a professor of criminal justice to formally investigate the allegations, made in the email sent by Weale to Peck.

After several weeks, I was totally exonerated. And the professor NTU placed in charge of the ludicrously money wasting fiasco shook my hand and said how interesting my research was. But that was only after NTU had weeks earlier sent a Human Resources letter to my home saying I could lose my job!

As soon as the investigation was over, a senior member of the Human Resources department at NTU suggested I write to the VC of Weale’s university to let him know exactly what their employee had been up to. I declined. As someone who at least tries to be a proper academic criminologist, I am interested in crime, deviance, and other harmful behaviour – studying it, not being a part of it. As said, Weale’s behaviour is interesting data.

Independently verifiable facts trump myths, lies and wishful thinking every time. I tried (Sutton 2016d) to get Mike Weale to debate with me at any time and place of his choosing, before an audience of our peers and on camera. He declined the invitation, made just days before he sent his malicious communication to my employer! What is he so afraid of? Is it the truth of the New Data facts he apparently so hates? Weal’s malicious email to Edward Peck clearly sought to ruin my life and that of my dependents because I had the temerity to robustly defended my research against ludicrous comments made by van Wyhe and Weale.

More is the academic tragedy of van Wyhe’s misty-eyed love that it prevents him seeing the facts for the smog but leads him ever to defend the myth of Darwin.

‘…the man who pursues science for its own sake and not for the pride of possession will feel more gratitude towards the surgeon who dislodges a cataract from the mind's eye than towards the one who repairs the defect of the bodily organ.’ (Matthew, 1831. p. vii).

Turning back to John van Wyhe’s “so silly” reasoning, we should ask ourselves, therefore, whether the following original discoveries I made really are “so silly” as he wants you to believe:

1.       Is it so silly that I totally, 100 per cent, disproved the claims of the most highly esteemed biologists Darwin, de Beer and Mayr, who all wrote that no one read Matthew’s conception pre-1860? Is it silly that a self-proclaimed professional historian of science, van Wyhe, or any other so-called professional historian of science for that matter failed to find that data earlier?

2.       Is it so silly that I, a non-professional historian of science, did so disprove the ‘No One Read Matthew’s Ideas Before 1860 Myth’ with many newly unearthed historic publication examples including originally unearthing the fact that Selby cited Matthew’s 1831 book and then was chief editor of the journal that published Wallace’s (1855) Sarawak paper on evolution?

3.       Is it equally so silly that I discovered Chambers (1832) cited Matthew? The same Chambers (1844) who then wrote the hugely influential Vestiges of Creation, which all Darwin experts agree so influenced both Darwin and Wallace before 1858, because Darwin and Wallace each said so? To press this point home, precise mention of the Vestiges occurs in 36 items of post in the surviving letters to or from Darwin between its date of publication and the first publication of Darwin’s Origin in 1859 (see: https://archive.is/v1BKv).

4.       Is it so silly that Darwin met Chambers in the 1840’s (Darwin 1847b) and they corresponded thereafter?

5.       Is it so silly that the highly networked Loudon cited Matthew (Loudon 1831) and actually wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on ‘the origin of species’, a phrase that years later Darwin used as the title of his famous book? Is it silly that Loudon was a part of Darwin’s close social and scientific network?

6.       Is it so silly that William Hooker’s regular correspondent, Jameson (1853), cited Matthew on the topic of trees when famous economic botanist and tree expert Hooker was a friend of Darwin and father of Darwin’s best friend, the famous botanist and tree expert Joseph Hooker?

7.       Is it so silly that three other naturalists and several agriculturists cited Matthew pre-1858 and that they were part of Darwin’s scientific network with clear routes for NTA knowledge contamination links to him?

Is it so silly then that in addition to the 7 points above, as Hugh Dower most kindly pointed out to me on social media in 2020, that before I found it, Eisley and later Dempster has already pointed out that Loudon went on to edit and publish Blyth’s (1835, 1836) influential articles, read by both Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, on adaptation within species? Is it further silly that Darwin (see Darwin 1848a) met Blyth in person, read his work, and corresponded with him at least a decade before 1858? Is the associated explanatory concept of written and oral “knowledge contamination” (Sutton 2015) silly then, when I have proven Darwin lied about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew’s breakthrough after his and Wallace’s influencers and influencer’s influencers cited Matthew’s 1831 book years before Darwin’s and Wallace’s claimed amazing independent replications of both the original theory in it and its essential explanatory analogy of differences? Is the alternative explanation of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent, miraculous, virgin conceptions of Matthew’s prior published and cited theory, its unique explanatory highly idiosyncratic analogy of differences, and Darwin’s use of the same four words to name it, not silly?  The artist Gabriel Woods thinks so. I commissioned him to paint the ‘Virgins Darwin and Wallace with baby Matthew’ scene below as an allegorical explanatory analogy. It is a satirizing tribute to in The Holy Family by Francesco Francia (circa 1510) - shown here left of Wood's painting.

Darwin’s self-appointed reputation security guard, John van Wyhe, has a habit of calling other writers he disagrees with ‘conspiracy theorists’ (e.g., van Wyhe 2014). Maybe it is a conspiracy theory then that he flees new verifiable facts he hates in the history of science by deserting the editorial board of a journal for daring to publish them? Perhaps it is a conspiracy theory to write the following allegorical explanatory analogy:

Just as the mythical Virgin Mary conceived the child of a supernatural deity whilst surrounded by fertile men, so did Darwin and Wallace have dually independent virgin conceptions of a prior published theory whilst surrounded and influenced by men who read it and cited it in the literature.

Perhaps it would have been far less  silly if Dr John van Wyhe had used Google before I did, and so found for himself what I found, before I found it for him, rather than launder in the Scottish press what might appear to some to be madly indecorous jealousy of the New Big Data findings.

Will all such professional Darwinites remember to cite me as the originator of these newly discovered facts? Will they be madly considered “silly” scientific and historic facts then?  Apparently not, because we already know that my Selby research finding has been plagiarised twice in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. This was done first by Weale (2015) and then by Dagg (2018). What original research findings published in my books and articles will Darwinites plagiarise next in an obvious attempt to conceal from others the importance of my research data? Will professional historians of science, such as van Wyhe, flee from those facts too? Or just van Wyhe? Because surely they are all in competition and do not speak as one.

On a closely allied note, in 2020, I wrote to John Allen, Chief Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, and then following his outright refusal to deal properly with Weale and Dagg’s plagiarism of my research in that journal, by refusing to have those he intended to examine it be allowed to look at the archived evidence that the plagiarism was malicious because Dagg and Weale had earlier published online highly critical comments of me and of the research they plagiarized. For the record, I wrote also to the head of the journal’s publisher, Oxford University Press, in addition to the journal’s editorial board, the VC of Oxford University, and others, to let them know about that plagiarism and Allen’s refusal to allow the evidence to be fully examined.

 (see Appendix Two Here on PatrickMatthew.com)

At the time of writing in May 2021, Oxford University Press, and the Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean society have not remedied this serious matter. The history of science can judge them accordingly. In the meantime, however, their failure to act sends a toxic message to the miscreants and their associates that they are free to plagiarise more of my unique research findings, effectively passing them all off, perhaps just one more at a time in their own publications, down the years, as their own discoveries, or else pretending by default that what I first unearthed and revealed in the first edition of his book is just long established common knowledge not worthy of citation to its prior published origination.

Such concealment of disturbing facts is not ‘The New Normal’. For example, J.D Benal (1954) taken here from the 1969 (third edition) Pelican publication (pages 33-34), wrote:

‘In fact at all times the individual scientist has needed to work in close connection with three other groups of persons: his patrons, his colleagues and his public. The function of the patron, whether a wealthy individual, university, corporation, or a department of State, is to provide the money on which the scientist must live and which will enable him to carry on his work. The patron will in turn want to have something to say on what is actually done, especially if his ultimate object is commercial advantage or military success. It will apparently be less so only if he is operating from pure benevolence. Or in the pursuit of prestige or advertisement; then he will only want results to be sufficiently spectacular and not too disturbing.’

Disturbing results can lead some to try to re-bury them by ignorant dismissal. Take, for example the knee-jerk incurious rejection behaviour of Darwin biographer James Moore, who when questioned on my newly unearthed research findings by Knapton (2014) of the Telegraph is reported by her as responding to the new Big Data unearthed findings in this book, which he could not possibly have read at that point in time: “ I Would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence that had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.” With no apology forthcoming at the time of writing for his wilful ignorance in 2014, we must doubt if Moore has yet bothered himself by 2021 to be surprised by things he never knew before on a topic in which he is supposed to be expert. The problem is of course that such unscholarly state of denial behaviour by respected experts serves to enable others such as Weale, Dagg and van Wyhe to follow suit and expect to get away with it by association impunity. Maybe that is exactly what they want? After all, Wikipedia cited Moore’s comment as though it contains something more than evidence of his totally incurious blindsight ‘state of denial’ (Cohen 2001, p. 1) behaviour:

‘‘One common thread runs through the many different stories of denial: people, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information ‘registers’ well enough, but its implications - cognitive, emotional or moral - are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away.”

Scientists have named the social and psychological phenomenon of knee jerk rejection of bombshell paradigm changing data the Semmelweis Reflex, after Ignaz Semmelweis. Before the discovery of antibiotics and before even the germ theory of contagion, the work of Ignaz (first named Ignác) Semmelweis in the mid-nineteenth century in Vienna seems almost universally understood to be unique in terms of his discoveries about how puerperal sepsis - puerperal fever - (childbed fever) was spread by doctors to patients. He is likewise hailed for uniquely implementing hand washing practices in hospitals and so cutting the death rate from childbed fever of mothers giving birth to around one per cent (Varga 2009). According to the story, Semmelweis was ostracized at the time for his radical thinking, which eventually drove him insane to the point where his last years were spent in an asylum. The story is used to demonstrate the dangers of 'experts' ignoring, without properly thinking about, new findings that do not fit orthodox 'knowledge', or else responding with automatic denials. Hence the term Semmelweis Reflex is routinely relied upon to make the point.

However, with great irony, the Semmelweis story was first comprehensively busted as a myth 91 years ago (Adaiwi 1921); and in the greatest of detail by Nuland (1979). And yet the term is still used today as though its background story is veracious. See for example, Wikipedia (2001). The knee jerk rejection phenomenon is as real as the behaviour of fanatics towards New Data. But it needs renaming. Perhaps we might call it ‘Kuhn’s Crisis Fever’, after his famous work detailing resistance to knowledge change (Kuhn 1962).

I am not alone as an academic harassed by malicious communications sent to my place of work. For one example, the scientist Edzard Ernst was similarly harassed by the Office of Prince Charles for outing him as a fake-remedy salesman. Ernst suffered terribly, physically and mentally, from being professionally investigated by managerialists at his university, even though he too was later  exonerated (see Ernst 2015).

Today we live in an environment, where people are dying because anti-vaccination and anti-clinical medicine propaganda (see Sutton, Gibson and Henn 2017) is believed by people who know no better. And the reason they know no better is because the environment in which we all live does not sufficiently value veracity over unevidenced claptrap, lies, irrationality and mere wishful thinking.

Yet, even in this environment, unethical angry people may choose to ignore an employer’s protocols, rules and regulations regarding public conduct on social media. Take for example Jason Rosenhouse, who is professor of mathematics at James Madison University. Following a very positive article on the highly influential FiveThirtyEight website (Engber 2016) about various areas of my myth-busting research. Rosenhouse (2016) laid weirdly heavily into its author Daniel Engber then called me a crackpot! When, on his blogsite, I messaged Rosenhouse to address the newly discovered facts from my research, he weirdly deleted my invitation and immediately closed the blog to further comments.

Rosenhouse is not alone as a facts fleer. By way of another similar example, Professor of History of Biology Nathaniel Comfort called one of my peer reviewed articles on Matthew and Darwin (Sutton 2104b) an “ignorant piece of crap”. When politely asked where he could possibly earlier learned that Matthew’s book was read and then cited by those known to Darwin before Darwin replicated Matthew’s theory, he blocked me (Comfort 2014).

To provide an example of just how much the New Data has upset ‘The Lads’, to extend the Patrick Matthew Buriel Project to me for daring to draw back the curtain on Darwin’s science fraud, Desperate Dagg has written online (Dagg 2016) about my famous decimal point spinach myth bust (Sutton 2016e), as has his equally fanatical partner (Derry 2020b). Once again, you really could not make this stuff up. But their otherwise unbelievable conduct needs to be recorded as confirmatory evidence to show how in the 21^st Century Khun’s account of “how very dare he” reactions to paradigm change is confirmed.  

As I have mentioned, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Joachim Dagg (2018) plagiarised my original IDD facilitated research finding see. E.g. (Sutton 2014, 2015, 2017) that Selby, in 1842, cited Matthew’s 1831 book and mentioned the unique ideas in it. When asked to address the issue, the editor of that article blatantly and rudely refused to admit that Dagg had, by plagiarising my original, prior published, important research finding, seriously plagiarised my research by either passing it off as his own discovery or else making out it was a long-time commonly known fact.  Consequently, the Editor of that journal, to his eternal shame, blatantly refused to correctly investigate and remedy the proven plagiarism issue. With great irony, it is important to understand that his behaviour may well be explained by the fact that very journal is the direct descendant of the Linnean Journal that first facilitated Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) plagiarism of Matthew’s bombshell breakthrough. The same editor has published another article that desperately refutes the newly unearthed facts of Darwin’s plagiarism, simply by failing to include them, co-authored by Dagg and a person who has, along with Dagg written childish and malicious fact denial reviews of ‘Nullius un Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ (Sutton 2017) on Amazon sites in the UK, USA and many others all over the world. Dagg’s co-author, Julian Derry, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society called me a cunt and made obscene insinuating male rape remarks on social media (http://archive.is/8tH1C ).

Furthermore, the obscene harasser, Derry has published an obsessive fanatical hate site on me and has been manically editing the Wikipedia pages on Matthew and the one on me. Go figure, as my American cousins like to say.

No wonder Wikipedia is considered by many to be the worst encyclopaedia in the World and no wonder proper academics will not let their students cite it.

Considering these facts, what should we think of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its current editor and publisher – Oxford University Press? More importantly, what explains such disgraceful behaviour? Particularly given that they have now escalated the Patrick Matthew Burial Project to publishing an article penned by Derry and Dagg (2020) that urgently argues, by way of the New Data fact avoidance, that Darwin never plagiarised Matthew.

I suppose the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its publisher Oxford University Press will have no problem at all with the fact that the Darwinite harassment fanatic  Derry provides what certainly appears to me to be a fake personal address for his serial dishonest self on the ludicrous Dagg & Derry Show 2020 article as 30 Yeaman Place Edinburgh, EH11, which is actually the exact address of a pub (Golden Rule Pub 2020) about which Derry wrote a scathing customer review in 2020 (Derry 2020a). Incidentally, the proven serial liar Darwin reckoned he had a famous "Golden Rule".    

But more on that later.

.....to be contnued

References

Adaiwi, J. G. (1921) Charles White of Manchester (1728 1813) and the Arrest of Puerperal Fever. Lyod Roberts Lecture. Manchester Royal Infirmary. http://archive.org/stream/charleswhiteofma00adamuoft/charleswhiteofma00adamuoft_djvu.txt  

Alexander, M. (2016)  Perthshire Charles Darwin claims are ‘so silly’, claims leading international academic. The Courier. May 17. Archived: http://archive.is/APKHv

Beccaloni, G. (2014) Darwin and Wallace are wrongly accused of plagiarism by UK criminologist. Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret" is published. http://archive.is/HrxUg#selection-1997.1-1997.72

Beccaloni (2021) Employed by the Wallace fund, funded by the Darwin Foundation. (https://archive.is/EMEhg)

Bernal, J. D. (1969) Science in History: Volume 1: The Emergence of Science. Penguin books. Harmondsworth, Middlesex. England.

Blyth, E. 1835 An attempt to classify the "varieties" of animals. The Magazine of Natural History. (8) (1), Parts 1-2.

Blyth, E. (1836) Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement.  The Magazine of Natural History: Volume 9. p. 393 – 409.

Chambers, W. and Chambers, R. (1832). Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. Vol. 1. Saturday November 3rd. pp. 313-314.

Chambers, R. (anonymous) (1844) Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum.

Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge. Polity Press.

Comfort, M. (2014) Tweet from his Twitter account @DarwinsBulldog Dec 13^th http://archive.is/X0VvO

Dagg, J. L. (2016) The real decimal error that transmogrified into the spinach-iron-decimal-error myth. https://archive.is/8LjyZ

Dagg, J. L. (2018) Comparing the respective transmutation mechanisms of Patrick Matthew, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 123, Issue 4, April 2018, Pages 864–878, https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/bly003

Darwin, C. R. (1847b) Letter to Hooker, J. D. 18 April. Darwin Correspondence Database, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-1082.  Accessed on Tue Jun 11 2013.

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858). Two separate papers: On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London.

Darwin. C. R. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London. John Murray.

Derry, J. (2020a) Scathing Customer Review of the Golden Rule Pub that has the exact same postal address the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Associates with Derry’s supposed home address  https://archive.is/mj4Ih

Derry (2020b) Popeye Spinach Iron. mrsuttonntu.wordpress.com https://archive.is/NOrEg

Engber, D. (2016) Who Will Debunk The Debunkers? Five Thirty Eight. Aril 28^th. https://archive.is/sxSLj

Ernst, E. (2015) A Scientist in Wonderland: A Memoir of Searching for Truth and Finding Trouble. Imprint Academic. Exeter.

Jameson, W. (1853) Contributions to a History of the Relation between Climate and Vegetation in various parts of the Globe. On the Physical Aspect of the Punjab its Agriculture and Botany. By Dr. Jameson Superintendent of the Botanic Garden Saharunpore. In The Journal of the Horticultural Society of London. Volume 8.  p. 273-314.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (second edition, enlarged). Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Knapton, S. (2014) Did Charles Darwin ‘borrow’ the theory of natural selection? Telegraph. Online Wednesday May 28. (Archived with reader’s comments https://archive.is/Emz8w). www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10859281/Did-Charles-Darwin-borrow-the-theory-of-natural-selection.html

Loudon, J. C. (1831) An Encyclopædia of Agriculture: Comprising the Theory and Practice of the Valuation, Transfer, Laying Out, Improvement, and Management of Landed Property; and the Cultivation and Economy of the Animal and Vegetable Productions of Agriculture, Including All the Latest Improvements; a General History of Agriculture in All Countries; and a Statistical View of Its Present State, with Suggestions for Its Future Progress in the British Isles. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green.

Matthew, P. (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DmYDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=of%20selection&f=false

Matthew, P.  (1860) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13. Darwin Online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A143&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

Matthew, P. (1860b) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433: Available free online here:  http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yiQ1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA433&dq=Letter+from+Patrick+Matthew+in+The+Gardeners'+Chronicle+12+May+1860&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u5bRUfrEKabF0QXGmIC4CA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Patrick%20Matthew&f=false

Nuland, S. (1979) The Enigma of Semmelweis - an interpretation. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. http://jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXXIV/3/255.full.pdf

Preston, W. (1803) THE ARGONAUTICS OF APOLLONIUS RHODIUS, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH VERSE. WITH NOTES CRITICAL, HISTORICAL, AND EXPLANATORY, AND DISSERTATIONS. Vol. III. Dublin Graisberry and Campbell.

Rosenhouse, J. (2016) Crackposts. Evolution Blog. May 2^nd. http://archive.is/uXa4e#selection-1065.94-1065.97

Sutton, M. (2014) Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery. https://dysology.blogspot.com/2017/12/internet-dating-with-darwin.html Original link now broken. http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/biology_and_nature/genetics_and_molecular_biology/internet-dating-with-darwin-new-discovery-that-darwin-and-wallace-were-influenced-by-matthew-s-prior-discovery

Sutton, M. (2014a) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret. Thinker Press. Thinker Media Inc.

Sutton, M. (2014b) The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery. Papers from the British Criminology Conference. Vol. 14: pp. 49-64. 

Sutton, M. (2015) On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy. Issue No: 12. Pp.167-205.

Sutton, M. (2016d) Writing as Super Mythbuster. Comment on Mike Weale’s site The Patrick Matthew Project. May 3^rd.  https://archive.is/dMmuw

Sutton, M. (2016e) How the spinach, Popeye and iron decimal point error myth was finally bust. Healthwatch Newsletter. 101. 7. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://supermyths.com/onewebmedia/MikeSuttonHealthWatch.pdf

Sutton, M., Gibson, L. and Henn, M. (2017) What is the impact of the US president’s belief that ‘Vaccines Cause Autism’? Health Watch Newsletter for Science and Integrity in Medicine. Issue 105 Spring/Summer. pp. 1-2.  https://www.healthwatch-uk.org/images/Newsletters/Number_105.pdf, 

Sutton, M. and Griffiths, Mark. D. (2018). Using Date Specific Searches on Google Books to Disconfirm Prior Origination Knowledge Claims for Particular Terms, Words, and Names. Soc. Sci. 7, no. 4: 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7040066

Van Wyhe, J. (2014) A Delicate Adjustment: Wallace and Bates on the Amazon and “The Problem of the Origin of Species.” Journal of the History of Biology. Vol. 47. Number 4. pp. 627-659.

Varga, B (2009) The Myth and Cult of Ignaz Semmelweis: Constructing History of Science during the 20th Century. Paper presented at Oxford Brookes University, History of Medicine Seminar Series. 20 Oct. http://www.pulse-project.org/node/177   

Weale, M. E. (2015) Patrick Matthew's Law of Natural Selection: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 115, Issue 4, August 2015, Pages 785–791 https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/115/4/785/2530994

Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196.

Weale, M. E. (2015) Patrick Matthew's Law of Natural Selection: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 115, Issue 4, August 2015, Pages 785–791 https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/115/4/785/2530994

Wikipedia (2001) Ignaz Semmelweis. Archived May 2021.  https://archive.is/iHvKC

~~~

On Charles Darwin Harassment Fanatics: Dysology and "The Lads"

THIS BLOG POST IS PUBLISHED IN THE PUBLIC AND ACADEMIC INTEREST AS A FULLY EVIDENCED EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF THING THOMAS KUHN DESCRIBED AS TYPICAL FIERCE REACTIONS TO PARADIGM CHANGING DISCOVERIES IN SCIENCE AND THE HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY


Professor Brian J Ford has written about the cult of Darwin worship in our institutions of science and how its underbelly inhabitants attack anyone who dares to question Darwin's originality and honesty.

In this blog post I provide actual, independently verifiable data, of the sort of anti-science, and infantile attempts at revisionist history dysology, they get up to. 

Thomas Kuhn famously wrote about attacks on those whose research findings bring about a paradigm change in science. Such attacks attempt to bring the forces of chaos into the realm of science with an aim to extinguish the flame of human knowledge progress. What follows is a source of actual data - provided by a victim (me) of such dysologically radicalized individuals - for use by the scientific community on the fanatical anti-scientific behavior of radical Darwinite extremists.  

After he had kindly read through a draft of my 500 page e-book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret in 2014, Professor Donald Forsdyke  made several suggestions for its improvement and wrote in an email that I should tone it down considerably or else face vicious harassing attack in my place of work (then Nottingham Trent University) by a group of unnamed individuals he referred to collectively as the "The Lads".

Forsdyke wrote that he was concerned that unlike himself, I had years of work to go in paid employment in academia and that "The Lads" could curtail that career with their endless harassment. I was as unconcerned then as I am now by such threats. I was 55 years of age in 2014 and with two of the best pensions in the world, seeing how dunder-headed infantile managerialism has wrecked our universities, intended to retire before my 60th birthday. I did so on reaching 59 years of age.

This blog is about the unethical and fanatical activities of some of those "Lads" Forsdyke warned me about. Childish kidult Darwin fanatics!

Within a few days of the publication of my book and an article about it in the UK broadsheet newspaper, The Telegraph, written by it's science editor Sarah Knapton. In that article career Darwin biographer James Moore (of the Open University) was quoted as responding anti-scientifically to the totally newly discovered facts he had not even read - and had certainly never heard of before - in typical apocryphal Semmelweis Reflex by proxy fashion “I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.” Then a second Darwin Lad got himself involved to protect his Royal Society majesty King Charles Darwin. Dr Mike Weale was communicating with me - using an anonymous pseudonym - via the comments section on the article, now deleted by the Telegraph, but many are in the archive I made of it four years ago.

Weal thereafter set up his website and began discussing the issues with me on that site and via email. His website is "The Patrick Matthew Project". That site looks to me like nothing more in reality than a propaganda stealth instrument to try desperately argue that Darwin never plagiarized Matthew and never lied when he did plagiarize and lie. Just like the utter nonsense Wiki-Darwiboppers (Weale is one) write on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew webpage, it's a waste of time trying to get between a fool and their errand, which is an old adage confirmed as Weale's behaviour would become rabid when he escalated to writing to my employer to complain about me. But I'm getting ahead of myself.  I write more on the fool Weale's malicious correspondence later in this blog post.

Around the same time as the Telegraph article was published, George Beccaloni - then curator of the Wallace Collection at the Natural History Museum London (now an employee of the Charles Darwin Trust no less!) posted what is essentially a fake review of my book, Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, on the Facebook page of the Richard Dawkin's Foundation. My publisher Bob Butler called him out on the fact he knew Beccaloni had not even read my book, despite making claims about its contents as though he had (here and archived here). Clearly "The Lads" were starting to get busy, just as Professor Forsdyke warned.

As we have seen in my posts here in 2020, a growing number of proper scientists accept that the New Data I have originally unearthed with the IDD BigData research method proves that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace more likely than not plagiarized Patrick Matthew's complete and prominently prior-published theory of evolution by natural selection. Arlin Stoltzfus was, in 2016 (here - more precisely here in the comments section of a blog) one of the first brave rational expert scholars to look at that newly unearthed evidence and reach the obviously correct conclusion that Darwin was  most likely a serial liar and was a plagiarizer in that regard. Most importantly, he being a proper scientist - unlike most who newly know of the new found facts but perhaps fear "The Lads" - was not afraid to stand up and say so on the record on several occasions. Science needs more proper scientists, as opposed to those uncritical scholars Stolzfus refers to as "the zombie horde."

Dr Stoltzfus is Research Biologist at the USA National Institute of Standards and Technology.

In the link provided in this blog post to the desperate Darwin defending website of Dr Mike Weale you can see how this Darwin's "Lad" Weale gets himself emotionally tied up with his Darwin worship into silly irrational linguistic-yoga-knots by trying to deny the logical reality of Dr Stolzfus's completely rational and fact based arguments on Darwin's lies.

Incidentally, for the record of how the Darwin "Lads" seek to bury painful facts by attacking their original discoverer, Weale slyly tried to set the Vice Chancellor (VC) of my university (Nottingham Trent)  on me - knowing full well as a senior academic (Reader in Statistical genetics himself at the university where my VC had graduated) was an attack on my livelihood as Reader in Criminology and my entire senior academic career - therefore an economic attack on my dependent family. Weale's ludicrously childish and disingenuous malicious communication lengthy "Lad" rambling email-letter of complaint (I have a copy of it)  to my employer was mostly about my mocking outing of  his fellow "Lad" Dr John van Wyhe for calling me a conspiracy theorist in an email to a journalist immediately after suspiciously resigning from the editorial board of the expert peer reviewed academic journal that had just published my bombshell article on who we now newly know actually did read and cite Matthew's 1831 book and ideas before Darwin and Wallace stole them and Darwin alternately claimed no naturalist/no one whatsoever had prior read them. Weale sought also - and failed miserably - to ridicule the devastating facts I have originally unearthed.

My then employer (As said, I am now very comfortably retired from the civil service and university) Nottingham Trent University, investigated Weale's complaint with an HR team headed by a Professor of Criminal Justice.  They found Weal's essential allegations of academic misconduct unfounded and concluded that his complaint was disingenuous. One thing they pointed out was how Weale essentially begged me to keep debating - around and around in circles - with him on his website and it was only after I stoically refused that he then sent his malicious communication to my employer. (You can find archived files all of the debates I , and others had, in the comments section on Weale's website at the end of this blog post).

