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 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

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NSERC President Pinto, administrative banditism again

My letter to the NSERC president B. Mario Pinto, his answer and my comments are posted on
This is an important reading for scientists and criminologists.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 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