Oh, Jesus Christ, Moritz

I don’t even like posting about this scummy loon anymore. I’m only doing it out of a sense of responsibility.

Andreas Moritz had his Wikipedia page deleted. He was promoting himself and there are no neutral non-blog sources on the scumbag. Pretty simple. But he hates any form of criticism (because he refuses to go get educated on how anything works), so he edits the hell out stuff. He did it with a link I had here. The result? I posted the new link and copied and pasted everything to which I was referring. In other words, he should have learned a very simple lesson about editing. Instead he went and edited his discussion for deletion page. Twice. (I’ve edited out some of the Wiki coding for the sake of clarity here.)

*Absolutely agreed [the page should be deleted]. Andreas Moritz is just some random guy with enough cash to self-publish. He is not notable enough for Wikipedia.–[[User:MHawkins1985|MHawkins1985]] ([[User talk:MHawkins1985|talk]]) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


*”’Delete”’ for lack of WP:RS. Article makes claims of medical practice/teaching/etc, but GS hits in the actual medical literature seem to mostly come from 2 physicians having the same exact name: one in Germany and one in Austria. I think it’s safe to assume that our particular Andreas Moritz has no actual sources in the literature. His book is touted, but that seems to self-published by an entity called the Ener-Chi Wellness Center. In fact, most of what is found via web search is promotional material that ultimately originates from the subject, e.g. http://andreasmoritz.org/ andreasmoritz.org, http://www.andreasmoritzblog.com/, http://www.andreasmoritzblog.com, http://liverandgallbladderflush.com/, liverandgallbladderflush.com, etc. The highest-ranked Google hit that ”is” independent is http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/andreas_moritz_is_a_cancer_qua.php this entry in PZ Myers’ blog Pharyngula that is highly unfavorable, to say the least. To me, it looks like the subject’s highly developed promotional machine effectively obscures any legit, neutral sources that might be out there. I certainly don’t see any. Respectfully, [[User:Agricola44|Agricola44]] ([[User talk:Agricola44|talk]]) 15:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

*”’Delete”’ This seems entirely self-promotional [[User:VASterling|VASterling]] ([[User talk:VASterling|talk]]) 16:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

*”’Delete”’ self-promotional, conflict of interest, no secondary sources. Thanks, [[User:Starblueheather|Starblueheather]] ([[User talk:Starblueheather|talk]]) 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

*”’Delete”’. Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant discussion in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — ”'[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]”’ ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 00:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop trying to promote the harm you cause people, Moritz.

Andreas Moritz deleted

But only from Wikipedia.

I’ve said it again and again to these quacks that just won’t crawl away: they can’t make it better, only not worse. Once rational people of scientific mindsets take notice, quacks don’t tend to do so well. That’s the case with Moritz. If he only thought about it for a moment’s time, he would realize that I didn’t really care about putting him up for deletion (though another user beat me to the punch). I wanted to add some fair criticism, but since he can’t take the truth, he insisted on deleting it over and over. He can do that, but I’m afraid I’m unable to stand by while a stupid, dangerous man tries to build up a deceptive reputation that could cost people their health. I don’t much care if he has a page for whatever, but I want to make sure everyone knows that whatever he creates is going to be filled with lies.

Andreas Moritz up for deletion

No, not from the medical scene, that place where he keeps causing such harm. Just his sock puppet Wikipedia page has been proposed for deletion. And you can help.

Go to the discussion page for deletion and say why his page ought to be taken down.

Moritz, like Christopher Maloney, wants to make himself look legitimate. Unfortunately, creating such an appearance on the web isn’t that difficult. But what this also means is that it’s possible to create an honest web presence that these quacks must face. That has happened with these two particular quacks and they can be considered defeated in that regard. Of course, they’re still harming innocent people with their pseudo-science and lies, and so they remain a significant danger to society.

With that slightly in mind, I’ve been editing Moritz’s page with a short criticism showing his discord with science. I haven’t been going to the significant length required to explain why the guy is a dishonest, thieving, lying, scummy charlatan, however, because I’m not doing much more than having fun. Since his page has already been recommended for deletion (I was attempting to make the recommendation at the same time as the person who actually did it), he will soon have one less platform from which he can tell lies anyway. Right now I’m enjoying making him freak out over the insignificance of temporal Wikipedia edits. That’s why I say I only have his danger “slightly in mind”; this is more about watching him get cranky. He is quite the baby.

Anyway. Let’s make sure this guy’s malarkey is never seen as legitimate. Help delete his scummy, lying page.

Hey, thanks

In my latest post about professional bullshitters, I mentioned Andreas Moritz has a Wikipedia page. I personally added a criticism section to it, but I expected others would do a bit more as it became more and more exposed. And I was sort of right. Whereas I expected people to help show Moritz as the dishonest, lying, thieving, trashy, scummy, dirty, snake oil selling, inhumane, selfish, dirt sack that he is, someone just went ahead and reported his page as what it is: sock puppet self-promotion.

So thanks.

No, science only has a bias toward reality.

Apparently, some people think science can be either conservative or liberal. Well, it can’t. So why do the nuts over at Conservapedia think otherwise? What’s more, why do they think creationists tend to win debates with ‘evolutionists’?

Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”

You may be wondering, who the fuck is that guy? Well, that’s Henry Morris, one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research – an organization which does nothing but undermine science. Apparently, Conservapedians believes if they cite the opinion of a creationist on the issue of debating evolution that they have an air-tight case that creationists tend to defeat those EVILutionists in debates. This is about as valuable as those text polls FOX News took after the presidential debates where McCain apparently destroyed Obama, winning roughly 90% of the votes. What’s more, the fact that even if there were some empirical way to measure debate winningness*, it wouldn’t matter since, just as Hitler has no bearing on the truth value of evolution, the random opinions of anti-science mooks is rather irrelevant.

*Creationist would likely reject such a measure were it possible since they believe science to only be science when it gives them results they already like.