The Dysology Hypothesis

Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics.

Thursday, 12 January 2023

The Darwin Supermyth is bust


Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace Plagiarists and Science Fraudsters by Theory Theft

Click above to watch the video about the book. 

Sunday, 13 December 2020

Christmas 2020 and the COVID19 pandemic

Get your mask on in a COVID19 pandemic

Saturday, 15 August 2020

The Darwin, Wallace and Linnean Society Supermyth is Bust: More independently verifiable evidence of plagiarism and associated science fraud


The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), are knowingly acting like a fence for stolen goods in selling my stolen research findings to their innocently unknowing subscribers and other paying customers in order to mislead them into believing the underhand cherry-picked plagiarized data and desperate arguments of Dr Dagg and Dr Weal. Why on Earth would they do such a thing? Perhaps the answer is because the newly discovered facts of my research are simply too painful to bear and the New Data from my research so valuable they couldn't resist stealing it? And as a world-renowned expert (published by OUP no less) on stolen goods markets I think that criminal fence analogy is most fitting. 

In their respective papers, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Dr Weal and Dr Dagg do the following:

  1. They plagiarise one of my important research findings, under every widely accepted definition of what constitutes research plagiarism.
  2. They cherry-pick plagiarised it and so conceal from their readership the other data in my list, which undermines the arguments they make. Cherry picking your own data to do such a thing is serious science fraud. Cherry pick plagiarising the findings of another is surely equally, or more, serious.
  3. Dr Dagg committed this plagiarism maliciously, which is proven by his own blog posts on both me and my finding that he has plagiarised; comments he published before and after he plagiarised it.
  4. Because the research finding Dr Weale and Dr Dagg plagiarised could only ever have been found with my IDD research method (Sutton 2014b, Sutton and Griffith 2018), they also, in effect, plagiarise that original research method.

Read on to learn the full story, with all the independently verifiable facts and sources, of the most ironic plagiarism in the history of science.


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,

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


Perhaps the un-scientific embarrassing multiple irony of what has been done is not lost on those who have seriously plagiarised my research, and on those who have, to date, arguably, undermined scientific integrity and the publication record by refusing to acknowledge and deal with that serious repeat victimisation plagiarism. That irony being my research into the history of plagiarism of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the theory first published by the Scot Patrick Matthew, has been most seriously plagiarised by two authors, in two separate papers in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, which effectively seek to argue that Darwin and Wallace did not plagiarise Matthew’s theory in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society in 1858, of which the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is a direct descendant. On which note, as (Iphofen 2017) poignantly writes about my peer reviewed research on plagiarism:

'...we must guard against the temptation to corrupt practices that many see as undermining scientific integrity. These include plagiarism, failure to acknowledge prior-work, biased peer-reviewing, and, in effect, poorly constructed desk or secondary research. Of course, there is nothing new in such discreditable activities. Sutton (2014) offers evidence that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace clearly plagiarised the earlier ideas of Patrick Matthew without sufficient acknowledgment and Darwin then used his elite connections to ensure he would not be scooped by Wallace.' [My emphasis].

Detailed Repeat Victim Impact and Context Statement Regarding the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Refusing to Admit to or Address Repeat Victimization Plagiarism of my Prior-Published Original Research

                                                                                      (Dr Mike Sutton, August 2020)

Please Note: Full references to all publications cited are included at the end of this repeat victim statement.

The plagiarism and cherry picking plagiarism fraud comprises Dr Weale and Dr Dagg in their separate papers doing the following in each paper:

  1. Using one important high-quality finding from my prior published research (Sutton 2014, 2014a, 2015. 2017b) without citation to that research.
  2. By default, plagiarising the unique Big Data mining method (Sutton 2014b, Sutton and Griffiths 2018) used to make the finding, because the finding could not have been made without that method.
  3. Cherry-picking plagiarism of that one important finding from my research to effectively mislead readers by not mentioning other findings in that same prior-published research. Those other findings independently, and as a collective weight of evidence, can be understood to disconfirm the arguments the plagiarisers make using the one finding they plagiarised.
  4. The fact that only one of my high quality research findings has been plagiarised cannot ethically, rationally, or reasonably – in accordance with all guidance, rules and regulations on research plagiarism – be used as a guilt neutralisation excuse by the plagiarisers, Editor or OUP. This is a most important point, that I cannot emphasize enough, because the fact that only one of my findings has been plagiarised means three things (a) as in point 3 above, readers have been misled by deliberate cherry picking from my research findings, (b) high quality (not quantity) research findings plagiarism is the serious issue here (c) not dealing appropriately with this example of serious repeat plagiarism of my research will effectively give the authors and others a perceived licence to do the same with that and many more future illicit “use of one single research finding plagiarism” from my research and from the research of others in future OUP publications and elsewhere.
  5. The fact the same finding first plagiarised by Dr Weale has been repeat plagiarised by Dr Dagg, in the very same journal, is proof of the high value of that finding and also strongly suggests that unless this plagiarism is dealt with appropriately, repeat victimisation by plagiarism will multiply even further by the same or by other authors in the same journal and or in other publications.
  6. The plagiarism is deliberate, because both authors are proven to have prior read and prior-published their knowledge of my research and that finding in it. What they each publish on their own blog sites about my research before they plagiarised it is independently verifiable evidence of their prior knowledge of that finding. Both Dr Weale and Dr Dagg clearly took that finding directly from my original prior-published research with no reference to the research they took it from. That is serious research plagiarism under any definition.
  7. It is my considered belief that in plagiarising my research in the way they have, given the weight of the independently verifiable evidence presented in this victim statement, both Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have committed serious academic science fraud by deliberate cherry-picking plagiarism of my research.
  8. In the case of Dr Dagg, what the has written in his reviews of my books and his own blog posts about me and my research, published before he plagiarised my research, and after, confirm his plagiarism is malicious.

The research that has been plagiarised was conducted in 2013-2014, when I was employed as Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University (NTU). NTU published a press brief on the research (see Nottingham Trent University 2014).

The plagiarised research is by no means of minor significance. My research findings have been reported in many newspapers and other publications, including national newspapers: The Daily Telegraph (2014) and the Daily Mail [Scotland Edition] (Caven 2014) and The Scotsman (newsroom 2016).

The ‘Selby cited Matthew in 1842’ original finding from my research is not yet common knowledge. Yet that exact research finding has been cherry-picked plagiarised from my larger list of those newly discovered, in my research, to have cited Matthew (1831). To be clear, my research finding has been plagiarised. It has been repeatedly plagiarised, because it has been published in two different articles in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. My Selby finding was taken from a larger list of my research findings, of writers I newly discovered cited Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book pre-1858, without credit to the source of my research that originally uncovered and first published it. In fact, it was used with no credit to me whatsoever. That is serious intellectual property theft of my research finding and the method used to make the finding.

Further detailed background information 

In July 2020, I provided the full details of the plagiarism of my research, by Dr Weale and Dr Dagg, to the Chief Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society John Allen. The evidence I sent shows my research was knowingly plagiarised. I also sent the original publication details of my research, thus proving its provenance and that is has, therefore been plagiarised.

John Allen replied to me by claiming that use of this key and important original research finding without referencing the prior-published research that the plagiarist took it from is not research plagiarism. His is response in this regard is not only highly inappropriate but also totally unacceptable.

Moreover, I think John Allen’s stated belief is surely, patently, and profoundly wrong and out of line with all accepted, definitions of what amounts to research plagiarism, as opposed to merely copying text. 

The length and occasional repetition in this victim statement will hopefully ensure that those now also in receipt of the same independently verifiable evidence provided herein may be left in no reasonable doubt that serious repeat research plagiarism has occurred and will understand its serious nature, consequences, impact on me as the victim and the need to act accordingly with integrity before the same or other authors further plagiarise my research and further subvert the historic publication record.

I have never felt the need to complain officially about plagiarism of my research before and I am shocked by the response I have received. To date, I am extremely disappointed with the behaviour of The Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.

 What, exactly, has been plagiarised?

Firstly, the research plagiarised is the relatively newly uncovered fact, uncovered by my research, (e.g. Sutton 2014, 2014a, 2015, 2017b) that the naturalist Selby (1842) cited the recognised member of the Scottish Enlightenment, botanist, agriculturalist, famous fruit hybridiser and forester, Patrick Matthew (1831) in 1842. Secondly, this plagiarism includes plagiarising the newly unearthed title and full reference for the book in which, my research discovered, Selby (1842) cited Matthew (1831). Thirdly, by default, the plagiarism includes plagiarising my unique research method (see Sutton 2014b and particularly Sutton and Griffiths 2018 for full details of the method) used to find this important new data in the historic publication record in the field of the history of scientific discovery. Fourthly, by cherry-pick plagiarising just one finding from my research, Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have engaged in misleading science fraud by concealing the other evidence in my research that can be used to dis-confirm the argument they make in their papers.

To emphasise by repeating the above point, plagiarism of my ‘Selby cited Matthew in 1842’ original research finding also seriously plagiarises the unique research method I developed and employed to find it. Namely, the Internet Date Detection, Big Data, research method (see Sutton 2014b and Sutton and Griffiths 2018 to see our detailed peer reviewed article on the method). Unless you were to know in advance that Selby’s book cited Matthew’s book, which is something no known writer has ever mentioned before, and so search on Selby or the title of his book, no other method tried before or since was able to detect the fact it did. Therefore, to understand and appreciate the seriousness of the repeat plagiarism of my research, it is imperative to understand that without use of the IDD research method the ‘Selby cited Matthew (1832) in 1842’ finding, could not, and arguably never would have been found by future researchers in this field.  

Pertinent contextual historical facts of the area of research: Understanding the value of the finding that has been repeat plagiarised:

  • Matthew’s (1831) book is accepted by the world’s leading experts on the topic (e.g. by de Beer 1962, Mayr 1982, Dawkins 2010, Darwin 1861, and Wallace 1879) as containing the first fully published theory of evolution by natural selection.
  • Professor Loren Eiseley (1859) wrote a festschrift book on Darwin. Later he discovered that Darwin had, in his private essay of 1844, replicated Matthew’s (1831) highly idiosyncratic forester’s explanatory analogy of differences between trees selected by nature, growing in the wild, and those selected and raised artificially in nurseries. That one key research finding absolutely convinced Eiseley that his hero had committed plagiarising science fraud of Matthew’s prior published theory (Eiseley 1979). For my own part, having first used my IDD research method to surprisingly debunk a number of facts about who coined what term, phrase or concept, I used it to research the process of natural selection and the term and concept Selfish Gene in the expectancy that at least my science hero’s Darwin and Dawkins should be rightfully attributed with their claims to science fame. As my paper with Professor Mark Griffiths (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) proves, I was wrong about Dawkins. As my books and peer reviewed articles on Darwin Wallace and Matthew reveal, it surprisingly turned out I was also surely wrong about Darwin too (Sutton 2014b).
  • Prior to my research (e.g. Sutton, 2014, 2015, 2018) expert knowledge had it (e.g. de Beer 1962, Mayr 1982) that no one whatsoever/no naturalist and certainly no one in Darwin or Wallace’s circles had read Patrick Matthew’s (1831) published theory of what he called the “natural process of selection” before Darwin and Wallace supposedly independently replicated it in The Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society (1858) and Darwin’s Origin of Species (1858), where Darwin named it the “process of natural selection” and replicated many of Matthew’s unique explanatory analogies of difference and other highly idiosyncratic yet key explanatory examples of the theory. In reply to Matthew’s (1860) published letter claiming his priority, Darwin (1860) claimed to have independently discovered the theory. He went further to claim, ‘no single person’ (Darwin 1861a) and elsewhere ‘no naturalist’ (Darwin 1861) had read Matthew’s prior published breakthrough before publication of the origin of Species in 1859. That was a total knowing falsehood, a blatant lie if you will. Because Matthew (1860) had already informed him otherwise and told him of Loudon’s book review and of an unnamed Scottish naturalist who had read it and feared to teach it for fear of pillory punishment for heresy. Wallace kept silent on the matter and so effectively claimed innocence on the question of his prior knowledge of Matthew’s prior-published breakthrough. Later, however, Wallace (1879) wrote that Matthew was one of the greatest thinkers in the first half of the 19th century and did originate the theory he and Darwin replicated (Wallace 1879), and more besides.
  • As said, the naturalist Loudon, who was editor of the Magazine of Natural History, had read Matthew’s book. He reviewed it in 1832 and wrote that Matthew appeared to have something important to say on what he termed “the origin of species”, no less. Dempster (1983, 1996, 2005) pointed it out in his important research in the field, but the fact Loudon was editor of a famous naturalist magazine, was a naturalist known to Darwin and his inner circle, and published two papers by Darwin’s prolific correspondent on species, Blyth (1835, 1836) was seemingly unknown by other experts on the topic. It has, therefore, been generally ignored in most of the academic literature on Darwin apart from mention in the important published research by Dempster. Eiseley (1979), did however produce convincing evidence that Darwin (1858, 1859) had plagiarised important ideas on evolution of varieties from Blyth.
  • I have a list of over 25 people newly proven by my 2014, 2018 research to have cited Matthew’s (1831) book. Seven were naturalists, four of those seven were known to Darwin pre 1858. Three of those four (including the valuable, dual plagiarised, Selby discovery) played major roles at the epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, on their influencers and their influencer’s influencers. The Selby (1842) cited Matthew discovery from that list, uniquely discovered by my research, is among the most important in the new data on this topic. As my book (Sutton 2014, 2016) and peer reviewed article on this topic (Sutton 2015) emphasise, Darwin’s father was a houseguest of Selby, as were other naturalists known to Darwin and Darwin’s inner circle. Selby’s great friend was Jenyns, who was Darwin’s friend and most prolific correspondent (on Selby’s friendship with Darwin’s father and Jenyns see Jackson 1992). Importantly, as my prior published research (e.g. Sutton 2014, 2014a, 2015, 2017b) reveals, Selby was, at the time it was published, editor of the Journal that published Wallace’s (1855) famous Sarawak paper on evolution, which Darwin read pre-1858.
  • The above facts prove why the newly unearthed Selby data from my research is of high quality and is very important when it comes to the question of whether Darwin read Matthew pre 1858 and whether Wallace read Matthew pre 1858.

What is plagiarism, particularly research findings plagiarism?

The University of Oxford (2020) provides us with arguably the world’s most famous definition of what constitutes plagiarism (my emphasis):

"Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition."

The article by Dr Weale and the article by Dr Dagg each use my prior published Selby data without any acknowledgement whatsoever to where they found it. So how is that not plagiarism?

Where research findings are used without reference to where they originated then that is defined as citation plagiarism, which is a sub-type of research plagiarism. That is what Dr Weale and Dr Dagg did in their respective articles in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.

Citation plagiarism may occur through careless attitudes towards citation (Saunders 2010) or it may occur through an act of what Allen (2007) calls ‘blatant plagiarism’, which is done with an aim to steal the research finding in order to deceive others by taking credit for it. However, it seems reasonable to assume that in other cases citation plagiarism may be motivated or by a sole or perhaps additional wish not to reference the original source of the research finding due to professional embarrassment, malice, jealousy or some other pseudo-scholarly ulterior motive. In that case the motivation may be to have the finding wrongly perceived as something widely known and not attributable to anyone. In some cases, perhaps citation plagiarism is motivated by the plagiariser’s perceptions of academic discipline rivalry that may involve trying to double-guess readership, peer review and editorial arrogance, personal dislike of the victim, their research findings, their interpretation of those findings and conclusions, or individual and disciplinary jealously regarding the discovery of the data they decided to plagiarise.

Plagiarising a research finding can also constitute ‘research method plagiarism’ if the method used to make that finding is original, because if only that original method could make the finding the plagiarist will also, by default, most certainly plagiarise the method used to find it. As explained above, that is the case in the plagiarism of my Selby cited Matthew pre-1858 finding. By plagiarising that research finding, both Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have by default plagiarised the unique Big Data Internet Date Detection research method (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) used to find it. Independent expert peer reviewers of that peer reviewed article I wrote with Professor Griffith’s agreed the unique IDD method is a new Big Data research method that has been used in my research to make significant research findings of this kind.

'The term plagiarism derives from the Latin word “plagiarius,” meaning “kidnapper” or “abductor.” Although plagiarism is difficult to define in few words, it can be viewed as the stealing of another person's ideas, methods, results, or words without giving proper attribution…. The ORI defines plagiarism as being “theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work.”… The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), UK, has defined plagiarism as “the unreferenced use of others published and unpublished ideas.” (Juyal, D., Thawani, V., & Thaledi, S. 2015). (My emphasis).

The fact Dr Weale’s and Dr Dagg’s plagiarism of my research is subtle does not make it any less serious. Arguably it makes it more serious because it is so deceptive. This is something that the Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society seems to know or care nothing about. As Dougherty (2020. p.1) explains:

I have requested retractions of 125 published articles in humanities fields in recent years. A large portion of these articles exhibited very subtle forms of plagiarism. … When undetected plagiarising articles produce widespread inefficiencies in the wider system of knowledge production, not only are researchers denied credit for their discoveries, but plagiarizing articles take up space in journals that should have been reserved for articles for authentic researchers.”

Quality not quantity

It is most important to repeat another point already made, in order to emphasise the fact, that the plagiarism of my research by Dr Weale and Dr Dagg is not an issue of a quantity being plagiarised, it is about the quality of what has been plagiarised. It is also about the insidious subtlety in which that was deliberately done and the malice behind it.

The Selby data, uncovered by my research, that has been plagiarised is not only relatively new, it is also highly significant and of extremely high quality in the specific field of research into the history of scientific discovery and scientific plagiarism of breakthroughs in knowledge and prior-published research findings of others. On the issue of whether Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew, it is highly significant, important and new.

As explained above, the Selby cited Matthew in 1842 discovery provides clear evidence of the existence of a previously totally unknown route for potential ‘Matthew to Darwin and Wallace’ knowledge contamination (Sutton 2015) of both Darwin and Wallace and their subsequent publications. Such potential knowledge transmission, in whole or part, could have occurred directly or in some way via others known to Selby, Darwin and Wallace. Others including but not limited to Darwin’s father (who was Selby’s friend) or Darwin’s and Selby’s mutual friend Jenyns.

“…whether or not one article plagiarises another may turn on a judgement of the originality of the interpretation of scientific experiment or a data set.” (Saunders, 2010). (My emphasis)

"...plagiarism (in principle) can consist in as little as one word, while there are many standard sentences describing research methods that will not be plagiarism even if, in fact, copied from someone else. This is to say that the unmarked reuse of some very short passages might be plagiarism, even though the reuse of other equally short passages would not. The conclusion to draw from this is that plagiarism has to do with quality rather than quantity – or, more precisely, with what is unique rather than so common that it cannot be attributed to anyone." (Helgesson and Eriksson (2015). (My emphasis).

The verifiable fact the unique Selby data from my research has been twice plagiarised in the Biological Journal of the Linnean society is clear proof of the high quality and importance of the research that has been plagiarised. Surely it was plagiarised twice precisely because it is such a valuable newly discovered fact that Selby read and cited Matthew’s book before Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of evolution by natural selection. What other reason could there be?

The fact the unique Selby Data has been plagiarised a second time in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is proof that the scientific record in the history of science has been corrupted with one incident of plagiarism leading to another and needs, therefore, to be rectified before further incidents occur to corrupt the publication record in the history of scientific discovery and research into priority and plagiarism.

Engaging in the subterfuge of cherry picking one author from my prior published original research findings (Sutton 2014, 2017b), of who I newly discovered did cite Matthew (1831) pre 1858, to effectively make deceptive fact concealment arguments when examining the evidence for routes of potential knowledge contamination (transmission) from Matthew’s (1831) book to the later published works of Darwin, Wallace and others is misleading the scientific community.

Using my Selby research finding without citation to the research and method that uncovered it, in order to make the argument, as Dr Weale and Dr Dagg do, that no naturalist understood Matthew’s theory, is, in my opinion, engaging in science fraud not only by plagiary but highly deliberate deceptive cherry picking. Because, by way of just one relevant example among many others I found in my research, that I could use here, I also originally unearthed the fact that Jameson (1853) cited Matthew’s 1831 book and observations in it. Jameson was the nephew of Darwin’s Edinburgh Professor, employee of the East India Company and regular pre-1858 correspondent of William Hooker (father of Darwin’s best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker). William Hooker, also a friend of Darwin, was sponsor, mentor, customer for his ‘collected’ wildlife and correspondent of Wallace. All pre-1858.  

Jameson (1853) cited Matthew and wrote about one area of Matthew’s book on how some species of tree may sometimes fare better when transplanted outside their native areas. Jameson reveals that he fully understood the importance of Matthew’s observation for economic botany. The devout Christian gentleman scientist Selby, on the other hand, was writing in 1842, at a time when such an idea was deemed far more unacceptably heretical to Christians who believed their God designed nature and put everything where it was most ideally and best suited to serve the interests of humans above all else. Most importantly, that idea, and other heretical for Christians ideas, in Matthew’s book, was also mentioned in a major book review of 1831 in the United Services Journal, which instructed readers to not even to dare think about such ideas. And Jameson is just one example of the newly discovered to have cited Matthew (1831) authors in my research findings that Dr Weal’s and Dr Dagg’s cherry picking research findings plagiarism effectively, and misleadingly, conceal by failing to cite the source of the Selby cited Matthew pre-1858 discovery.

To emphasise the point just made, plagiarising from my list of those newly discovered by the IDD method to have cited Matthew (1831) pre-1858, (As Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have done) not only plagiarises the IDD method as well as my data, it also most seriously, effectively fraudulently in my opinion, hides not only the other findings in my research but also hides the power of that method by failing to acknowledge just how many authors (including naturalists) in fact did read Matthew’s bombshell theory, how many were linked to Darwin and Wallace, and in what way.

The image above is from Sutton (2014) and shows Selby in the list of 25 people newly discovered in my research to have cited Matthew’s (1831) book before 1858

Evidence of prior knowledge and malicious intent regarding plagiarism of my research.