After being cleared of any academic misconduct, I was subsequently advised by university management staff  to report Weale to his VC for his malicious communication to my employer academic misconduct if I so wished. I could have taken it further than that. But unlike Weale, I was then and remain content for the malicious behaviour of he and his fellow Darwin fanatical "Lads", with whom he is proven to be networked on social media and his own website, to speak for itself in the historic publication record for future scholars to use in their studies into vicious, yet futile, resistance to paradigm changes in science and the history if science. As I said, I have all the emails. I have the report of the findings of the inquiry that followed Weal's malicious email letter.  And I have archived more of 'The Lad's' malicious and raving bonkers desperate internet activities - including cyberstalking and endless criminal malicious communication harassment by way of many emails and social media publications targeting my colleagues, co-author Professor Mark Griffiths, close friends, senior managers at Nottingham Trent University, peer reviewed journal editors, book publishers and even my post graduate students! Targeting anyone for endless harassment by emails to their university email accounts and via malicious whacked out harassment blog-sites who is in any way related to me or even the general field of criminology, has written a word of support, provided a platform for dissemination of the newly unearthed and expert peer reviewed facts or reported on them. Targeting people I don't even know for email harassment merely because they are eminent criminologists. All of this data has been collected and saved forensically - some of which is clearly evidence of criminal harassment - is now held by others pending action.


What Professor Trevor Palmer writes below is what science is supposed to look like. Namely, when their earlier thoughts and subsequent conclusions are dis-confirmed with independently verifiable newly discovered evidence proper scientists change their minds accordingly. Unlike Darwin cultists who seek to bury the painful facts under a stinking pile of their constant lies, harassment and laughably unscientific Darwibopper claptrap.



One of the Darwin superfan "Lads" has even committed gross academic misconduct by way of blatant plagiarism in the Linnean Journal of my original (See e.g. Sutton 2014 and 2015) expert peer reviewed discovery that Selby (Wallace's Sarawak paper editor) cited Matthew before Wallace wrote a single word about natural selection in his private notepad. The culprit here is the totally obsessed harassing cyber-stalker "Lad" Dr Joachim Dagg - who has been weirdly, obsessively, publishing absolute nonsense about many areas of my published work - not just the bombshell findings about Darwin and Wallace. Dagg's sly plagiarism of my original, expert peer reviewed. and prominently published work about Selby, which he has proven elsewhere, earlier, that he read, because he commented on it in writing, is in the very same Journal that published the 1858 papers of Darwin and Wallace, which stole Matthew's original prior-published theory and in which each plagiarist claimed to have independently conceived it. He even stupidly brags about not citing me in the article in which he plagiarized me by way of a comment on Wikipedia (here). The Linnean journal sure does scrape the dregs of the barrel doesn't it. Just like Wikepdia, the world's worst encyclopedia, then.

For future critical and ethical scholarship into criminal and deviant behaviour among scientists and those on the fringes of science (facilitated by such dodgy organisations as Wikipedia and the Linnean Society) the misdeeds of Darwin's 'Lads' - including fully referenced proof of Dagg's knowing plagiarism in the Linnean Journal - can be found fully referenced and safely archived on the Patrick Matthew website - click HERE.

As said, I have Weale's malicious  email to the VC of Nottingham Trent University. I have also a copy of van Wyhe's email to the journalist in question, and one day, in published print (only under expert legal advice), the public will see exactly what Darwin's 'Lads' got up to in what I think essentially amounts to their pathetic yet nasty attempts to re-bury the newly unearthed bombshell truth about Darwin being a liar and plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft. By attacking the discoverer they tried to discredit me in order to try, it appears to me, to discredit the independently verifiable, expert peer reviewed, new bombshell evidence they so hate. That sort of thing is the oldest trick in the book, and we all know it.


 Darwin and Wallace have been proven to be liars and plagiarists. Of course something like that can be 100% proven to exist. If it's printed or published and in your hands it is there. Just as Weal's malicious email 100% exists, as does van Wyhe's. Cover either email with your hand 100 times. When does it disappear? Most importantly, does it vanish from the publication record? Try it a million times. You will get exactly the same result 100% of the time. Publications in the publication record are like fossils in the geological record. They 100 per cent do exist and that can be 100 per cent proven. They do not fail to exist before or after we know of their existence. They are there. They are real. They are in the publication record.

Perhaps these magical thinking desperate Darwin worshiping fools who claim Darwin is not a proven liar and plagiarist spend years covering Darwin's published and proven lies with their trembling hands on video in the hope of them just magically vanishing once? Perhaps they will argue that Dagg The Plagiarist is not a plagiarist by way of their usual muddle-headed delusional nonsense?

From an academic point of view, if we wish to understand why Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew with assistance from the Linnean Society and other scientists, we need to understand why Darwin sought (although on that occasion he failed) to implement an official policy of sly mass plagiarism of many original discoveries by those outside his own circle of wealthy gentleman toff-scientist cronies - (see those facts here) and by association, why Dagg plagiarized me with the help of the Linnean Journal.

Firstly, just as Barbary apes steal the progeny of others to offer to dominant males in the hope of rising up the social hierarchy, so did Darwin and Wallace steal the "progeny" of Matthew. And likewise, so did Dagg The Plagiarist steal mine. Secondly, just like Matthew the radical libertarian Chartism leader, I mock religion, I write about dishonesty in politics, and I mock the "scientific establishment" aristocracy and upper classes (toffs) for their dishonesty. Also like Matthew did in his bombshell book of 1831, I mock current mainstream falsehoods and delusions shared by the scientific community. Unlike Matthew, I also mock the Linnean Society for facilitating science fraud by plagiarism! Oh yes, and I've been mocking the 'Lad' Dagg for the mass of muddle-headed harassment nonsense he has been writing about me in his silly blog sites and elsewhere on social media for some years now. After all, what a silly little 👶 babyish plagiarizing twerp he is.  Thirdly, just as Barbary apes choose to steal the progeny of those lower down the ranks in their tribe, because they think that gives them the best chance of succeeding in their theft, so did Darwin and Wallace target the work of the already censored Scott Matthew, and so did the sniveling coward plagiarist Dagg target my work after other 'Lads' such as Becalloni, Weale, van Wyhe and others, had between them, started doing, amongst other things, one or else more of such things as writing ignorant/deliberate fact denial nonsense in social media about me, to journalists, my employer, close friends and associates, school teachers, Members of The Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group in Scotland - who received National Lottery Heritage Fund money to build the Patrick Matthew Trail and to finance a conference on Matthew at the James Hutton Institute - Employees of the National Lottery Heritage Fund, employees of the James Hutton Institute, my book's reviewers and its cover designer, Organizers of the Conway Hall Sunday lectures, Organizers of various Skeptics in the Pub groups, and/or otherwise cowardly writing poison pen emails to harass me and my associates in other ways for the independently verifiable facts I dared to uncover and tell the world about Darwin and Wallace. For research purposes you can get the evidence of who did what exactly of all that and far more besides here).

To continue with the revealing analogy on progeny stealing to please more socially prominent apes, Becalloni "collected" a very rare centipede, living and perhaps even endangered biological artifact, from Thailand to impress older and more powerful men at his place of work (here and archived here). Furthermore, Becalloni's plagiarizing and lying science fraudster hero Alfred Wallace similarly "collected" by shooting for money an orangutan mother and then stealing her child for his own sick amusement and literary glorification by the likes of those who knew no better in the 19th century, and those who still know no better today.

These Victorian and latter-day smog apes are an absolute disgrace to science in my opinion. And the true Originator, of macroevolution by natural selection, Patrick Matthew? Whilst Matthew's opinions on colonization of the World by the British are heinous, he did advocate - as a man so often many decades ahead of his time - the European Single Market, the Peace Corps (published here) and respect for all living creatures. And he was first to introduce giant redwoods into the UK. But Darwin's glory thieving, lying, circle of cronies stole that honour from him too (here)! Among many other achievements, the man who Darwin portrayed as "a little known Scottish writer on forest trees" accurately predicted the Tay Bridge Disaster in the teeth of mockery from foolish others supporting powerful lobby interest groups (here).

As said, Darwin and Wallace plagiarized whole swathes of original text, ideas and many highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples from Matthew's book and were closely networked and influenced by those we newly know cited Matthew before Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of natural selection. I originally discovered that Wallace even fraudulently doctored a letter in his autobiography to try to conceal from us the fact that Darwin and his cronies were paying him to assist in plagiarizing Matthew's breakthrough before the crooked Linnean Society in 1858 (get the proof here)!

Although latterly jumping on the RSPCA domestic pet anti-cruelty movement, at least (here), Darwin, (whose famous grandfather - Erasus Darwin - is a twice proven plagiarist) like Wallace had little to zero respect for wild living creatures. Darwin ate an owl once and lived to shoot thousands of pheasants as a young man, and his son boasted of his father's amazing stone throwing rabbit killing skills (all here). The Captain of HMS Beagle wrote of how Darwin wrecked murderous death on many trusting sea birds with his geological hammer (here). Once, Darwin even tortured a puppy. Oh, and one more thing, it's a total supermyth that Darwin discovered evolution by natural selection by observing finches on the Galapagos Islands, he got it all from books as he admitted himself (get the facts on that here).

By keeping the Christian notion of "God" in so many editions of The Origin of Species, his plagiarized version of Matthew's theory, as one thing leads to another, it is even arguable that Darwin possibly caused the holocaust by his plagiarism.

The Sly Smog Apes Darwin and Wallace

Incidentally, contrary to utter ludicrous nonsense written by Darwin fan Richard Dawkins - (who incidentally - to the foot stamping impotent wrath of one idiot cyber-stalking and endlessly harassing nut job juvenile Darwibopper Lad, who wrote to the expert peer reviewed journal publishing the fact to complain bitterly that it published painful facts I have uniquely unearthed on Darwin's and Dawkins's plagiarism, Richard Dawkins did not coin the term selfish gene) - that Matthew never understood his own ideas because he never trumpeted them from the rooftops before Darwin replicated them, not only (seemingly unknown to the conveniently historically ignorant Dawkins) was Matthew and his original breakthrough brute censored many times in print, he had his book banned by public libraries and was platform blocked at a major science conference in the 19th century, the Darwin Lads on Wikipedia were caught out repeatedly fact denying - by deleting links to the original source texts on this censorship - such censorship even happened. They were caught "live" in an hilarious sting operation by me (here).

"Mr Matthew", ejaculated Emma Darwin, "my husband is more
 faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!" At that
precise moment the three knew she'd put her foot in it. You could
have cut the atmosphere with a snark.

The above cartoon is based on the letter Emma Darwin sent to Patrick Matthew where she put her foot in it by writing that "With regard to natural selection, my husband is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!" The original letter is in the National Library of Scotland. I have been granted permission by the copyright holder to publish the image of that letter and others Charles Darwin sent to Matthew (click here to see and read them).

As time passes since my bombshell breakthrough of 2014, the number of journalists, scientists and other scholars following the brave grown-up lead of Dr Arlin Stoltzfus in admitting to the truth of the devastating facts will increase exponentially. In 2020 we can see this happening.  I have recorded and fully referenced details of the current known number of scholarly references here and press articles here. 

Conclusion

When enemies of independently verifiable newly unearthed facts about Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism and serial lying behave like Darwin's low-life 'Lads' it is obvious I must be doing something right. These thick idiots thought I was their prey. But as the facts of their behaviour reveals, only they are the prey of their own vicious stupidity. Anyway, I digress. Do you fancy a good laugh dear rational reader? If so, the idiotically hilarious childish Darwin worship contortionist spectacle on workplace, malicious harasser, Weale's idiotic Darwin worship propaganda site is archived here for all proper adult scholars to cite in their future critical work in this area of dysology studies and science model crisis following bombshell paradigm changes in science.

Archived comments on Weal's Patrick Matthew Project website

1. http://archive.is/WjCSl
2. http://archive.is/jyUbX
3. http://archive.is/4mbTx
4. http://archive.is/Qb8BO
5. http://archive.is/l5q5k
6. http://archive.is/4NoLw
7. http://archive.is/J4Elh