The concept of the supermyth originated in research into the story of the comic strip and cartoon character Popeye, iron spinach and a supposed scientific decimal point error. The full story of the spinach and Popeye mythbust is covered in the following publcations.
Mythbusting Articles on Spinach
Spinach, Iron and Popeye: Ironic lessons from biochemistry and history on the importance of healthy eating, healthy scepticism and adequate citation (Sutton 2010) (here and here and also here)
The Spinach, Popeye, Iron, Decimal Error Myth is Finally Busted (Sutton, M. 2010) (here)
SPIN@GE USA Beware of the Bull: The United States Department of Agriculture is Spreading Bull about Spinach, Iron and Vitamin C (Sutton 2011) (Here)
Spin@ge II: Does the United States Department of Agriculture’s Publication of Spuriofacts Have its Origins in a Perverse Scientific Paper Written in 1937? (Sutton, M. June 2012) (here and archived here)
How the spinach, Popeye and iron decimal point error myth was finally bust (Sutton 2010) (Here and also here)
The Matthew, Darwin and Wallace Supermyth further reveals that the scientific community is heavily influenced by a number of supposed experts who have a credulous desire to conform with current orthodoxy and other related ‘appeals to authority’ rather than the tenet of Nullius in Verba. I am writing these words in 2020 at the hight of the COVID19 pandemic, in the year when the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his top scientific advisers and US President Donald Trump (who also promoted the vaccines cause autism myth, see Sutton, Henn and Gibson 2017) have spread the ludicrous yet lethal Masks Supermyth that facemasks do not reduce the spread of COVID19 and actually spread it (Masks Suprmyth here).
Such unscientific behaviour by influential scientists and their credulous acolytes is a disgrace to science and it undermines public confidence in science, which can have dreadful social consequences and even lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
The Matthew, Darwin, and Wallace (MDW) supermyth has its basis in a number of connected falsehoods that have been created by Darwin, Wallace and obediently conformist members of the scientific community. These falsehood, the actual disconfirming verifiable facts and related links are outlined below:
That Wallace was an original thinker and scientific genius. In reality he was a great fool who believed in ghosts and was credulously hoodwinked by the charlatans of spiritualism. Worse still, he was a rampant antivaxxer!
That Wallace was an honest and kind steady scientist and kindly nature lover. In reality, he used his engineering knowledge to win an unfair bet with an even greater flat earther idiot and then to lose a fortune suing the loser to try to make him pay. The frequently impecunious Wallace delighted in his own greed in killing great apes to have then stuffed and sold and bragging about orphaning their human-like offspring and in killing many endangered species for sale. He depended on money from Darwin and his Linnean Society debacle cronies and a state pension they contrived for him. On his death, Wallace's widow was forced to sell their house in order to survive. She died within the year.
That Darwin was a great scientific genius and honest gentleman nature loving naturalist. In reality, he was an incredibly nasty unscientific racist. He beat a puppy for the fun of it, gorged on animal flesh as a member of the Glutton Club, including an owl and killed a fox and also killed many trusting seabirds with his geological hammer and wild rabbits with stones. He loved to slaughter thousands of tame pheasants by shotgun competitions with other members of the landed gentry. Darwin compared women to dogs in deciding whether not to marry his cousin, no less! Darwin got his geological facts wrong on the topic of geology, but another scientists who cited Matthew's (1831) book and his later 1839 book 'Emigration Fields', Robert Chambers got it right and Darwin corresponded and met with him pre 1858. Darwin tried to have the rules of priority changed so that he could have priority for the discoveries of others and was a serial liar about who he knew really did read Mathew's prior published theory. After emotionally manipulating his friends Hooker and Lyell - in 1858 in the week his baby son died - to help himself and Wallace steal Matthew's theory, Darwin wrote to Hooker the following year on Christmas Day, 1859, to say that he has always strongly felt that no one should defend their priority. You have to wonder whether Darwin was some kind of psychopathic narcissist as well as being the world's greatest science fraudster by plagiarism, serial lies and glory theft.
Finally, now considering the shockingly upsetting original Big Data method unearthing by Sutton (e.g., 2014, 2015 and 2017) to reveal that several naturalists who influenced and facilitated Darwin and Wallace - pre- their 1858 papers on the theory of evolution by natural selection in the journal of Linnean Society - and their influencer’s influencers did read and then cite Matthew's hypothesis / theory and the 1831 book containing it, that those naturalists did not understand the theory and so (as Darwin lobbyists ludicrously argue) could not have told Darwin or Wallace about it, or influenced them with their citations of it. That additional misinformation is newly compounded by the fact that Dagg, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and Weale in an earlier article the very same journal have each plagiarised Sutton’s (e.g. 2014, 2015 discovery that the naturalist Selby cited Matthew’s 1831 book and mentioned his original ideas on natural selection in 1842. The editor of the journal and Oxford University Press that publish it have disgracefully, to date, refused to address this serious repeat original research findings plagiarism (details here).