In light alone of the facts presented above, my research has been plagiarised in two articles in the Biological Journal Linnean Society, as has the unique research method used. But this plagiarism is worse. Firstly, it has taken place at a relatively very early stage following the publication of my research findings. That greatly increases the chances that my research findings will be misattributed to either Dr Weale, Dr Dagg or both. Worse still is the independently verifiable evidence that Dr Dagg plagiarised my research maliciously. That evidence now follows:

  • Dr Weale (2015b) read my prior published research and mentions in his article in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society some online debates he has had with me on it before failing to cite the source of the Selby discovery in that article. Dr Weale explains (using my research without attribution) that Selby cited Matthew in 1842 and Weale cites Selby’s book, in which Selby did so, in his references section (again without attribution to my research that found it). Clearly then, Dr Weale fails to attribute that new ‘Selby cited Matthew pre-1858’ discovery to my research. But that newly unearthed fact from my research, unlike the fact that Loudon reviewed Matthew’s book knowledge, cannot be attributed to “just anyone”. Arguably, Dr Weale is, if not deliberately falsely passing it off as his own discovery, though giving that impression by default to some readers, is also effectively portraying it falsely in his article to be perceived by other readers as something widely known. The Selby finding from my research is certainly at great risk now of being wrongly attributed to Weale, or else falsely as something that was widely known to anyone, as it might well be in the near future, if Dr Weale’s research plagiarism of this high quality research finding and associated research method plagiarism is not correctly remedied by the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.
  • Dr Dagg (2018a) writes that Dr Weale helped him extensively with his article. Given the fact Dr Weale earlier plagiarised my research in his own article and then helped another to publish an article that does the very same thing is powerful confirmatory circumstantial evidence that Dr Weale deliberately plagiarised my research in his article in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. This supports the point made in the last sentence of the preceding bullet point, directly above.
  • Dr Dagg, (2017) writing as “Joda” but signing his malicious review of my book (Sutton 2017b), which contains the Selby discovery, with his real name also proves by so doing that he read my prior published research, including the Selby discovery, before failing to cite the source of that research finding in his article. Dagg, therefore also commits knowing research findings and research method plagiarism in his article, of the same kind as Dr Weale.
  • Dr Dagg (e.g. 2014) has published various malicious blog posts about me, before he plagiarised my research and has written and published more malicious blog posts about that research he plagiarised after he plagiarised it. That is verifiable evidence he has acted not only knowingly but maliciously in plagiarising my research.
  • Dr Dagg (2016) proves on his dreadfully malicious blog that he was fully aware of my prior-published original research finding of other naturalists, including Jameson who cited Matthew pre-1858, before he cherry pick plagiarised the Selby data from my research to use in his article.
  • Dr Dagg, (2018a) in what seems to me at least to be a breach of COPE guidelines for authors publishing in peer reviewed journals has published a blog post to mock one peer reviewer of his paper, name another and to write about the extensive help he received from Dr Weale and from the Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.
  • Dr Dagg (2018a) writes that Dr Derry helped him write his article. Dr Derry has also published an insanely jealous and weirdly obsessive malicious blog site about me and my published research and other staff at Nottingham Trent University (NTU) and has been warned in writing by senior management at NTU to cease sending obscene and harassing communications (e.g. Derry 2014, 2017, 2018a 2018b), libelling and harassing members of academic and senior management there, including obsessive emailing, cyberstalking and harassing Professor Griffiths, associated with me and my research.
  • Dr Dagg (2018b) publishes on Wikipedia to emphasise the fact that he has not referenced my research in his article in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. He does so in reply to his malicious associate Dr Derry.

Thank you for carefully reading and understanding the importance and important consequences of the above independently verifiable evidence.

I put the work in for many hours each day, often seven days a week, for over two years and know the uniqueness and value of my research results and how extremely time-consuming and difficult that research was to conduct, as do those who plagiarised it, which is why they did so, and why it has been done twice.

Research in the field of criminology reveals that the best-known prediction of victimization is victimization (e.g. Farrell and Pease 2001) and that is confirmed in this case. Therefore, if not dealt with properly, even more plagiarism of my research will almost certainly follow.


Allen, M. (2017). The sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Caven, B. (2014) ‘Did Darwin copy ideas for Origin of Species?’ Daily Mail [Scotland edition] April 11th. p.11.

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

Dagg (2014) His blog site post about my research

Dagg (2016) His blog post proving he was aware the Selby data he plagiarised is from my prior published research and that he cherry picked it from a much larger list from my research data of those I newly discovered to have cited Matthew (1831) pre 1858

Dagg (2017) His review of Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret.

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,

Dagg (2018a) His blog post naming a peer reviewer and mocking another

Dagg (2018b) Wikipedia talk page on Patrick Matthew

Dagg (2019) His blog post about my Selby discovery

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858) ‘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. (1860) Natural selection. Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette. 21st April. pp. 362-363.

Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (third edition). London. John Murray.

Darwin, C. R. (1861a) Letter to Qatrefages de Brรจau, J. L. A. de. April. Darwin Correspondence Project.

Dawkins, R. (2010) Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection. In Bryson, B, (ed) Seeing Further: The Story of the Royal Society. pp. 202-228. London. Harper Collins.

De Beer, G (1962) The Wilkins Lecture. The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 155 (960) pp. 321-338.

Dempster, W, J. (1983) Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection. Edinburgh. Paul Harris Publishing.

Dempster, W. J. (1996) Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century. Edinburgh. The pentland Press.

Dempster, W. J. (2005) The Illustrious Hunter and the Darwins. Sussex. Book Guild Publishing.

Derry (2014) WARNING this is an archived tweet from Dr Derry that includes the most obscene language:

Derry (2017) His weirdo stalker, insanely jealous, website

Derry (2018a) WARNING This archived text also includes obscene language published by Dr Derry.  Cyberstalking in the comments section of the Times Higher Education website, where he writes about Dr Weale, Dr Dagg and the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society:

Derry (2018b) Derry’s obsessive cyberstalking blogsite as evidence of his obsessive cyberstalking and malicious harassment behaviour:

Dougherty, M. V. (2020). DISGUISED ACADEMIC PLAGIARISM a typology and case studies for researchers and editors. SPRINGER NATURE. Eiseley, L. (1959) Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it. London. The Scientific Book Guild.

Eiseley, L. (1979) Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X. New Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.

Farrell, G. and Pease, K. (2001) ‘Repeat Victimization’. Crime Prevention Studies 12. Monsey. Criminal Justice Press.

