In the 1980’s universities became an abode for political activists who did not come for science and literature, but for spreading counterculture, marihuana and other items of “change”. In science, they were incapable and infantile. They started an avalanche of falsifications and plagiarism in research. By now, most of the research in biomedicine cannot be reproduced or is an outright fraud.

My main web site – tells how these cretins removed me from the university and plagiarised my discoveries; see the story and the 50 documents on Google Cached. This site is now continued with new documents at

My theoretical work began with finding the basic pattern of cell proliferation in the organism at the condition of the limited number of somatic cell divisions (Hayflick limit). Then, the 3-D topological model of intestinal crypt was built. Surprisingly, the structure of carbon nanotubes discovered in 1992 exactly corresponded to this model proposed by me in 1980. Some references:
1. “Count of Cell Generations”, (in Russ.)
2. “Topological Solution for Cell Proliferation in Intestinal Crypt”,
J. theor. Biol. 1980 (87), 189-200 (htpps://
3. “Structure and Growth in the Living Tissue and in Carbon Nanotubes”,

Michael Pyshnov


Petition to The Minister of Science, Canada

I now started a Petition to The Minister of Science, The Honourable Kirsty Duncan, asking her to answer my complaint of fraud in Canadian science administration.

The Petition is here:

I am asking everybody to sign it!
The Evidence link is included in the Petition. This is a stunning document! Please, see it here:

Canada lying.

It’s the Canadian way of life – lying. Never a truth. Today, the foreign minister on TV says that we have free trade with U.S. Truth: we never had. A block of cigarettes sells in U.S. for $50. In Canada the same is three times more. Canada is constantly lying to its citizens and to everybody else.
Who benefits from this? Canadian socialism does. Govt. tax is used to “create” jobs, because the citizens are totally disabled by the regime. Canada prohibits the sale of a mass of raw materials to the citizens, the citizens are disabled. Now, you will see crowds of marihuana addicts, out of any useful occupation but supported by Govt. Citizens are a trash. The Govt. only needs typists to rape the keyboards, probably, this is an occupation of the majority.

Big, silent Canada. The crime goes on.

I have probably finished writing the story of University of Toronto fraud, for now at least, including the fraud of NSERC:

The documents and facts are there. In the end, here are allusions to the story of Prof. Valery Fabrikant in Concordia University, very similar to my story, except of course that I never wanted to kill anyone. His story became well known only because he did kill. My story remains well known to the officials and the many scientists, but never told in the press. I again now made several attempts to get it into the press, but no, they remain silent: Canada is nothing but a spectacle in a theater with 35 millions seats and one producer.

Actually, the Fabrikant affair was also never told truthfully. Some quotes that I give on that site above raise the questions never answered, not in the press and not in the Arthurs Report (, namely, that Fabrikant shootings were intentionally provoked by the administration. The shootings can hardly be explained otherwise. To me, this seems certain because what is being done to me for 30 years is a sadistic, blatant provocation, repeating every time I try to complain. I got used to it, but the criminal Canada follows what certainly has been a long standing policy: Just provoke him! Make him guilty!

Interestingly, in 1994, one professor from the U of T Scarborough campus wrote a letter in my defence and invited me to talk. He told me that when he called S. Desser, the Head of the Dept., Desser shouted at him that he must stop defending me because I am “a second Fabrikant”. Desser intentionally lied: I never even talked to anybody, never met any official in this university; I wrote polite letters. This was the gang policy: “raising spectre of violence”, as it is called, spreading wild lies and provoking the victim beyond human endurance.

Unexplained, at least for the public, remains the motivation of this criminal gang. Wouldn’t it be easier for the University of Toronto to kick Larsen out and restore the order? What was the motivation of the Concordia University officials, in particular of the Vice Dean Rose Sheinin, in doing two fraudulent investigations of Fabrikant complaints and declaring the crooks and plagiarists in his Department innocent?

Why all canadian press uniformly lied about Fabrikant affair? Why all Canadian press uniformly refused to say a single word about the fraud in the University of Toronto and in the NSERC?

There is one answer to all these questions: The Canadian adminstration of science has been highjacked by a gang of jewish criminals who obtain great financial gains from their monopoly. All is here: tax exempt donations in hundreds of millions dollars, the names of the billionaires engraved on the buildings, the ability to accommodate the families, to appoint their clan to the key positions in academia and elsewhere, spread their influence far and wide, etc., etc.

When I tried to get a lawyer, 51 law firms, including all those with hundreds of lawyers, declared conflict of interest, they all worked for the University of Toronto. Out of 25 law firms specialising in intellectual property, 24 were in conflict, one had no money. A lawyer told me: “If a lawyer takes your case, his children will not be able to find a job in Canada.”

This jewish gang in academia are not jewish scientists, yet, they occupy some eight or nine out of ten key positions in academia, they are lawyers. That of course doesn’t mean that everybody else is free to speak out. There is a fear in the academia, a well founded fear of being thrown out after a single word of protest. This is a ruthless gang.

What about the “independent” press? The press theatre for 35 millions seats is owned by the two, sometimes by three or may be four moguls, depending on the arrangements they make. The jewish influence covers 100% of the editors and the staff at any time.

Who these jewish criminals are? They are torpid provincial crooks, they mostly have nothing to do at all with any science. (One of these Merds, D. Dewees, whose investigation discussed on my site, started questioning me, asking what my “empirical” research was, thinking I never heard the word.) The NSERC was called a “Masonic Lodge” in one of the quotes I give on my web site.

It was a horrible injustice that science and universities became the property of the jewish gang.

On Feb. 5, I again edited
And I referred the readers to this page for the “social aspects” of this fraud. The “social aspects” is about how to stop this jewish gang, and concretely – how to find a mass media outlet to report the documents.

I will continue sending the documents to the press.

100 years under communist revolution

100 years ago, a gang of communists took over the government in Russia. In the new government of about 160 people (including Central Party Committee and Cheka), 5% were Russians, over 70% were jews, the rest were other minorities.

This happened in the middle of the First World War. Wilhelm II (who hated jews as well as Russians) first allowed the train with top communist leaders, who were in exile at the time, to pass through Germany to Russia. And he gave these jewish communists a huge amount of money, because he thought that they will destroy Russia and help him win the war. He was stupid: a year after, communists made revolution in Germany.

Communists won by deception. On the German money, they printed, in previously unheard of quantities, a newspaper for the Russian solders saying: “Stop fighting and hurry up home where now the property of landowners will be distributed to the people.” The front collapsed. Solders never got any land, but started the civil war in which 20 millions of Russians were killed.

Tzar, his wife, four daughters and son were shot in a basement room by two or three jewish communists, and the corpses were burned. George V, a cousin of the Tzar Nicholas II, who first promised to rescue the family, refused to do anything, it would be politically incorrect as British bankers hated Russia. The murder of the Tzar and his family was described in a book of R. Wilton, the London Times correspondent in Russia; he then was fired by the Times.

The members of the first communist government and Cheka (translated as Supreme Commission Against Contra-revolution and Antisemitism) continued until about early ’30s, when Stalin took power. This group, headed by Trotzki, ravaged Russia because their ideology required total destruction of all European civilization and Christianity. Communism, they said, cannot be built when “old” culture exists; they wanted the World Revolution. Stalin had to stop them. Trotzki and the survived members of his gang emigrated. They later begged Hitler to attack and destroy Russia.

Trotzkists survived in the West. In the end of the 20-th century they changed their name to Neoconservatives, Neocons. It was them who forced US to start war against Moslems. They hate not just the Western civilisation but the Moslem civilisation as well. They now are killing both.

Why there are no references to my papers?

There are only 20-something, while there should have been twenty thousands. (The first paper is scanned here.) Why so little? The answer is: science went bad, not just wrong, but really bad after Second World War. Then, many nuclear physicists went into biology. On one side, they gave a physical background to the scholastic biology, but on the other side they taught, and with great insistence, a completely wrong idea that everything in nature is a result of a stochastic processes. The idea, of course, was the old masonic maxim: Order Out Of Chaos, and it was designed to fight God and His creative role. It was fine with the physics of, say, molecules in gas, where the physical laws come as a result of the presence of huge numbers of particles. But it was essentially wrong with biology, where we see a microscopic organism containing a hundred of cells and several organs, identical in all individuals. Of course, it is dead wrong in humans also, where minute differences in body shape are inherited in generations. In biology we deal with deterministic, not stochastic, laws and processes.

Yet, the scientists went ahead with thousands, if not millions, of papers based on the idiotic masonic philosophy; anything contrary is politically incorrect. Moreover, and that, probably, was the main reason – equations look sophisticated and “scientific” in a biological paper. And then – another blow to biology – the computer capabilities. Biologists now rape the keyboard instead of looking in microscope. The third reason is that a biologist, a second class scientist, cannot check your paper with formulas. The next reason: the paper with equations and formulas don’t need to end in a definite biological conclusions, and moreover, even if such conclusions are given, nobody can check this. That is now called theoretical biology.

It became much worse when clinical research, drug testing, etc. made statistical “proof” necessary. I ain’t going into this area, but just the fact tells it all: most of the research in biomedicine is either not reproducible or just a fraud. Scientists have no idea how to get it right. The critical piece by the editor of Lancet said that may be adopting much higher standard of statistical confidence will make the research better. I don’t think so. I think taking four rats, as it used to be done, and see the result is the best way, simply because 15% probability of a usually barely seen success does not count. You don’t need a flu vaccine to shorten your flu symptoms by one day.

Now, back to my papers. I went a different way. I supposed that I should build a model of cell proliferation in a tissue that will work with 100% certainty using minimal necessary assumptions. I did not care how many cells do not obey my rules in a real tissue. It was a deterministic model. And it met with a smashing negative comment from one author who said that I took only a narrow case in a theory (where he was a specialist), that allowed many possible solutions, in fact – an indefinite number of them. Of course, I laughed. I found a principle, a law which resulted in a perfectly functioning tissue. I found the simple, in fact – the simplest rule, which makes cells to divide in a tissue in such way that dividing cells replace the dying cells without changing the shape of this tissue, i. e. preserving the steady state indefinitely. I didn’t care about statistical noise which can introduce deviations from that law. I did not believe that we should start with a noisy model describing all possible situations and then never come to the principle. Newton did not consider the cases when an apple remains to rot on the tree, the cases which undoubtedly would be considered in a modern theory.