Desperate Darwin worshippers try to convince the scientific community that Matthew's theory is essentially different from Darwin's in order to try to divert attention from the new data that proves Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's theory. As though they know more than Matthew, Darwin and Wallace did on this very topic. Here is one example of such desperate fact denial nonsense.
Amazing fact denial desperate codswallop published in 2020 is in the same journal, by descent, that, back in 1858, published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's original theory. This is the latest of several ludicrous attempts in that journal to divert attention from the verfiable facts of the newly discovered data (e.g. Sutton 2015) that proves Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior published theory. Darwin worshipping malicious idiots Derry and Dagg are arguing that Matthew's theory was not essentially the same as Darwin's even though both Darwin (1860) and Wallace (1879) said it was. As though Dagg the plagiarist of my research and Derry the obscene harasser and cyberstalker (facts of their disgraceful behaviour are here ) know more than Darwin and Wallace did about their own (replicating) work. The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is now a total joke. Birds of a feather certainty do flock together. The facts of Dagg's plagiarism of my research in that journal are here.
Darwin in his (1860) reply to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle fully admitted he had replicated Matthew's prior published theory: "I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection." Darwin (1861) did the same from the third edition onwards of his book the Origin of Species: Darwin replicated and admitted it when he wrote: "In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that presently to be alluded to propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the Linnean Journal and as that enlarged on in the present volume."
Wallace in (1879a) fully admitted in a letter to Samuel Butler that he knew Matthew got there first with the entire thing he and "To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat". Aso in 1879b, in a review of Butler's book, Wallace wrote: "Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century."
In their desperate smog-article Dagg and Derry arguably - misrepresent what I wrote on page 6 of my book. They write:
"Sutton (2017: 6) asserted that Matthew’s theory only differed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s in the occurrence of global catastrophes."
What I actually write on page 6 of my 2017 book is (underlined emphasis added here):
"Matthew, quite correctly allowed for geological and meteorological catastrophes in his model, but Darwin and Wallace never. Matthew's original theory of macroevolution by natural selection is, in every other relevant way, apart from that great superiority, virtually the same as Darwin's and Wallace's later versions."
And relevant here - in the context of my entire book and even the rest of the content of that page - is its relevance to the evidence that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's 1831 original theory, his original terminology and his original and highly idiosyncratic explanatory analogies.
I suppose the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its shameful publisher Oxford University Press will have no problem at all with the fact 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 very precise address of a pub called The Golden Rule (archived for evidence here) for which Derry wrote a scathing review in 2020? Here and archived her. Incidentally, the proven serial liar Darwin reckoned he had a famous "Golden Rule" (here).
In his scathing reviews of the pub at 30 Yeaman Place, Derry calls it his local since 2012. Really? How local? So local he lives in or above it?
The Patrick Matthew Supermyth
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 600-page Kindle e-book. Currently unavailable due to ongoing investigations into criminal book piracy, copyright fraud, cyberstalking, criminal malicious communications, malware dissemination and ID fraud by cybercriminals who have hacked it and those who are disseminating the pirated hacked files.
From November 2017, you are advised not to download any version of this e-book, because the hacked file is likely to be infected with hacker malware by those sharing and disseminating it. Moreover, the content of the illegal file is likely to have been altered by the criminals involved.
Please purchase the official paperback abridged version from Amazon here. Paperback volumes 2 and 3 are forthcoming
Reader: beware of desperate fact denial malicious Supermyth promoting and serially dishonest smog-apes like Dagg the Plagiarist and Derry the Obscene Harasser, who represent their own falsehoods by misrepresentation of precise facts written by others and the context in which they are published.
The image of page 6 of my book below sets the record straight on what Dagg and Derry are up to in misrepresenting my research in their desperate 2020 article.
Leading Biologist Brian J Ford @brianjford read and then reviews my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 4, 2020
Proper academics like Brian J. Ford know what plagiarism is. Fact denial Darwin fanatics don't want you to know the bombshell 💣facts. pic.twitter.com/r9frnv8O0U
A supermyth is a myth about a myth where the second myth is created in an apparent atmosphere of concern to veraciously bust the first myth. What makes supermyths so powerful is that they appear all the more plausible because they are stories about why the first myth came into being and how it was bust.
The discovery of the phenomenon of the Supermyth was first published on the Best Thinking website. The Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Error Point Error Myht (SPIDES) was fully bust in two articles The first here and the second here.
Supermyths have very specific components:
1. The creation of a fallacy, myth or error by an orthodox expert.
2. Being used by another expert who in turn promotes it as being ‘true, and whilst still thinking that it is true either promotes it as a good example of the need to be healthily skeptical of bad scholarship, or else:
3. compounds the myth by using it as a premise upon which to build one or more supporting myths.
The book that rocked the scientific establishment leading the Editor of the @BiolJLinnSoc and a vacuous dullard executive of @OxUniPress to facilitate shameful plagiarism of my research. Get the facts. review the book. Squash utter fake science claptrap https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 21, 2020