Helgesson G, Eriksson S: “Plagiarism in research”, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18:1 (2015):91-101)

Iphofen, R. (2017). Finding Common Ground: Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences. Edited by Ron Iphofen. Advances in research ethics and integrity. Volume 1. London Emerald Publishing. p. Xiii.

Jackson, C. E. (1992) Prideaux John Selby: A Gentleman Naturalist, Spredden Press, Northumberland 1992, p. 86.

Jameson, W. (1853) Contributions to the History of the Relationship between Climate and Vegetation in the various parts of the Globe. On the Physical aspect of the Punjab in Agriculture and Botany. Journal of the Horticultural Society of London. Vol 8. Pp. 273-314.

Juyal, D., Thawani, V., & Thaledi, S. (2015). Plagiarism: an egregious form of misconduct. North American journal of medical sciences, 7(2), 77–80.

Loudon, J. C. (1832) Patrick Matthew on Naval Timber and Arboriculture with critical notes on authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener’s Magazine. Vol. III. P. 703.

Matthew, P. (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with critical notes on authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Blacks of London and Longman and Co. London.

Matthew, P. (1860) Letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle. Nature’s law of selection. Gardeners Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette. 12 May. P. 433.  

Mayr, E. (1982) The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Nottingham Trent University  (2014) ‘Did Darwin lie about discovery of natural selection?’: Archived:

Saunders, J. (2010). ‘Plagiarism and the Law’. Learned Publishing, 23:279–292.

Selby, P. J. (1842) A History of British Forest Trees: Indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.

Sutton, M. (2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret. E-Book. Thinker Media Press.

Sutton, M. (2014a) ‘A Dreadful Discovery: Big Data Proves Wallace and Darwin Counterfeit Discoverers’. Conway Hall. Conway Hall Ethical Society, London, Sunday Lecture.

Sutton (2014b) The High-Tech Detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Possible Science Fraud: Big Data criminology re-writes he history of contested discovery. Papers from the British Society of Criminology Conference (peer reviewed) British Society of Criminology.

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 — 2015, t. 12. Philosophical Aspects of Origins. 1-39

Sutton, M. (2017a) Fencing and Stolen Goods Markets. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press:

Sutton (2017b) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret. Vol. 1. Paperback.  Vae Victus. Amazon Books.

Sutton, M.; Griffiths, M.D. (2018) Using Date Specific Searches on Google Books to Disconfirm Prior Origination Knowledge Claims for Particular Terms, Words, and Names. Soc. Sci. 7, 66.

The Scotsman (2016) Darwin may have stolen evolution theory from Perthshire farmer: CHARLES DARWIN may have 'stolen' his theory of evolution from a little-known Perthshire farmer, according to top academic.

The Daily Telegraph (2014) ‘Darwin ‘Stole’ theory of natural selection’. p. 12. Wed. May 28th.

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

Wallace. A. R. (1879) 9 May. Letter to Samuel Butler. Unique WCP identifier WCP1586. Wallace Letters Online. Natural History Museum.

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

Weale, M. (2015b) March. The Patrick Matthew Project:

University of Oxford (2020) Plagiarism:'s,is%20covered%20under%20this%20definition.


Monday, 6 July 2020

Who is J. F Derry?


The individual mentioned in the tweet below is a disgraced cyber-stalker. If he gets in contact with you to do his malicious criminal harassment for him, once you are aware of his activities, if you do so then you are committing a criminal offence yourself.

You may wish to learn more about Derry. Forewarned is forearmed

Fully referenced and independently verifiable details of Derry's obsessively insane criminal harassment behaviour can be found HERE

Monday, 11 May 2020

The Covid19 Masks Supermyth

On 11th March 2020 the World Health Organisation officially declared the COVID19 outbreak to be a global pandemic. On that same day the UK prime Minister and his health adviser Jenny Harries told the public not to wear a mask and that it was OK to attend mass sporting events. Henceforth, 11 March is officially Bonkers Boris Day.



You would think, rationally, that scientists would abide by the principle of "nullius in verba" (incidentally the title of my book that reveals they don't). The Latin phrase  " -- expands into the scholarly gold standard of objectivity that we should all abide by in our lives: "Not compelled to swear to any master's words." And yet scientists in the UK and the politicians who then follow their advice before advising the public with it have swallowed hook-line-and-sinker the duff advice of anti-masker scientists (who got the science and common sense wrong. This blog reveals who those scientists and politicians are. The important point to remember here, if we are to learn anything by the lessons of history so that 2020 is a year to remember (not to forget as UK Health Minister Matt Hancock implores us), is that if masks work to save tens of thousands of lives as top US scientist Dr Fauci tells us they do in a COVID19 pandemic then telling people not to wear masks as Boris Johnson and his scientific advisers told us at the start of the Pandemic then that duff advice killed tens of thousands of people.

Dr Fauci would later go on to proclaim that wearing double masks was only common sense (here Yes Dr Fauci, it always was common sense. So does that not mean that you and the other supposed "experts" on the topic totally lacked any common sense when you advised us all at the start of the Pandemic not to wear any kind of mask whatsoever?

 Can science please explain why I (and others) knew from the very start that your initial "don't wear a mask in the COVID19 pandemic" advise was utter nonsense and totally lacked common sense based on the evidence available to us all at the time? 

. . . . . .

March 2020 USA Health Expert Dr Fauci spouts the palpable lethal idiotic nonsense that people should not wear facemasks in a COVID pandemic. It was plainly stupid advice to many people hearing and reading it at the time, including myself and my family and friends. Like other so called experts Fauci would later change his mind completely. Here he is before he did so, making stupid assumptions that everyone wearing a mask is stupid and that by doing so they will in some way, unexplained, create a shortage of masks for others who he weirdly thinks need them more.

  . During the 2020 Covid-19 Coronavirus pandemic, scientific and medical advisers to the UK Government took the myth that face masks of any kind do not provide the wearer, if a member of the general public in a public/semi-public place, with any useful protection against a virus and added to it a new myth that they would be more likely to become infected and to infect others through the act of wearing a mask in public and semi public places. In this blog post you will see the video and newspaper, journal and peer reviewed journal article evidence for the creation, dissemination and busting of the lethal Masks Supermyth.


. The timeline of UK government scientific adviser - mere unevidenced - beliefs about public use of face masks/coverings outside the home during a pandemic and the actual evidence followed by the turnaround on 11th May 2020.

Many thousands of lives have been lost. If masks work today to stop the spread of Covid19 then they also worked months ago!


Please follow the video and newspaper timeline.

March 4th 2020, Chief Medical Officer, and top "expert" government adviser on the Covid19 pandemic, Chris Whitty, says the general public should not wear masks (Here) .

Maybe that is because Whitty oddly thinks face mask wearing will somehow uniquely turn us into idiots who won't also wash our hands or properly keep the correct social distance anymore?

Whitty is on record on 4th March  saying that masks will not provide protection against the virus, but does not explain why that should be his thinking given that the virus is spread by coughed or sneezed water droplets. Logic suggests masks will reduce the volume and trajectory of infected droplets. Given that many spreaders and super spreaders are asymptomatic. Compulsory masks for all would prevent them spreading the virus. So what on Earth is Whitty talking about?

A supermyth is a myth that is compounded by further myths about that myth (see the supermyths website)

So here we see the beginning of the supermyth that masks don't work against Covid-19 - as others (on film below) such as Whitty's deputy, Jenny Harries, add to the masks don't work myth with another myth (to compound the original myth) that the general UK public wearing masks in public places start acting stupidly with them, doing things like wiping infected masks over surfaces. And further myths added by scientific advisers that mask wearers think masks are to sole solution to the pandemic.

11th March 2020 The Deputy Chief Medical Officer telling Boris and the rest of us the barking mad nonsense the public would wipe infected face masks over surfaces - but its OK for us all to attend mass public events  in this pandemic! (Ref:


Is Jenny Harries Advising Boris how to best infect the UK population! from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.


13th April 2020 - more total idiocy. This time from Dr Chris Smith, founder of the podcast Naked Scientists is exposed as a credulous follower and super spreader of the lethal Masks Supermyth. Dr Smith is  consultant medical virologist and a lecturer at the University of Cambridge and is also a Fellow Commoner at Queens' College, Cambridge.






The beginning of the U-Turn  1st May 2020 Boris Johnson (having been in hospital with Covid19 admitting that public use of face masks do work to save lives by slowing the spread of Covid19

May 3rd 2020 face masks compulsory on all Eurostar trains leaving London HERE

Untitled from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.
4th May 2020 expert scientist Sir David King on why masks should be compulsory outside the home - in public and semi-public places.

Sir David King recommends the public be ordered to wear masks from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.

6th May UK science "expert" makes totally unevidenced and ludicrously transparent propaganda ass-covering claim that everyone forgets masks are not the only solution.


Covid19 UK Gov. public news briefing 6th May 2020 from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.
6th May Govt Minister, Matt Hancock, hilariously wriggling on the end of the hook on question of face masks for the public making ludicrous statement about fears of general public somehow using masks destined for the NHS!


Government Clearly Afraid to Admit that it was Wrong about Masks and the General Public from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.

6 May 2020 UK Chief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance admits facemasks may reduce the spread of Covid 19  Here

8th May 2020 Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon recommending public use of masks outside the home.


Scotland 8th May. Tells general population to wear masks outside the home. Why not England? from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.

9th May 2020 UK Deputy Chief Medical officer incredibly arrogant but dim Jonathan "um-um-er" Van-Tam still spreading the lethal supermyth that masks should not be recommended for use by the general UK population
# . 9th May Facemasks compulsory at some UK airports
11th May 2020 The BBC reveal UK government turnaround on public use of facemasks


If face masks work 11 May to reduce deaths from Covid19 then logically they worked before. That means the previous advice killed from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.

11th May 2020 The UK Prime Clown in parliament not apologising, not admitting his government and the idiot advisers he has been led by got the whole masks issue wrong. How many thousands died because of the dysology on masks and the subsequent Masks Supermyth Boris?

Boris does a turnaround on face masks but does not admit his Government got it wrong for over two months. from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.

Read an excellent paper on why masks worn by the general public should have been made compulsory right from the start: Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis BMJ 2020; 369 doi: (Published 09 April 2020) See:

And, based on scientific experiment - here is another good article 

By contrast, here is one beloved by anti-maskers based on people in a lab experiment only wearing a medical grade mask or a flimsy cotton mask coughing into a petri dish from a couple of inches away. Yet the authors of the article admit they did not measure either the volume or trajectory of infected water droplets by mask wearers versus non mask wearers. Moreover, where the hell do members of the general public obtain these flimsy disposable medical grade masks? And who thinks flimsy cotton masks are the number 1. choice of the public? For all they know a scarf wrapped around the face, a way thicker DIY anti dust mask or ski mask, anti pollution mask, works better. Anyway, it's well worth a read.


CONCLUSION: Videos and pictures speak thousands of words 

If masks work on 11th May to reduce the spread of Covid19 and reduce the dreadful death toll then they worked 2 months ago when the three so called "experts" below were creating and spreading the deadly Mask Supermyth!

The so-called "experts" advising the UK Government made up a myth by telling them and the public a made-up story that if they wore masks they would only be doing so in the erroneous belief that a mask on the face renders the wearer immune from infection and so they would stop hand washing and social distancing. 

The correct message should have been that because Covid19 is often spread by asymptomatic people breathing out, coughing and sneezing infected droplets in public and semi-public places that EVERYONE should wear a mask. Because: "when we all wear a mask we protect ourselves by the simultaneous act of protecting everyone else."

The only reason masks are not compulsory today in the UK (12th May 2020) during the pandemic could well be because the government of the UK would rather thousands more now die than admit they got the science, logic and commonsense on masks for the public wrong from the very start, and for months they callously refused to admit it, allowing thousands more unnecessary deaths and many more infections to occur.


The image above is from the 60 page document (here) that includes the masks for all u-turn. But now they are spin hiding their earlier stupid advice not to wear a mask by telling people not to use an anti-dust mask. Even though it is obvious such masks would save save lives! My family all wear anti-dust mask in public. And we see them used by the public, police etc all over Europe. The image below is the type of double-mask my family all use and me wearing mine.






Review of randomised trials finds masks very effective a source control measure if worn by the general public HERE



. Why on Earth not make masks compulsory? In the UK it is because so called "expert" scientists have not actually followed the science and are now afraid to lose face by admitting it. Here is yet another article explaining why masks save lives HERE


We saw above that on march 4th 2020 The UK Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty said not to wear a mask in public and semi public places. Now he has changes  his mind. But its too little too late. If masks are saving lives now then they would have saved thousands earlier. Logically, Whitty's bad advice killed people then, didn't it? Or are masks suddenly effective at saving lives now but were not two months ago?

Whitty U-turn on masks with no explanation to the public and no apology for earlier any-mask lethal nonsense. from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.   3rd June 2020 Whitty's U-turn with no apology and no explanation! Thousands have died. Tens of thousands. How many died due the lethal Masks Supermyth?

4th June 2020 the Government makes face coverings compulsory this month on all public transport in England (here)

On 5th June there are calls to make masks compulsory elsewhere in public places in the UK


More propaganda as Marr and Sunak will only use the new greased weasel term "face coverings" to try to magic away the word masks from the lexicon of criminal incompetence and useless, weirdly incurious and credulous, BBC journalism on the issue of public mask use during the pandemic.

Andrew Marr Show 14 June 202 from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo. .
A few wise words - although rather late - from Peter Drobac, MD, MPH ADVISER; VISITING FACULTY, FACULTY OF GLOBAL HEALTH DELIVERY at Oxford University on 22.06.2020 . 
On Masks working. Further evidence that busts the masks supermyth from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.

If face masks work to save lives as we come out of lock down, then they also worked during lock down at the peak of the pandemic and before. So having an anti-mask policy during peak of the lock down surely led to tens of thousands of deaths and even more misery to others. 

Still no explanation for U-turn on face masks and no apology for earlier lethal anti mask policy in U.K. from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.
UK and USA Political Anti-Mask Propaganda Kills People - Kills them in the tens of thousands!
 On 23 June 2020 Chris Whitty now admits we should all wear masks in shops. But nobody is. Not even the staff. Why not? because of whitty, Harries and Van-Tam earlier saying they don't work and actually spread the virus. Whitty in an unprecedented lethal coward for not admitting he got it wrong earlier, for not giving a reason for the official U-turn. People have died and continue to die because of his credulous sheeplike incompetence followed by utter disgraceful ass-covering cowardice!

Whitty now 23 June 2020 recommends masks in shops! No admission that he earlier said masks are useless! from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.




9th July 2020 Scotland makes it compulsory to wear masks in shops (here

. . .





. . . .

 On 25th October 2020, the eminent scientist  Dr Fauci tells the BBC that facemasks worn by members of the public save lives in the Covid19 pandemic. 

I think lethal anti-mask sentiments spread by UK scientists, politicians and academics needs to be seriously debated - to save lives, or not as the case may be. I have looked at the evidence and it has been clear to me since March 2020 that masks surely do play a major role in reducing the incidence spread of Covid19.


President Elect of the USA, Joe Biden, tells Americans on 9th Nov 2020 that the most effective thing they can do to save tens of thousands of lives in the Covid19 pandemic is to "wear a mask" (here). How far is that from Trump's insane mockery of mask wearers and what Biden calls Trump's "emotional and physical clone" Boris Johnson's monster raving loony advice not to wear one because they spread covid19?  

. . .


I and my family all wore an industrial anti-dust mask covered with an anti-pollution mask from the very start of the COVID19 pandemic. At the time I began this blog post on the Masks Supermyth in May 2020, governments were telling people in the West not to wear masks because they would be depriving medical and nursing staff of personal protective equipment (PPE) we all knew that was absolute claptrap. Moreover, when some scientists were making up stories about masks being ineffective at protecting the wearer and others around them from exhaled virus particles we know that was rubbish because masks would not be recommended to medical staff - and fears of such PPE shortages would not occur - if that was true.

If there is one lesson to be had here it is that scientists, politicians and the wider public should always abide by the scientific principle of  nullius in verba (incidentally, that is the title of my book on the worlds greatest science fraud by plagiarism).. In other words, do not simply take the word of anyone that anything is true. Check out the independently verifiable facts for yourself. Relatedly, never blindly and credulously follow the zombie horde by accepting any argument on the simple basis that it comes from "authority." 

In the case of my book, Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret, the scientific community and the wider public have been hoodwinked for over 150 years by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace who both plagiarised the entire theory of evolution by natural selection, its name and explanatory analogies and examples, from the Scot Patrick Matthew who published it in its entirety 27 years before them and - contrary to science mythology started by Darwin's serial lies on the matter  - his 1831 book containing the theory was read and cited by Darwin' and Wallace's friends, correspondents, influencers and their influencer's influencers and even by the editor of Wallace's Sarawak paper on the topic before they penned a word on the topic in their private notebooks. Yet despite the newly unearthed independently verifiable evidence in my book and expert peer reviewed papers on the topic (e.g. here)  most of the scientific community and general public swallow the Darwin supermyth on the basis that they are blindly obeying authority on the matter. Do you dear reader?

Further reading

How Masks Went From Don’t-Wear to Must-Have (here)

. . . .

. . . . . .