My critic, for instance, described cell divisions with the lattices (Voronoy polygons) that can have three-, four- (or more) rayed vertices. I made my cells to have only three-rayed vertices, because I thought that a four-rayed vertice can be represented as two three-rayed vertices, etc. I accepted that all cell sides in a lattice are equal in length. That immediately allowed me to build 3-D models that visually, geometrically reflected their essential topological properties. I considered only pentagonal, hexagonal and heptagonal cells in the lattice, because only these cells could appear as the result of the simplest and uniform cell division.

Many years later, I, purely accidentally, found that my (they now say – minimalistic) representation was a wise one. I found a paper by a Spanish mathematician (M. Vosmediano) who worked with the topology of carbon nanotubes and in one of her presentations she showed the pictures of my models, saying those are “a living curiosity”. Indeed, the atoms of carbon in graphene form lattices with these simplest and uniform, as in my models, parameters. And the nanotubes not only look the same, but they grow by the same topological rules as did my cells. The differences, of course are that 1) carbon atoms are brought into the lattice from surrounding medium, while new cells arise by the division of the existing cells, and 2) carbon atoms are represented by vertices in the lattice, while cells are represented by the bodies of the polygons. The discovery of the topological principles of growth of the nanotubes was made 12 years after my paper was published. At least, I did not plagiarise them! And I am sure they did not. That nature has topological laws working on different levels of the organisation of matter, that was a surprise.

Below: Isolated intestinal crypt (nuclei stained), and the crypt model with its bottom.

Global warming RETRACTION

Mike Adams reports in Natural News Sept 19, 2017:

“A stunning new science paper authored by climate change alarmists and published in the science journal Nature Geoscience has just broken the back of the climate change hoax. The paper, authored by Myles R. Allen, Richard J. Millar and others, reveals that global warming climate models are flat wrong, having been deceptively biased toward “worst case” warming predictions that now turn out to be paranoid scaremongering.

The paper, entitled, “Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C,” concludes that the global warming long feared and hyped by everyone from Al Gore to CNN talking heads were based on faulty software models… etc. that don’t stand up to actual measured temperatures in the real world. ”

I am not sure that Adams quotes correctly that paper “concludes” about “Al Gore to CNN talking heads”.
The paper does not say it was all fraud. Who knows, may be they just don’t want to go to jail. The “warming”, however, is closed for the scientists and the doubters too. I wonder if D. Suzuki will refund the money he earned on warming, or at least retract the propaganda directed at children when he said: “We are in trouble”. We indeed are but for a different reason. The trouble is that we have hundreds, if not thousands, of papers written on political demand by many crooks.

2000 years ago, Christ said: “Forgive them Father, because they don’t know what they are doing”. But now they all know what they are doing.

…… but the company is – Goooogle!

After N. Finkelstein was fired, he said he cannot find another job because employers look his name in Google.

You, who were not born in Soviet Russia, may not understand this Soviet joke:
A meeting in a factory.
The chairman invites people to speak: “Comrad Rabinovich, what are your thoughts?”
Rabinovich: “I have a question. Where are butter, sugar…?
Chairman: “Good question. We will work on it.”
Next meeting. Chairman: “Comrad Abramovich, what are your thoughts?”
Abramovich: “I will not ask where are butter and sugar. I am asking where is Rabinovich?”

The Soviet times now came to America. And it’s not even the Stalin’s times, it’s the earlier times of jewish commissars. They, or their reincarnations, survived and are not a bit less serious about abolishing our civilization; they call it Change. Communists never tell you their goals in advance. If you care to read, read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Protocols may be a forgery, or they may be authentic. What is important is that in 1905 the goals of communists were already known.

They now have policies in place, but don’t make a mistake – the policies can turn bloody. It depends on the reaction. Currently, being unable to find job, and being fired on political charges means exactly that, can very well spell the end of your life and, certainly, the end of the purpose of your life.

Now, back to Google. I was wrong in my previous post, was too optimistic, I thought they try to minimize the damage. No. If I had looked at the smile on the face of Danielle Brown, I would be much less optimistic.

Two years ago, three jewish communists (I. Oransky, RetractionWatch; D. Blum, activist; M. Arthur, President and Provost, University College London) made up a completely bogus “case” of “sexism” against the Nobel Laureate, Sir Tim Hunt, biochemist, in University College London, and fired him. He showed no resistance. Interestingly, only the women in his laboratory organised a protest. I added many comments to the “case” discussions. I noted that the now spreading quasi-communist regime in the West demands that an employee surrender all his individuality, views, attitudes, brains and all, to the employer, a condition never demanded in the communist countries, with the exception of China.

The regime now will be show-trying the new victim, apparently, in court, but first – on Twitter, with anonymous indignation. Some minor variations of the Soviet and Hitler’s trials, but basically – the same scenario. The result is predictable: no thrashing Danielle Brown, that’s it, that’s impossible.

Today, so-called intellectuals do not see themselves as the successors of Galileo, Giordano Bruno and all the people who knew that telling the truth was the purpose of their lives. Today, science itself is falsified, destroyed and is stolen by the thieving jewish communists. What is left? The destroyers feed the lies of multiple genders and cosmic travel to the idiots. Who is left? Mutilated bodies and perverted brains, who, and I am not exaggerating here, feel “positive” about it.

Google, by the way, initially appeared as the search engine that did not censor the results, as the older AltaVista used to do. Watch the Google Change now! Well, I am sorry, you won’t be able to watch anything, it won’t let you. In the hands of talented Danielle, Google becomes the instrument of Diversity. Diversity is achieved when people of multiple genders, nations and colors, all have exactly the same brains. There is a good expression for this in Boswell’s memoirs of Doctor Johnson: “One had better be palsied at eighteen…”.

And the last thing I want to write here would be this question: Is there anything in this story that was only staged to establish a precedent of what seems to be an unbelievable case of unopposed communist tyranny in America, the country with long and proud history of freedom and free speech? I will not elaborate. I just have hard time believing my eyes.

Re: “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”

It’s “viral”. And anonymous. I guess it was written by several people, may be by women, to alleviate the scandalous situation with “gender bias”. It was written by stupid, intellectually inferior writer(s) as there is no actual proof of its multiple arguments. The arguments and the proof for the women lagging behind men in intellectual abilities, however, do exist.

Among the thousands of painters who created the treasures of our civilisation, there were only a couple of second class women painters. The same with the architects, scientists, writers, etc., etc. Were women prevented, as the jewish communists tell us, from creating all these treasures? Certainly, not: these men, the pride of our civilisation, were, for all previous centuries, mostly self-educated! They had interest in all these areas, and they pursued their interests. Even today, after decades of literally forcing women to study, they cannot do what men can. Moreover, it is clear that when the task becomes more complicated, the gap in intellectual abilities is increasing; with the simple tasks, women succeed equally.

While the difference is clear, the causes of it remain obscure, in great part due to the political prohibition on such research. I have some thoughts on these causes.

What is scientific mind? Who are the scientists? A scientist is a person who is able to perceive and has intuition to tell what the Nature is able or not able to do. He, subconsciously, due solely to the his peculiar direction of thinking, finds a correct solution for the problem. How? O, that’s very simple.

He understands the things, the phenomena and the words literally, i. e. he removes associative meanings from the text. He reads slowly, very slowly. A scientist does not memorize anything. His mental job is to find the analogy of the process, or the phenomenon studied, in a graphic representation. He understands that words are a poor approximation to the reality, while the graphic representation, the mechanical picture of the process in his mind’s eye can be built, studied, compared to reality and corrected.

Women do not use this way of thinking, they use words. Words form their memory, their knowledge base and their “scientific”, God forbids, papers. (And that’s why, above, I first mentioned painters, not scientists.)

And, there is another, connected, difference – women have little interest and ability in mechanics. But the Nature operates, at all levels, physics, chemistry, biology, only mechanically. In every process, there is an underlaying mechanical level which of course explains the phenomena of the upper level of organisation of matter.

In fact, the current system of education is reinforcing that inborn difference between men and women. They teach fast reading, use of generic terms rather than the concrete ones. It is teaching fraudulent manipulations with words. It has drowned science in the fraudulent teachings of the jewish “philosopher” Derrida. It makes clear things obscure and “relativistic”.

Climate change. Not understanding science

Some ten years ago I posted, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a short note debunking the global warming theory. The points, as I remember them, were:

1. Nobody ever measured the average temperature of the Earth.
2. It surely would seem ridiculous to every scientist to talk about the increase of 0.6 degrees in 100 years, because fluctuations of temperature and the local differences make the 0.6 degrees indistinguishable from the noise.
3. The apocalyptic predictions of the effect of the increase in CO2 are ridiculous because in the Earth past there was time when life was thriving in giant forests and the concentration of CO2 was certainly much greater.

The finding of global warming is claimed to be a result of computer calculations. It certainly looks to me as feeding to the computer such data which had to result in the convenient, not too big, not too little, 0.6 degrees increase.

Global warming theory is using a wrong statistics for a proof. The increase in temperature within the last 100 years, whether it is true or false, is nothing but an anecdotal evidence. There is no comparison with other 100-year periods; of course, there are no such data, but without such data the 0.6 degrees is just a meaningless figure. Moreover, we know that in the Middle Ages there was what is called the Little Ice Age. Obviously, even much greater than 0.6 degrees changes in temperatures can occur without any human activity involved.

Apparently, understanding that the 0.6 degrees increase over the last 100 years tells us absolutely nothing about the future 100 years, the “warmists” went further. They found the mechanism of global warming in the man made increase of the CO2 concentration in the air. The 0.6 degrees increase in temperature now stays in the background, and the CO2 theory serves as a basis for apocalyptic predictions. Nice and very scientific, isn’t it? Except that apocalyptic predictions based on CO2 have nothing to do with science (see # 3 above). Yet, we should not simply ignore the possibility that the temperatures (and humidity) in the age of giant forests were very likely higher!!

