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.

My theoretical work reveals the basic pattern of cell proliferation in the organism. Surprisingly, the structure of carbon nanotubes discovered in 1992 exactly corresponded to the topological model of the living tissue 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
3. “Structure and Growth in the Living Tissue and in Carbon Nanotubes”,

Michael Pyshnov

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment