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 I received a letter from the Department saying that Larsen has withdrawn the manuscript.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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s