Canada TV is showing scientist David Suzuki explaining global warming to little kids. He tells them how to understand the warming: “Climate change, says he, means: we are in trouble”. He is not using the words “global warming” but using a new modification of the formula – the “climate change”, which he wants to be understood as warming. The little kids are deceived, they are told: have a fear of the catastrophe in your guts, trust the government and pay enormous taxes. Suzuki is using fear mongering and the total inability of the public to understand science.

Feminism, communist terror in Canada

A few months ago, Prime Minister Trudeau said he is a feminist. Nobody reads newspapers, but watching TV is becoming essential. TV let us know that hate of feminism is hate crime; not saying it is the law, but that is the usual method of introducing communist terror. Slogans into your brain, then – into the law.

What is feminism? It is a conspiracy theory (men hate and exploit women) manufactured by communist revolutionaries in 19th century to attract 1/2 of humanity into the crowd of the deprived and exploited. Semi-educated, mentally deranged, sexually deviant, abandoned, violent women were recruited in Russia by the revolutionaries. Feminism further degraded these women, to the animals; they became females. Millions of these women became an insane, wretched, syphilitic refuse of the revolution.

Feminist maxims are read as the code of behavior of hardened criminals: Never apologise, Never be questioned by a man, etc. In Toronto, feminists bombed Litton Industries. In Sweden they drink menstrual blood on feminist festivals, (there exists a recording). The females became simply “pussies”. In Moscow, they desecrated Christian Temple. In Italy they set museum on fire. Thousands of these crimes are being committed. Feminists are communist criminals, their goal is destruction of civilisation. Feminists are trained in insanity, savagery and irrationality. They go naked on the streets and protest sexual “objectivisation” of women.

The original teaching the feminists received from jewish communist criminals (trotzkiists), whose goal was the world communist revolution. However, a few decades ago, some of them decided that jews are too rich to be true communists, and they separated. Never mind, both groups are sadistic communist destroyers.

In Canada, feminists are pushed to the top of the country administration, using a completely fraudulent claim of the past discrimination which they suffered before they were born. They became communist attack dogs, conducting “gender wars” and destroying every decent individual, men and women alike. They penetrated universities creating completely fraudulent “social science” and “women studies”. Communist and feminist propaganda is making a heroic intellectual out of every pornographer, narcoman and pervert. It has been reported that 1 in 4 teenage girls now has sexually transmitted disease.

One of the crimes committed by the feminists is killing their children to “punish” and “revenge” their boyfriend or husband. Yet, in the new feminist Canada, this is not a crime anymore, it became “post-partum depression” that curiously may last for several years and is not connected to any revenge. Feminists decision makers routinely abolish the civilized law and subvert justice.

For many years, the standard of attitude for canadian women was: “I am not a feminist, but …”, followed by some moderate female grievance. The standard now is: obey to feminism, under the pain of being fired from the job or imprisoned. Finally you have to realise why people call these monsters “feminazis”. They are women-parasites stealing from the real doers and killing them.

Canada, 100% jewish media loves Muslims?

This 100% jewish mainstream now loves Muslims and believes (really?) the public has no memory. But what about the fascist jewish campaign that continued for years on all their outlets in support of that scoundrel who called Koran Devil’s Verses? I can’t forget the jews-journalists, sociologists, politicians and human rights jews, their eyes dancing from one end to the other end of the television screens in celebration of the repeated insults hurled at Islam. It was almost everyday, jewish eyes were dancing, with tears of joy, appealing to the public – see, see, the Muslims are devils, their religion is devil!!!

When was this? Exactly when the wave of Muslim immigrants were coming to Britain. Britain was greeting Muslim immigrants. British tv was greeting this scoundrel, Canada mainstream was translating his BBC interviews. I don’t remember any such jewish exultation on any other occasion.

The most Canadian of all stories

A couple of days ago, a nurse was charged with murdering 8 people in the last 7 years in a nursing home and in CAMH – University of Toronto Mental Hospital. The canadian element here is that this was known to some doctor but never reported. On the Tee-Vee, an official of some sort explained that Canada is such a progressive free country that doctors have an obligation not to disclose confidential information. That’s obviously a crap: confidentiality is related only to their patients. But there are other rules preventing reporting the crimes of the co-workers.

Why? What this is all about? I thought for a few moments and… aha, I know why! What would happen if people could report the crimes of their co-workers? They obviously know so much about each other’s crimes that every governmental office, every hospital, university, etc., will cease to exist withing a few months.

Canada is listed as #9 least corrupt country in the world. If reporting of crimes of the co-workers were allowed, Canada would move to the first place on the corruption index.

Exactly the same “confidentiality” rules exist in the science administration – in universities and in their “watchdog” – NSERC; actually, these rules are imposed by the NSERC and all the “associations” (read – trade unions). The criminals inside remain inside. So, what happened to this nurse, she obviously made some mistake; was she caught denying jewish holocaust or was she a sexist?

Just one question

On April 9, 2012, I sent to the NSERC Secretariat 20 allegations of fraud perpetrated in the UofT investigative report of my case. I also made some such allegations years before, and they were never answered, but the new rules of 2012 obliged the Secretariat, Susan Zimmerman, the Executive Director of the Secretariat, to investigate such allegations.

The Secretariat did not investigate my allegations, lying that my “concerns” were already “addressed” by NSERC in their two letters (see below). (The full details are at

“Dear Mr. Pyshnov:
I am writing regarding the allegations brought by you against Dr. Larsen. This matter has been reviewed by NSERC’s Committee on Professional and Scientific Integrity.
The Committee agrees with the conclusions of the investigative report that there was no breach of scientific integrity by Dr. Larsen. The Committee considered that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable manner given your refusal to have the 1987 article published.
NSERC now considers this matter closed.
Yours sincerely,
Catherine Armour
Research Integrity Officer”

“Dear Mr. Pyshnov:
This is my response to your request to me, sent by e-mail on February 17, 2003. I have read your letter carefully and reviewed the file. There is no basis for any new action on this matter by NSERC. I can assure you that NSERC officials have acted with the highest probity and integrity. NSERC has not ever, and would never, participate in any fraud and cover-up.
I am satisfied that this difficult case was treated fairly and in accordance with policies in effect at the time. Thus, I see no requirement for my intervention. As for information related to your complaint, I would remind you that the inquiry was conducted by the university, not by NSERC. Accordingly, you participated in the process, you were provided with a copy of the final report by the institution, and, subsequently, you were advised by NSERC that our Committee agreed with the university’s conclusion. More recently, you have been invited to make a request using the Access to Information Act, which is the required approach for individuals seeking access to government documents. This is a process determined by law in which I cannot intervene. NSERC is required to provide you with information to which you are entitled, after which you will have recourse to the Information Commissioner and to the courts.
Yours truly,
T. A. Brzustowski [President of NSERC]”

I don’t see in these two letters any answers to my 20 allegations of fraud in the UofT investigative report. In both letters, NSERC only agreed with this report.


Toronto Public Library cooperates with criminals

Toronto Public Library now took a communist action against my sites. This site in the Library shows text but the links to and to the particular documents are corrupted. The site does not show at all, their computer pretends to be downloading it, indefinitely. In the Toronto Public Library all links from the other sites to the University of Toronto Fraud apparently are corrupted in all Internet.

There is no explanation, but this is evidently an act of cooperation with criminals. They know that I cannot do anything, have no money, and even if I had money I would never ever get a single official or the lawyer or the court on my side.

Worse, my Stat Counter shows that the pages were requested, but it does not show that the computer did not display these pages, so the method that is used is deceitful. This method can be used by the criminals in any other place throughout the globe, and I would never know who had seen my sites and who had not. I have some indications that this actually is the case, but of course I cannot travel.

What can change the situation is references to my case in the scientific media. But, so far, there is only 1 (one). This is in the paper by M. Kumar “A Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical Research” in Journal of Academic Ethics (DOI: 10.1007/s10805-008-9068-6). The pdf file that I downloaded is crossed in red by “For internal use only!”. The paper says:

“In plagiarism of authorship a person claims himself or herself to be the author of a complete work belonging to others. This is probably the meanest form of plagiarism. It often occurs when mentors plagiarise the work done by their students or junior researchers and completely deny authorship to the vulnerable students even though the entire research may have been conceived and conducted by the students with hardly any participation by the mentor. The junior person often never gets any justice as exemplified by the case of Michael Pyshnov’s research concerning cell division in the University of Toronto was ‘stolen’ by his mentor and her coterie of co-authors. All Pyshnov got after his fight for justice was loss of career as a brilliant researcher.”

I have already sustained 30 years of fraud, persecution, mental and physical torture and provocation. In 30 years I never even raised my voice once, I knew what will follow – arrest and the death in prison.

Problem: we start seeing things as they are

Last evening on Paikin, the question was about the latest views of the political Left and Right. There are changes and they are not welcome. I think they mentioned the word Populism.

Actually, the new situation is this.

People are slowly discovering that all these Capitalists, Government, Bankers, Zionists, Globalists, Corporations, Elite, Bilderbergers, New World Order, in other words – the political Right, are simply a gang of Communists, that’s it – Communists.

It appears, they are all Marxists, their goal is to take away all means of production from the private hands and kill all private enterprise. People are discovering that their goal is to turn our entire world into one communist nation – THE NATION OF EMPLOYEES. All production is already in the hands of the Corporations which actually are the extensions of the Government and are “managed” by the appointed individuals, not by Capitalists.

On paper, Corporations are owned by the millions of citizens, the shareholders, but in reality they don’t even know where their investments are. People are discovering that the ruling governments are making them into a cattle, with workplace and salary and no alternative and no complaints accepted. Individuals will have land the size of their grandfather’s grave, lest one gets an idea to feed chickens. Government is removing all stores selling raw materials.

It is slowly being discovered that the people they called Activists, are actually the agents of the government with a special task – leading the crowd to fight “Capitalism” (which of course does not exist anymore). It can be remembered that Activists actually promoted the deadly Globalisation with the songs of the Global Village. It can also be remembered how media propaganda was lying to the people about the “greedy capitalist Corporations”, and hiding the fact that Corporations are actually a part of the Marxist scheme depriving the individuals of their rights of ownership and the right to make their own product.

I am sure, Bankers now feel the change (not the one they were preparing) and are working on publishing “The People’s Guide to Populism”, Harbage University Press. Government starts selling marihuana.


Soon after I came to Canada I had some questions about the economic and political order here. It didn’t look to me that the country was truly a “free world”. For instance, in the immigration office, I asked which papers here are on the Right and on the Left. The answer was: “eee..all our papers are truthful”. Then I saw a cover of the “Economist” with “Is there anything private anymore?”

Years later I found a book by Adolf A. Berle “Power Without Property”, 1959, Harcourt, Brace and Co., NY. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know the truth, well, at least to know about the first period of the communist subversion. Berle was not a conspiracy theorist, he was the US Secretary of State. His books now are never mentioned. He opposed J.K. Galbraith and his “Affluent Society” which laid the foundation for the destruction of the free economy and the free society in the West. Berle was an economist and a honest man. Galbraith – a demagogue. Galbraith won.

Prof. Ellen Larsen, the thief, presented her justifications

Below are Larsen’s own justifications for her multiple frauds. This is the document that alone would send her to jail in any country ruled by law (doc.25 on my list of documents at

The story was this. Larsen, my PhD supervisor, fraudulently terminated my PhD program, preventing me from writing my thesis. After I left, she, without my knowledge, wrote a manuscript with my research, put her name as the second author and sent it for publication. When it was accepted, Larsen asked for my signature. I called her a thief and refused to publish it. I received a letter from the Department saying that Larsen has withdrawn the manuscript. However, I found that she later published it under her name as her own research (see

Let’s see what she is saying.


1) Larsen says that the first manuscript and her paper “deal with the significance” of my discoveries, while in fact both papers claim my discoveries, not only deal with their significance.

2) Larsen is lying that she “suggested that one could look at mutations which change the type of appendage produced and see if the mutant also changed the cell arrangement patterns”. She never made this suggestion.

In the doc.04 (see the link to the list of the documents above), Larsen says:
“He has hypothesized that each disc should have specific cell arrangements which are “prepatterns” of the adult structures. … Mr. Pyshnov’s demonstrated creativity in conceiving of this novel approach plus his superb technical skills uniquely qualify him to carry out these studies of far reaching significance.”

At the start of my PhD project Larsen proposed that I study specific mutations in Drosophila that produce altered organs and she gave me a number of articles on the subject. In about two weeks I proposed a new hypothesis explaining these mutations. I predicted the existence of specific cell arrangements, functioning as prepatterns for development, which should be different in the different organs and of course in the mutant organs. Larsen was stunned because researchers were searching for some prepatterns for years, and here I pointed to the actual tissue structures that should represent these prepatterns. (My experiments later proved the hypothesis to be correct.)

Before writing these “justifications”, Larsen never claimed authorship of any part of my theory or any part of my work at all. But, moreover, she knew nothing about cell arrangements and could not understand most of the theory. In the both abstracts that she wrote (the manuscript and the paper), she was unable to correctly describe the results of the research (see

A year before I came to this university, I published a theoretical paper describing specific tissue structures and the rules of cell division. (This paper was later admitted by Larsen and the university to be the theoretical foundation of my PhD project (their Statement of Defence in court, doc.36, para.22 ).

3) Larsen says that her paper is different from the withdrawn manuscript in that “…in the second paper discs from the two mutant strains were compared…”. She is lying: in the abstract of her paper this work on “two mutant strains” is not even mentioned, the abstract reports my discoveries, nothing else. In the text, she is also discussing my discoveries as if done by her earlier. She speaks of the “hundreds” of experiments done “in the course of the last six years”, not even mentioning my name!

4) She makes a mockery of the academic law, saying that results of her paper “corroborate” the results in the unpublished manuscript, and this is not a plagiarism. She of course plagiarised my unpublished research that was the subject of the first manuscript. (See the titles, abstracts and authors of the first manuscript and her paper compared at

This actually was her second paper stealing my research. Her first paper contained another fraud: she pretended that I did publish my research with her as the second author earlier, and she invented a bogus reference that leads nowhere; such publication never existed.

PARA. 4 and 5

She gives a completely fraudulent version of the law of authorship. She says that she “gathers” that I believe that I “own” my discoveries and I want to “suppress the use of ideas”. I never said this, I said that she plagiarised my research and ideas. In the most insolent way this impostor refers to “the culture of science”, “the standards of common decency” and “tradition of scientific courtesy”. She continues: “He has failed to recognize that science is a community endeavor paid for by the public with the obligation to present the results, and with the reward of being acknowledged by those who use them”. Did she steal my research to “present the results” to the “community”? And had she terminated my PhD program with the same purpose?


She says that she “gratefully and graciously” acknowledged my “technical and intellectual contributions”. She is lying. Her acknowledgement reads: “We thank Michael Pyshnov for sharing his silver staining technique and his ideas with us.” Which ideas? No reader is able to say what these ideas were. In the beginning of her justifications, she admits that I “prohibited her to publish” the first manuscript. But, in her acknowledgement she is lying that I “shared” with her my technique and ideas.

In fact, her paper contains my ideas, experiments and technique, all transferred from the withdrawn manuscript. How she managed to publish this? Following my refusal to sign the manuscript, she wrote to the editor that she is withdrawing the manuscript but will submit a “new” paper (doc.19). She deceived the editor: she simply published the same my research as her own, with a fraudulent acknowledgement.

But Larsen is not just a fraud, she is a sadistic degenerate, in the new terminology – a psychopath. She says that I “forfeited a publication for naught”. The “forfeited” idea should have come to her from her multiple private businesses, but this idiot missed the point that authorship is not a real estate, authorship is a fact and as such, it cannot be taken away, transferred to another person or forfeited. That’s what the law says.


She was lying several times about the calculated fraud by which she managed to remove me from the university.
In the doc.08 (Jan 24, 1986, the “academic decision”) she lied that “he would allow his PhD candidacy to lapse” although I never said this.
In doc.19 (Sept. 16, 1987) she lied that “he became unable to do more research” and said “his graduate student status was changed to “lapsed student”.
In the above document, she drops the lie about my inability and does not say that my program was terminated. She is lying that I was only “warned”, and says: “He left the program amicably when his money ran out.”
This prostitute of science published four papers about my research which she judged insufficient for my PhD thesis.

Throughout this document, Larsen is acting as if she is still my supervisor and boss, not the thief and impostor she really is. She was absolutely sure that all my complaints to the officials will fall. The law in this country does not exists. The officials are bought and sold. This is why Larsen did not go to jail.

What happens when you hire females, minorities and others, “discriminated against”?

Disaster happens. You don’t actually get females and discriminated, you get crooks who happen to be females. Why? That’s how the social mechanisms work.

When such job announcement is made, the crooks understand it for what it really means: you can be incapable and incompetent, you are only needed for political purposes. Well, what are these political purposes? Clearly: government and corporations need OBEDIENT servants.An incapable female will throughout all her career remember that she must be grateful for the appointment, since she is an idiot in a good position. Unless she is an extreme unreasonable feminist, she will obey all orders, no matter what they can be. She will lick the hands that gave her the undeserved fortune.

This female, no doubt, will have to beat a competition of many other crooks like her. And the winner will be the crookiest of them all. Then, on the job already, the dumb female is safe: no one will dare to even hint at her unsuitability, because that will be, unquestionably, regarded as a hint to her being hired as female, not as a competent employee, with all the horrific consequences for the career of the sexist-for-life complainer.

We see the results; in my view it’s a disaster, in the view of the government and corporations it’s a success. Explaining: they need 1. Employment rate sufficient to avoid riots, 2. They don’t need (actually, they fear) any competent employees, because competence results in self-respect and independence. The secret, you see, is that employers make an abominable product, a few items on the production line at no cost, the same items for the entire world with a short lifetime to a garbage can. Can you imagine what would happen to that product if a competition from an independent, competent people is allowed? In science, it’s all the same policy, but the fear of an outstanding individual is far greater.

Coming back to the females. Are they all willing to be promoted for having a vagina? Apparently not, because I know about ONE case when SHE REFUSED. And made it public! Karen Selick, Ontario lawyer, said (1991): “I was being asked to consider becoming a judge because I happen to be the owner of a vagina instead of a penis.” ( She explained that hiring of judges by their sex, race, etc. is incompatible with the goals of justice. But the bloody criminals who run the administration in Canada never wanted any justice; Karen Sellick may be did not understand this. How many of the 1200 (sic!) females who were proposed in 1991 by the Attorney-General to become judges are now toeing the line of this criminal government?

What I know is that a lawyer told me that if any lawyer will take my court case, his children will not be able to find a job in Canada.

Toronto Star on research fraud, old lies (July 12, 2016)

Once in a few years, some newspaper publishes a piece on the subject. Each time – using the same bogus explanations. This time, by Michael Robinson, “Canadian researchers who commit scientific fraud are protected by privacy laws”. The title should be: “Canadian researchers who commit scientific fraud are protected by Susan Zimmerman referring to privacy laws” because no matter what the governmental agency can or cannot do, NOBODY who committed a fraud is protected if a reporter can publish available authentic documents, period. Now, some other points in this Robinson article.

1) The article “discovers”, so to speak, that it is very wrong that universities are allowed to investigate themselves. This is now the year 2016, but I sent to the Chair of the Expert Panel on Research Integrity, Paul Davenport, on November 11, 2010, 6 years ago, my letter (published on this site below: “Canadian universities are made free from any accountability. Corruption and fraud ARE continuing”), saying:

“They [universities] are accountable only to themselves; universities might or might not investigate their own corruption, fraud, etc. In the past, they never found themselves guilty: every crime was covered up.”

Davenport even answered me, but with this crap:

“Our panel, after review of the extensive literature on research integrity and after much deliberation, came to the conclusion that a positive approach to research integrity, based on education and open discussion, is essential. The CCRI was conceived in that spirit, and our panel hopes that something like the CCRI will be introduced as a result of our report. At the same time, our Report suggests that the authority for setting rules for research integrity, and enforcing those rules, should remain with the universities, hospitals, and Tri-Council.”

Was I the only one who knew that giving universities the right to investigate themselves AND MAKING SUCH UNIVERSITY INVESTIGATION THE ONLY INVESTIGATION ALLOWED IN ACADEMIA, was a recipe to allow unrestricted corruption, bribery, etc. No, everybody knew this! The corrupt officials celebrated, others – were scared to loose their sinecure and remained silent.

2) Robinson repeats the decades-old misleading argument that privacy laws prevent blah-blah… disclosure of the names of the fraud perpetrators. Well, first, the names and the documents can be obtained from the sources other than the official ones. That’s what INDEPENDENT PRESS IN FREE COUNTRIES has been doing for decades. Remember the publication of secret Pentagon papers?

But, there is another problem with this misleading argument of privacy. The govt. agency (now – Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research), makes it look that the issue of secrecy can be related only to THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY FOUND GUILTY. But those found guilty, if properly punished, are not of the greatest interest to the public.

What the public must know are all cases, allegations and the documentary evidence, but not necessarily the names of the accused, because the real problem is that the universities and the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research are CORRUPT and they EXONERATE PERPETRATORS OF FRAUD FOR THEIR OWN CORRUPT REASONS (bribes, politics and the ever-present conflict of interest).

Indeed, in that Report of the CCRI to which Davenport had referred, there is a clear admission that the university administration has a CONFLICT OF INTEREST when investigating the fraud in the university. No any other admission was needed to prohibit university self-regulation and self-policing, if Canada wanted that research integrity.

3) The next decades-old misleading argument is that university administration, when covering up fraud, is acting to protect the university reputation, so that administrators are not really bad people. Not true. A crook who is lying to exonerate the perpetrators of fraud is, in fact, acting to save his own skin and the skin of his friends because the whole line of lying administrators is involved. Nobody would believe otherwise, but I simply have documents to prove this.

4) Another decades-old lie saying that if the rules and the procedures are improved, the integrity in research will also improve. You have to be a naive outsider to believe this. In the last several decades universities underwent a “change”. Scientists are no longer in control; they became puppets of the administrators who have nothing to do with science and were chosen for political reasons, often they are lawyers. 3/4 or more of the scientists today came from the “maruana” generation with political demands and without real interest in science, free from cultural traditions and ethical principles. That’s where the rules and procedures came in. In the absence of general culture, they now spit on the rules and procedures.

An example here is Susan Zimmerman and her Secretariat who refused to investigate my complaint against University of Toronto, lying that this complaint was already investigated by NSERC twice (sic!), see
Susan Zimmerman is the top watchdog of science integrity in Canada, a lawyer, has nothing to do with science, and a criminal. It’s Susan Zimmerman who should be investigated for fraud first.

Cleaning up canadian science must start with making public the crimes of the administration and establishing integrity courts composed of scientists who would not sell their scientific reputation for bribes or under the pressure from political “groups” and “activists”. All that requires establishing free press, freedom of speech and giving genuine power to the whistleblowers, i. e. opening the iron curtain surrounding all mass media.

CBC TV continues wondering about fraud in science

Today, I watched the CBC program by Kelly Crowe (it was an improved version of the story of April 19) –

The first person fighting against “the dark forces at work in science and medicine” presented by Kelly Crowe was Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor of British Medical Journal. Obviously to me, Kelly Crowe has no knowledge of the situation. I had exchange of letters with Fiona Godlee where she tried to block my reference to the University of Toronto fraud documents. Finally, as far as I remember (I have these letters), she only agreed to allow my email address in my posting to BMJ, not the URL of my website where the documents are. Fiona Godlee is a part of the establishment that has no desire to expose fraud in science.

The second fighter for truth in Kelly Crowe presentation was Dr. Ivan Oransky, in whose blog “Retraction Watch” I published numerous comments while he allowed the URL of my site “University Toronto fraud”. Yet, at one point he banned my comment where I showed that human females have no abilities to draw; as a matter of fact, there were only one female painter among 2000 of men in the Dutch school. At this point in time, the truth in science and anywhere else is a function of leftist, openly communistic politics that now is destroying science and the best scientists. A year ago, Oransky showed astonishing political bias in the case of Sir Tim Hunt, the Nobel laureate, who was removed from the University College of London for “sexism”. The “sexism” was alleged to be present in his joke at a conference.

The truth in science certainly has no chance to emerge when perpetrators of fraud are jewish, females or communists, often this political travesty is not even kept secret, and the situation sometimes turns comical. Look at the reaction to my comment from Dr. S. Rivlin at He posted two answers to me, one – before he learned that the perpetrators of fraud were jews and the second – after that.

Another example of political accusations purported to negate all documentary proof of Larsen’s and the UofT fraud, is at

I spoke of this earlier here (“The criminals are very angry with my web site”). This was again practically a confession saying: don’t look at the fraud, look at Michael Pyshnov – he is anti-semite.

A long time shall pass, and very probably, even a great war, before the public, now – at its lowest point in centuries, will be able to tell the criminal from the victim and the truth from falsification.

The fellow Yid problem

Just two weeks after I noted (my previous post) that a string of jewish officials in the UofT and in the canadian government supported the fraud of the jewish crook in the university and, one after another, blatantly obstructed justice to save this criminal from jail, there appeared an article in the Australian “The Age” disclosing jewish motivations in preventing prosecution of jewish criminals.

Australian criminal lawyer, Lewenberg, told a jew who was a sex abuse victim that he should not help police to prosecute a sex abuser who was “a fellow Jew”. This was recorded. Lewenberg said:

“I am not exactly delighted that another Yid would assist police against an accused, no matter whatever he is accused of…”
And he explained:
“Because there is a tradition, if not a religious requirement, that you do not assist against Abraham.”

Lewenberg was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Australian Adminstrative Tribunal, his practicing certificate was suspended for 15 months, and he was sent to study legal ethics. From the article: “Judge Jenkins said that Mr Lewenberg’s behaviour in suggesting the Jewish community should close ranks in the face of criminal prosecution was “truly shocking”.

The management of Canada should think about this.

See the article:
Lawyer Alex Lewenberg banned after telling sex abuse victim not to accuse a ‘fellow Yid’ by Tom Cowrie — The Age April 13, 2016.

CBC Doc Zone, psychopathic manipulators

A couple of days ago I watched, for about half an hour, the DOC Zone program about psychopaths in high positions. There were no DOCs, only a psychopathic, and psychopathically delivered, indoctrination. Psychopaths were all males, the examples of their victims were females. Nothing documented.

The main relevant point, that Canada is ruled by criminals, probably – psychopaths, animals who break the law and are protected by the rules, regulations and procedure and never go to jail for their crimes, was missing. That the top administrative positions are occupied by those who routinely, quite consciously and sadistically commit administrative crimes destroying the lives of the citizens, that was missing. The fact that some of these crimes are perfectly documented, and that these documents are not shown to the public because the press and the television protect the psychopathic criminals and their unlimited power, was, understandably, not mentioned.

So, the presentation was just another vagina monologue based on the largest ever brewed and the most psychopathic of all conspiracy theory saying that men are conspiring against women and preventing them from becoming great scientists, architects, painters and saviours of humanity.

Such blatant political fraud is not surprising: there is no mass media that would challenge the monopoly of talented jews and their attack dogs, the “lesbians”, on shaping public opinion. The producers are also protected by the laws that can put in jail any private political opponent; such court cases are rare but the punishment is publicised and is quite persuasive.

Conversely, the charges against a real canadian psychopathic criminal cannot be even laid when the criminal belongs to the politically protected elite. Neither the mass media will talk about any facts clashing with the political directives. The CBC four times refused even to look at the documents presented by me. The secret was: they learned (not from me) that the psychopathic criminal, actually a prostitute of science who removed me from the university and stole my research, was a jewish woman with the politically protected sexual orientation.

Of a dozen people who protected her in the university and in the Government (the head of the department, the dean, the university president, presidents of two governmental ministries, etc.), some ten were jews. Lastly, the chief governmental investigator who committed a fraud covering up the crimes of this prostitute of science, was a jewish female pervert in her office of seven other females. It finally came to the ridiculous: the decision makers must now have a politically certified body. Nobody else can be trusted. And what a job they are doing!

PLOS journal scam

Why science is going down the drain? It’s the bizarre science politics, it’s the crooked journals. A rather extreme example of it is below.

PLOS-One has published a paper by D.R. Grimes (Oxford) debunking all “conspiracy theories” at once, all of them. He says that a conspiracy theory with the alleged large number of conspirators cannot be true because if it were true, some of the conspirators would come forward, “leak” the information and “expose” the conspiracy. He, moreover, gives statistical calculations showing how many years a real conspiracy can survive without a “scandal”. Therefore, he says, conspiracy theories do not describe real conspiracies, but are just crap.

I wrote my comment on the Grimes paper saying that the paper is wrong. I said, there is no such sure mechanism that will make “a leak” into a scandal, unless mass media decides to make that scandal. I said that corruption in mass media prevents scandals and I gave my experience with Nature magazine (posted at

My comment lived only a few hours, and was removed. I received no email explaining the reasons. Moreover, my communications with the journal were electronically cut off, I cannot write to them either.

The journal published another comment that repeated my argument. This comment is titled:
“Between the exposure and the scandal stands the media declaring what we are expected to believe.”
My words in the removed comment were:
“Between the “exposure” and the “scandal” stands the media declaring what should be believed and what should not.”

Here is my comment, a screen shot:
Here is the URL of the new comment:

My comment was at
Before it was removed, it was seen, according to my stat. counter, by 10 people.

The text of the two comments is very different: my comment goes to the real tragedy that hit the world of science, while the new comment avoids this. PlOS would not allow publishing the true causes and concrete examples of corruption in science. PLOS journal is a part of this corruption, probably the worst part of it.

Meanwhile, still another comment has revealed that the mathematical part of the Grimes paper is wrong ( Interestingly, the Grimes paper is receiving great attention and praise around the world.Will PLOS retract the paper? I don’t think so.

This scam reminds me of the old and forgotten stories from Balkan countries about the tricks of the gypsies or jewish prostitutes. Only this now is a multi-million dollars operation.

Interestingly, the PLOS journal was founded by some members of the London based charity – COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), of which I wrote several years ago ( The COPE style was also shockingly deceitful and unprofessional, but for some reason this charitable organisation gained control over 5000 of scientific journals, issuing their Code on publication ethics and collecting the fees from these journals for COPE services. This was when they had no scientists on their board.

How serious is all this? I don’t think it is serious at all. True, money changed hands, the world received a new “proof” that conspiracy theories are wrong which can be exploited by those who wish to exploit it. Science made a small step farther down the drain. And the gypsies are ready for their new adventures.

The criminals are very angry with my web site.

On January 8, 2015, I noticed a number of visitors coming to my site from In three days there were over 400 visitors. Someone made an entry “A chilling account of how an UofT PhD student had his work stolen by his supervisor” and gave a link to my site. Three comments followed from “eeeeeeekamouse” that put the matter in this way: the guy (that is me) is “racist” and “sexist” and he should not be believed by anybody. I also posted my comment. The comments can be seen at

However, a few days later the name of the poster – “eeeeeeekamouse” was removed and replaced by “[deleted]”. Here is how it looked before:

Initially, I thought that these comments were written by the U of T administration, but the removal of the name makes me think that the author can be Larsen herself. Every time she is trying to deny her fraud, she covers herself with more shit and then trying to hide it.

The “eeeeeeekamouse” is denying the fraud and lying about everything. He (or she) does not refer to any documents, but giving long quotations from my web site reflecting my politically incorrect views, especially ones related to jews. How does it help to deny the fraud?

Amazingly, “eeeeeeekamouse” says that “letters of reference for NSERC awards” that were given to me, mean nothing because “everyone knows that all reference letters are overhyped BS.” (Most of the letters were written by Larsen.) Aha, the university made a “mistake” giving the awards to someone who now is suing them for fraud. The angry criminals are now trying to correct their “mistake”. What a scum!

All I said about the conspiracy in the university is absolutely true, for example, these very clear words:

“Jews, communists, “lesbians”, feminists and marihuana addicts, all, unfortunately for me, had a representation in the figure of Professor Larsen, and saw their special interest in saving her. They acted as a mob. The cunning professor-criminal used political corruption in this society to stay out of jail.”

This is the actual corrupt political situation now, where so-called “groups” gang up to defend “one of their own” when he or she commits crime. In addition to the groups mentioned above, the groups who will protect “one of their own” include doctors, police, university professors, etc. The victims of this activity are intimidated and are totally helpless. There are no whistleblowers and no laws defending individual citizens.

The current wave of the victims will be the school children of Ontario perverted by “lesbians”. Steve Paikin (TVOntario) recently spoke of some mysterious “fear” spreading in the Ontario school boards, but missed to say what actually is the issue. (Was he afraid to appear “sexist”?) One single word, however, was uttered by his guest, the issue appears to be “gender”. Yet, he, surprisingly, revealed that the “feared” group has the support of the “province” (read – the “lesbian” Premier of Ontario?). Too late, Steve! You cannot beat the “gender” gang, unless you, as a journalist should, tell the whole truth.

Layers of Corruption. 1. Jewish Support for the Jewish Crime

In some other place, the man could have been a fine jewish lawyer. In Canada, the country where the prime minister has practically ordered citizens to support jewish criminals, the man is merely a jewish crook. I am talking about Michael Silver, the founder of the Alternative Dispute Resolution office in Toronto. The court ordered that my case against University of Toronto be heard in that ADR office. Here is the story.

My former PhD supervisor comes practically hanging on the hands of her lawyer. That’s another “overdose”. She keeps a rug under her nose. This is not a flu. I know, in the lab she used to say: “O, Michael, this is not contagious.” Stupid me, I should have left ADR office immediately, but I stayed, did not want to embarrass…, didn’t look at her. Now comes the judge. He does not take a seat, but says: “I am in conflict of interest. A lawyer who knows the case will come soon.” Comes Michael Silver and asks for the depositions from both sides. Her lawyer is mumbling something about the pressure in the university, pressure to publish papers, “publish or perish” formula. So, of course, she stole my research…

Michael Silver puts the parties in separate rooms and himself negotiating. Suddenly, he asks me: “Are you jewish?”. (A relevant question?) Well, I answer: “I am jewish by birth, but I am a Christian by Faith”. A pause. Michael Silver then says: “You will never get your research back“. That’s the end of the ADR for me, for two reasons.

Times now are slowly changing. You now see people, jews, who are breaking with the cult, obviously want to have a human face after all. They do not want to support criminals. They speak out, denounce “zionism”. In this country, only a handful broke with the cult. One has to become a dissident and likely to loose the job if one wants to have a human face. I personally have not seen one who dared.

At every step in my fight against the fraud I encountered an official who openly supported the crime, moreover – blamed me for something. Not everyone was so blunt as Michael Silver, and, so, they invented “justifications” for the obvious fraud.

The first justification is that I had no right to refuse signing the manuscript that actually made my parasite supervisor a co-author of my research. The second justification is that she did not steal my research but only “salvaged” it. The third is that I was receiving the best scholarship in Canada. None of these justifications was ever elaborated… And this is where the matter stands now.

The criminal, thief, parasite and impostor went to the full professorship. The new Head of the Department looked at my web page and apparently only benefited for not stopping the criminal.

Canada, its Universities, Intellectuals and Scoundrels

I stumbled upon a letter, a long one, written by V. Fabrikant. It’s on the web site of Dr. Julian Hermida, Associate Professor of Law, Algoma University:

I found no place on the large web site of Dr. Hermida, referring to this letter. The letter, however, is of paramount importance to anyone who wants to understand Canada, its universities, its intellectuals and scoundrels. I could not read all of this letter describing how he was persecuted and provoked to violence: too much for my nerves. But I had the same experiences or very similar ones. The difference in my experience was that I had it mostly in letters and at the time when I was already not in the university (the prostitute of science removed me before she stole my PhD research and before the persecution and provocation started).

My reaction was also different, partly because I had only minimal contact with the scoundrels and partly because of my innate instinct telling me to immediately depart and remove myself when facing a scoundrel. V. Fabrikant was in a different situation, he could not escape…

The marihuana, counterculture, the celebration of all sorts of deviations and perversions, the fraudulent claims of special “rights” arising from historic discrimination, all that filthy and self-serving movement of the 60’s, could not have produced anything but new generations of scoundrels sitting in academia and in the government, all – “intellectuals” with the claims to uniqueness, exclusivity and superiority, in fact – each with unbelievable envy to the success of the real doers, and all – having among their highest pleasures an act of “smart” cruelty, proving, of course, one’s intellectual superiority.

The Canada’s scoundrel has the right to make administrative decisions and discretionary decisions deeply affecting someone’s life. He is also playing on the psychology of the man who, for a long period, has no choice but to belive that an official should be impartial and honest.

The methods used are the traditional methods of Canadian institutions: degrading the man, isolating the man from the society and all possible support, suppressing public reporting of the events, blatantly falsifying the law and the procedure of the law and blatantly and sadistically derailing the process of justice and repeatedly provoking the innocent man to act irrationally. The administration forms a united front. The man has no idea of the scale of the conspiracy and he is trying his best writing his… appeals. He has no idea that his appeals can with the same success be made to the Heavens. On the Earth, some are bribed, the others just want to keep their jobs. The man is actually made an idiot – he continues calling the scoundrels professors, presidents, etc. He, idiot, thinks that if he goes to a still higher authority, some authority, finally, will say: Enough! It never happens, you are in Canada. All administration is one entity, they would not overthrow the decision of “one of their own”.

With V. Fabrikant it was all very simple – he was isolated and provoked beyond human endurance. When scoundrels won, when they reached their goal (the man was provoked and was now guilty), Canada did not stop. CBC made a movie that parodied the figure of V. Fabricant, parodied his Russian accent, and concocted the story that he shot four people because he was denied tenure in Concordia University! Canada’s television had completely and finally exonerated the real criminals – the administration who, I have no doubt whatsoever, directed the persecution and the provocation.

Canada did not ask the only relevant and the only warranted by the law question:
What was the moving force and the reason behind denying, in two administrative investigations, V. Fabrikant’s legitimate (and later proved) allegations of corruption in the university? Was the administration bribed?

I return to V. Fabrikant’s agonising story, now myself given one more letter from the Canadian Government pursuing the same goal that was pursued for almost three decades by the University of Toronto – the goal of provocation. This is now the third letter from NSERC refusing to investigate my allegations of fraud, but now also, openly lying that my allegations were “addressed” in their two previous letters:

I repeat, it is important to understand the “work” that is being done in Canada again and again. From Chinese immigrants to residential schools, to orphanages, to hockey teams, to universities, Canada makes innocent men sick, kills them in one place or another.

Adam Lanza and the Justice based on DNA

The stories appeared in Daily Mail and Yahoo News telling that the DNA of Adam Lanza who is blamed in mass shooting in Connecticut school, will be analysed for the presence of some, yet unknown, gene responsible for violence. You cannot stop science and, on the other side, you cannot stop the attempts to discover new methods to fight crime.

The new methods will mean taking into account the considerations that so far were forbidden. From times immemorial, justice was supposed to be blind to the identity of the persons on trial. But the world is “progressing”: they say now that the difference between good people and bad people, criminals and innocents, doers and crooks, can be determined a priory. Such are the requirements of social justice. Activists in social sciences, universities, governments and courts have already contributed a great deal to the practice of justice, but somehow, their contributions remain seen, in every case, as a transparent fraud. Wider possibilities will appear when hard science is used.

The dead Lanza shall make the start here. DNAs will be (ethically) analysed for the presence of genes prompting shooting, undesirable attitudes, fraud and… you name it. Having hard data, the social justice will be able to form hard decisions.


1. All characters having similar to George Madoff’s set of evidence, or Ellen Larsen’s set of evidence, if found to have the gene of fraud, will be found NOT GUILTY since a person cannot be held responsible for having a gene. The list of such characters can extend to millions even if limited to one genetic group.

2. Those who long ago were accused of being Hitlers, such as Saddam Hussein, Milosevich and others, by genetic analysis, will be confirmed to be Hitlers, resulting in complete exoneration of their killers.

3. Children killed in drone attacks and by other means throughout the Moslem world, will be carefully examined for the presence of the terrorist gene.

4. Females accused of killing their children or husbands, or both, will be analysed for the presence of a gene linked to otherwise unexplained (by social science) violence; a gene that can be expressed at one time, but not expressed in another time. There is an assured humanistic potential for this research on the DNA level, since it already is being conducted on a lower level of science.

This blog has some notoriety

If you print in Google: SCIENCE MISCONDUCT CANADA this blog comes in second place among 2,610,000 results. In the first place is the article in Nature “Canada urged to tackle research misconduct”.

In Canadian Google, Scientist in Canada comes first.

But can you make Canada to react to the crimes that everybody noticed? The answer is – No. Deny, deny, deny.

The model that turned out to be much more than first thought

In this little blog, so far, I exposed the enemy – the animals that don’t let me to do my work. I will say now what my work is. Here is the topological model of a structure that I first described in 1980 as the idealised structure of intestinal crypt.
The topological model
Here, there are cells in a fast proliferating tissue forming a finger-like structure. These cells divide in waves going around the structure in the spiral rows, here – the green cells resulted from such wave of cell division. The consecutive waves of cell division result in the growth of the structure. The secret of this order of division is in the preservation of the shape of the structure and its diameter, i. e. the obligatory requirement for the tissues in the adult organism that can renew their cells without affecting the shape of the tissue (i. e. dividing in the steady state). In the real intestinal crypt, the excess of cells at the open end is being passed to the villus and then shed to the intestine. This was the first model that showed the actual cells, their division and fate.

The model is obviously 3-dimensional. However, it was made with the rules operating only in two dimensions. It is a flat surface that was bending when the bottom was forming. Here, I start thinking that Nature can make complex structures without ever being bothered about the third dimension. Of course, the elements, the building blocks supply that third dimension in the various physical objects.

Recently, I asked myself whether other tissues can also represent the 2-dimensional design. While the crypt is a part of one-cell thick layer of epithelium, in other tissues cells are seen “packed” in 3-dimensions. Yet, I am coming to the stunning conclusion that this is an illusion, and that even liver originates from a 2-dimensional design. Here is what I mean:

Above, the 2-dimensional model of nodal growth in embryogenesis of liver. Now, in this growth the nodes come together and cells eventually fill the space between them. You have what appears as a dense 3-dimensional tissue, but in fact, the structure came from a 2-dimensional design. If this is indeed so, that is also the structure of many other tissues that arise as nodes and appear as nodes in the adult organism also.

(to be continued)

The latest fraud of NSERC

Believe it or not, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is the most respected criminal organisation in Canada. A couple of weeks ago, NSERC has committed a monstrous, truly monstrous, falsification of law.

I sent to the Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (it now belongs to Tri-Agency, but still a fraud) my “Allegations of Extreme Breaches of Policy by the University of Toronto” and they replied that NSERC had already “ADDRESSED” them in 1996 and 2003. They had the temerity not even to mention ANY of my 20 allegations (it’s a wholesale fraud). They referred to the 1996 and 2003 NSERC short letters (6 lines in one letter and 14 lines in another), where NOT A SINGLE of my past similar allegations was also mentioned. But, they say – the allegations were already “ADDRESSED”. How they were “ADDRESSED”? They were never mentioned!

This is all described, with the documents, at

NSERC is the only judge considering complaints against universities (fraud, plagiarism, falsification of research data, etc.) in this country. Several times, various people advocated creation of independent agency to do the job. And every time, NSERC managed to kill any proposal for another judge in Canada; NSERC remains the only judge and a corrupt one.

This latest fraud should put an end to NSERC!

Canadian universities are made free from any accountability. Corruption and fraud ARE continuing

On October 21, 2010, the Chair of the Expert Panel on Research Integrity (The Council of Canadian Academies), Dr. Paul Davenport, President Emeritus of the University of Western Ontario released the Report “HONESTY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRUST: FOSTERING RESEARCH INTEGRITY IN CANADA”.

The Report became a legal instrument that made all officials in Canadian universities free from any ACCOUNTABILITY.

They are accountable only to themselves; universities might or might not investigate their own corruption, fraud, etc. In the past, they never found themselves guilty: every crime was covered up. Yet, they ARE guilty; and on November 11, 2010, I sent my letter to Dr. Davenport:

Research integrity in Canada

Dear Professor Davenport,

In the last couple of years there were some indications that a central Canadian agency with power to investigate allegations of research misconduct outside university walls might be established. Instead, the new agency recommended by the report of The Expert Panel on Research Integrity will serve university administrators. There was a great irony in calling the proposed agency a “Canadian compromise”.

The report – “Honesty, Accountability and Trust: Fostering Research Integrity in Canada” – is a product of criminal manipulation by the Canadian academic establishment intended to continue the reign of lawlessness in the academia. As I absolutely clearly see it, Canada is preparing an agency that will blur the rules and multiply the theoretical outcomes to give university administration now total freedom in making arbitrary decisions. The report is saturated with terms intended to be interpreted arbitrarily. The future procedures of the agency will be mired in the infantility of the “non-adversarial approach”. The standards will be drastically degraded and science turned into a play.

It is well known that most of the complaints are always about plagiarism and falsification of the fact of authorship. While this is often perpetrated by the senior academic staff and PhD supervisors, these perpetrators are practically never punished by the administration. Quite cunningly, but of course betraying the intention to maintain the silence about these cases, the report recommends publication of only the cases of persons found guilty. Yet, there are real victims here who desperately need external investigative procedure and the acknowledgement that such cases do exist.

Here is, briefly, the investigative procedure that my case went through. Two decades ago, I became a victim of unprecedented fraud in the University of Toronto when my PhD program was fraudulently terminated and then, my unpublished research in cell biology and the fundamental discoveries that I made during the five years were stolen/plagiarised by my former supervisor, Dr. Ellen Larsen, and others.

I found her three plagiarised papers only years later. After complaining and receiving a letter from the Department denying plagiarism (despite absolutely incontrovertible evidence of it in the documents written by the perpetrator herself), I made a complaint to the NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, a member of the Tri-Council, the governmental body overseeing the research integrity). Following this complaint, University of Toronto conducted a completely fraudulent investigation that found Larsen not guilty. The investigation was conducted by one man, D. Dewees, who is a lawyer and who could not understand the papers in question. I could not talk to a competent person: there was no investigating panel. Moreover, as a lawyer, D. Dewees quite consciously falsified the applicable law and the academic rules. He was unable and unwilling to conduct proper investigation of facts also. I immediately complained to the Vice-Provost of the university that the investigation was not conducted by a panel of experts. My complaint was disregarded.

Next, I received from the NSERC just two lines in which: a) I was blamed for refusing to sign a paper written by Larsen with her name as the second author, and b) NSERC concluded that Larsen “behaved in a reasonable manner”. These last words were not explained, but in fact they stood for Lasen’s later publishing the same paper without my name and claiming my ideas, discoveries and “hundreds” of experiments done by me during five years, as her own.

NSERC approved the university investigation. I later learned that NSERC does not actually investigate any cases, however, it was its duty to make sure that a university investigation was conducted by a panel of experts. I complained to NSERC President, T. Brzustowski. He informed me that he read the documents of the case and found no violations of the “policies in effect at the time”. He wrote to me that NSERC would never do a fraud. In fact, Brzustowski covered up the fraud of University of Toronto and the fraud of the NSERC.

Canadian academia is ruled by a criminal organization that would rather provoke the complainant to violence than find wrongdoing within the university administration. Prof. V. Fabrikant complained of corruption in Concordia University for years. University investigations denied his allegations. He then shot four of his colleagues. The shooting prompted an external investigation that found his allegations of corruption true, and found that two Concordia University investigations were “misleading”, “superficial”, “not based on a proper inquiry”, “clearly and seriously deficient” and “inadequate”.

This pattern of covering up fraud, corruption and plagiarism in Canadian academy is well known and it is continuing. Not long ago, Journal of Canadian Medical Association published a paper “Call for arm’s-length national research integrity agency” ( It starts thus: “It’s the classic Canadian response to a problem like scientific misconduct, says Toronto physician–scientist Dr. Paul Pencharz. “Deny, deny, deny. Sweep it under the carpet.” Next, the editorial titled “Research misconduct? What misconduct?”, in the same journal (, asked: “Why has Canada lagged so far behind its Western counterparts in establishing comprehensive mechanisms and processes to deal with scientific misconduct?” and it said: “Let’s not wait for the next scandal.”

Obviously, the criminals in academia are waiting for the next scandal. They are, for the last 24 years provoking me beyond human endurance. Every answer that I received contained a blatant and humiliating fraud, each time rising to the level of mental torture.

The decision to create a new research integrity agency without a mandate to investigate complaints against universities is nothing but a plot to cover up the past crimes (in particular, the monstrous fraud of the University of Toronto and the NSERC) and allow the criminal activity in Canadian academia to continue indefinitely.

My conclusions:
1. More than often, fraud and other misconduct are covered up by university administration.
2. Currently, only the university administration has power to investigate allegations of research misconduct, and that would not be changed by creating the new Canadian Council for Research Integrity.
3. NSERC is in such relationships with university administration that make their policy making and disciplinary functions a complete profanation of justice. It would be interesting to know if NSERC ever made a disciplinary decision against a university administration. Probably never, despite the fact that university administration is covering up research misconduct.
4. There is an urgent need to establish a central agency having full investigatory powers and composed of scientists who have no ties to the establishment. Part of the panel must always be chosen from the scientific community in a manner a court jury is chosen: corruption and fear existed for too long and penetrated too deep.
5. The records of all cases must be made available to the public.

In the present situation I am losing all hope of returning my research under my name. The fraud of Ellen Larsen is continuing, the plagiarised papers published by her remain in the journals, the scientific record remains falsified. The only official investigation that was ever conducted was done by one dishonest lawyer, a Vice-Dean, who could not understand the papers, but was appointed to do the job by the University of Toronto. Since then, the criminals are trying to prevent any inquiry into this affair; they prohibit anyone else to look at the plagiarised papers (they tried to do this in court also). Canadian criminal mafia in academia defends the present rules that give universities a sole right to “investigate” their own fraud. That must be stopped.

This is how my scientific abilities and achievements were characterised when I was a PhD student:

“The theoretical published work shows extreme originality..”, “..he has been invited to international conferences to discuss this work..”, “..outlined an entirely novel approach..”, “This combination of technical and theoretical skill is rare.”, “..a tireless worker..”, “..capacity to read and think and synthesize information for weeks at a time.”, “His selection of problems and approach to them show a clarity of thinking and an appreciation for elegant work which make his contributions original.”, “..inquisitive mind..”, “.. great technical skill and perseverance..”, “..his contributions.. will continue to be above ordinary.”, “His devotion to ideas and the sacrifices he has made.. make it clear that he is a scholar by nature..”, “We estimate he is of first-class calibre.. our Departmental Graduate Committee ranked him 1st of 7 applicants for [the highest scholarship in Canada] awards. He has already proven himself as an independent researcher..”, “Mr. Pyshnov’s demonstrated creativity in conceiving of this novel approach plus his superb technical skills uniquely qualify him to carry out these studies of far reaching significance.”, “..a man of proven scholarly attainments..”, “..a very creative scientist..”

Yet, after five years, I was thrown to the street and the University of Toronto declared that my research was “salvaged” (sic!) by Ellen Larsen.

I must return my research and discoveries under my name. This is the bottom line.

You can see all the materials and the evidence referred to above in over 50 documents posted on my web site

I am asking you to take all available steps to end the rule of criminals in Canadian academia. It must be done now.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Pyshnov

On November 11, 2010, I received this letter from Dr. Davenport:

Dear Mr. Pyshnov,

Thank you for writing me with your views on academic integrity in Canadian universities.

While I am not able to comment on the particular cases to which you refer, I can respond to your characterization of our Report. Our panel, after review of the extensive literature on research integrity and after much deliberation, came to the conclusion that a positive approach to research integrity, based on education and open discussion, is essential. The CCRI was conceived in that spirit, and our panel hopes that something like the CCRI will be introduced as a result of our report. At the same time, our Report suggests that the authority for setting rules for research integrity, and enforcing those rules, should remain with the universities, hospitals, and Tri-Council.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Davenport

On November 16, 2010, I sent this letter to Dr. Davenport:

Dear Professor Davenport,

I thank you for answering my letter.

It still remains obvious that Canada needs an agency, outside universities, to investigate research misconduct. To avoid establishing such agency, the Panel confused the term “research misconduct” with “research integrity” and substituted the measures needed to deal with the first for the pure proclamations of the need for the second.

1. The Panel has admitted the existence of the “…inherent conflicts of interest in cases of alleged misconduct at institutions that hold investigative authority…” (page 3). On page 35: “…nearly all current investigative authority in Canada lies with the institution at which a misconduct is alleged to have occurred. This approach presents an inherent conflict of interest…” On the same page: “…Institutional leaders, for example, face an inherent conflict of interest in the event of a research misconduct allegation…” and: ” …the pursuit of an allegation relies heavily on an institutional manager…” The Panel knew that university administration cannot be trusted with the investigations, period. Why the panel continued trusting people who inherently are in a position to cover up research misconduct and stubbornly refused to set up an independent agency?

2. The Panel never showed that research misconduct will be effectively dealt with by repeating the rules and making proclamations in favour of research integrity. As a matter of fact, everyone who was ever found to have committed research misconduct was found doing this intentionally (the definition of misconduct), not due to the ignorance of the rules; they all knew the rules.

3. It should never be missed that assuring everybody, and university administration first, that there never will be an independent investigative agency, amounts to encouraging new misconduct. No one should wonder if the number of cases and the severity of misconduct will grow as a direct result of the Report. Covering up research misconduct by the university administration is greatly encouraged by the Report.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Pyshnov

At this point Dr. Davenport stopped talking.

Canadian Organic

The population is completely idiotized. So, the definition of Canadian organic food has now emerged in this way: It must contain 95% of organic ingredients. Idiots will never understand that “Canadian Organic” potato can now be made with 95% of potato and 5% of some DDT analogue or any other poison. Theoretically speaking, the “Canadian Organic” label will probably not be put on sugar with 5% of cyanide, but everything else is OK. No, I am not kidding you, PRACTICALLY ALL additives, hormones, preservatives, herbicides, insecticides and the silicon (used to make pizza cheese wonderfully smooth) ARE used by food producers in concentrations far less than now allowed 5%, although I am not completely sure about silicone, it might be in 50%. The “Canadian Organic” product-fraud will contain sulfite, benzoate, and ALL herbicides and insecticides to beat the previous records of shelf life, to bring it to 10 years, to 20 years!

Congratulations, government lawyers! Congratulations to Canadian food leadership for the smart new initiative! Congratulations to idiots whose life-long commitment made the Change possible!

“Research misconduct? What misconduct?”

The title above is not mine. This is the title of the next editorial in Can.Med.Ass.J. (March 27, 2007):

The editorial was written by Wayne Kondro (who wrote the previous piece) and by Dr. Paul Hébert, recently named as CMAJ Editor-in-chief.

They are asking this question:
“Why has Canada lagged so far behind its Western counterparts in establishing comprehensive mechanisms and processes to deal with scientific misconduct?”

One of the possible answers they give, is this:
“The mistaken notion that secrecy is in the best interest of all concerned because it shields institutions and individuals from having their reputations tarnished?”

So, they did not publish my letter, they are participating in the conspiracy of silence, and, they have the temerity to ask: May be we should blame the secrecy?

Very interestingly, in the last part of the editorial, they say: “Let’s not wait for the next scandal.”
Well, of course, everybody, including the staff of CMAJ, is waiting for the next scandal, more precisely, for the results of the bloody provocation.

Is it an absolute dishonesty?

Is it an absolute dishonesty fortified by bribes?

Covering up fraud is a rule in Canadian academia.

It is a routine procedure in Canadian academia to cover up plagiarism and other fraud. The last issue of Can.Med.Assoc.J. admits this. It starts thus:

“It’s the classic Canadian response to a problem like scientific misconduct, says Toronto physician– scientist Dr. Paul Pencharz. “Deny, deny, deny. Sweep it under the carpet.”


However, this organization is corrupt also. They did not even publish my letter to the Editor. This letter follows here.

Re: Call for arm’s-length national research integrity agency

There is no doubt that some highly placed individuals in Canadian academia act as a criminal organisation, committing fraud in research and higher education. I am the victim of such fraud. My case and the documents are posted on the Internet: “University of Toronto Fraud” at

This fraud started in 1986 and is continuing now. My PhD supervisor, Ellen Larsen, had removed me, after five years of my very successful research from the University of Toronto by making a fraudulent academic decision, and then stole my research and my discoveries. Despite all my complaints, University of Toronto and then – NSERC only continued the fraud.

The case of Prof. V. Fabrikant in Concordia University is well known. In Concordia, the integrity of research was violated, Fabrikant’s legitimate complaints were ignored, moreover, he was threatened. He, in fact, was provoked for violence.

Yet, the Fabrikant case was not a good lesson for the corrupt academia: when documents of my case were received, they were treated the same way – officials continued the fraud. It is not possible to believe that the corrupt academia does not understand what it is doing the second time: this new provocation is continuing for twenty years now.

President of NSERC and its other officials, in my case, have committed concealment of fraud: instead of referring the case to the prosecution (which was a specific point in NSERC policy), they gave the same university administration that committed the fraud to “investigate” it. NSERC has intentionally covered up the fraud, supplied ridiculous “justifications” for it and was sending me one lie after another. All this is in the documents.

It can not be believed that the proposition to establish some new agency was even made seriously. Paul Pencharz knows very well about the fraud in his university. Jim Turk knows this very well also, the exchange of e-mails between him, UofT, CAUT and me is posted on my web site. All this is a criminal, indecent game.

Eventually, when corruption has corroded the officialdom, the victim whose life was destroyed should be able to find a way to expose the criminals in the press. In Canada it is not possible. This puts an end to the peaceful quest for justice.

Michael Pyshnov.

Governmental fraud at all levels and everywhere.

Just in the last week:

The Ontario Lottery – a fraud, known for years.

Fraud and cover-up at the top of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Known for years.


RCMP (fraud and corruption division) also covered up the fraud in my case. Responding to my complaint, RCMP refused to investigate the fraud at the University of Toronto, giving completely fraudulent reasons:
1) Instead of investigating the evidence, they stated that, generally speaking, it is difficult to prove whose research it was. The documents they received from me (including two letters from the professors-experts one of whom was President of Canadian Genetics Society), however, proved without any doubt that the research was mine and that it was plagiarized by my supervisor.
2) RCMP also lied that it had no jurisdiction to investigate the fraud; no explanation or any reference to the law was given.

Shocking details of Prof. Valery Fabrikant case.

As many others, I believed for years that Valery Fabrikant’s explanation for shootings in Concordia University, namely, that he felt his life was threatened, may not be true.

However, I now have discovered a document written in 1994 by his former graduate student, Dr. E. N. Karapetian, giving a number of dirty and shocking details of what really took place, the details previously unknown to me and to the public at large. Among the details: Before the shootings, Fabrikant tried to assert his authorship of some scientific articles in a civil suit, and, strangely, he was criminally charged with the contempt of court that was found… in his university e-mails. That was followed by the threats that “anything can happen in jail” to him if he is convicted of the contempt of court.

We certainly know (see Prof. Arthurs Report) that Fabrikant was right in his accusations against Concordia. And now, it appears that he also had very good reason to be afraid that the professors were planning to kill him. (I have a number of other reports and comments on Fabrikant case that are no longer on the Internet. If you wish to see them, please, ask me.)

The letter of Karapetian contains evidence partly given by Fabrikant and partly by Karapetian.

This letter reveals, quite correctly, the psychology of a honest and reasonable man provoked beyond human endurance, in a state of utter despair intentionally induced by criminals.

The letter was copied on several sites on the Internet. Apparently, the real criminals  are erasing the record of evidence: I cannot find it now. Read this letter:

It now appears that, indeed, some figures in Canadian universities operate as a criminal organization. For the corrupt Canadian academia Fabrikant case was not enough; the criminals were not punished, and, subsequently, my case was taken as the next opportunity to show their unlimited criminal power. They continue operating with the full support of the Government and are never touched by the media.