University of Toronto Fraud
SEE ALSO MY NEW SITE:
Concealment of Fraud in Science
revealing the secrets of scientific establishment
If a university invited me to work on my PhD thesis and said: "If you do the research and you pay fees, you can get the degree FOR BEING THE AUTHOR OF THE RESEARCH", but later the university DENIED, FALSIFIED THE FACT OF MY AUTHORSHIP OF THE RESEARCH THAT I DID, PLAGIARISED IT, this university has committed CRIMINAL FRAUD
Government openly lying: May 2012, the fraud of the NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) This fraud should put an end to NSERC
In 1981 I began PhD research at the University of Toronto. I walked into a trap: after five years, I was removed from the University and the credit for my work and my discoveries was stolen by the professor-supervisor and three other people. I received no degree.
In my research on the development of organs in the Drosophila fruit fly, I have discovered that what previously was thought to be unorganised mass of embryonic cells (called "imaginal discs" in larvae), in fact possesses peculiar cell arrangements specific for future organs. I have also discovered that a mutation that causes embryonic tissue normally producing one organ (antenna) to produce a different organ (a leg), is actually changing the pattern of cell arrangement in the embryonic tissue. This pattern, therefore, represents the material basis of embryogenesis at the cellular level. It appears that the "positional information" for the structure of future organs is encoded in the cell arrangements of embryonic tissue.
As my PhD supervisor, Ellen Larsen knew that my research had a very high scientific value, but she wanted to steal it. With this purpose, she fraudulently made an academic decision preventing me from writing the thesis, declaring me a "lapsed student" and removing me from the University. She said that my work was not good enough for my PhD thesis. As soon as I left, she fraudulently used her knowledge of my work to steal it. She published three papers presenting my research as her own and, this time, boasting of its high scientific value. Incredibly, when at one point she was caught and had to withdraw one of the papers from publication, she still published it later.
Yet, the University and the Canadian Government refused to see the facts. To save this professor from jail and to save her falsified academic credit for scientific discoveries Canada closed all doors for me. In the next 28 years I had no job, my family was destroyed by the disastrous circumstances. Beginning from my first complaint to the Department of Zoology in 1987, higher and higher officials were corrupted: from the Department to the Government and the law enforcement. Official answers to my complaints were given to me in one sentence. The University of Toronto had soon crossed the line separating a university from an organized crime. All professors of the Department were silenced. Campus press was ordered to keep silence. The governmental officials were lying to me openly, completely unconcerned about consequences. Unable to change the facts in the documents, but determined to save Larsen from jail, the university and the Government had falsified, perverted and abolished the law. The fraud is continuing.
None of my complaints of fraud and plagiarism were investigated and answered by a scientist. Contrary to the law, the university did not appoint an investigative committee, but one investigator who could not read the articles in question and wrote a report ignoring the evidence in the articles and documents and falsifying academic law. I protested this fraudulent arrangement four times and four times the university and the government refused to do anything. Later, the journal editor refused to retract the obviously plagiarised article and refused to give his own opinion; his only argument was that the university investigator did not find plagiarism. The gang of criminals continue to pretend that no evidence of fraud or plagiarism does exist.
Ellen Larsen used to publish infantile demagogy as scientific papers. A top journal that published my two papers, declined hers. She was an incapable political appointee. Understanding her own nothingness and suffocating from the growing envy and hatred, she stole my research. If such case were reported elsewhere, it would be the end of the plagiarist career.
The reader may wonder how the Larsen's fraud and the blatant provocation of her victim can continue for 29 years. The answer is that in Canada, the law is routinely prostituted to protect certain criminals; that is the case here. The mass media refused to hear me, and this was an ominous sign. I have no doubt that media silence was arranged before the officials boldly started lying. The protected criminals can also kill me. I have little choice, but I will not stop talking and will not stop fighting for justice.
Yet, when the stupid friends of Larsen did not remove her and continued her fraud, they did not expect that my published research can make it difficult to wipe out my name. That's how the matter stands today, Dec. 18, 2014.
After the events in the University of Toronto I was able to publish one theoretical work showing the principal mechanism of cell proliferation in tissues (http://www.cell-division-program.com), thanks to the computer program developed by a colleague. The program gives animated computer simulation of cell divisions in a tissue. It is based on a concept regarding living tissues as crystals and the cells as the elements of the lattice. It is well known that cells in a tissue are connected with each other and cannot move independently. I previously showed that in an adult proliferating tissue, cell divisions should proceed in division waves and not independently. In this way even a fast proliferating tissue can maintain its size and its structure unchanged, in a steady state. My PhD research was an application of this model to the developing embryonic tissue.
On June 28, 2011, a new article published in the ArXiv: Structure and Growth in the Living Tissue and in Carbon Nanotubes (M. Pyshnov and S. Fedorov). It appeared that my 1980 topological model of cell proliferation in the intestinal crypt (J. theor. Biology) exactly corresponds to the structure of carbon nanotubes! The same mechanism of growth that I proposed for the intestinal crypt in 1980, was proposed as the mechanism of growth of the carbon nanotubes and fullerenes twelve years later. Now, it took more than six months to read about the nanotubes. The new article contains further suggestions for the mechanisms of growth in the nanotubes, and some insight into the class of structures governed by the topological laws operating in a two-dimensional lattice, the class of structures to which the crypt and the nanotubes both belong.
Recently, on Aug. 8, 2014, I published an interesting paper in another area - plant biology, in the BioRxiv, http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/007716
I was looking for a method of obtaining secondary roots from the seeds of Vicia faba with a view to study chromosome structure, and I found that primary and secondary roots have clearly different requirements for growth: primary roots need moist air and at the beginning will not grow in water, but secondary roots need water and will not grow in air. Most strangely, I could not find any mentioning of these obviously central facts of the roots growth in the literature. It appears that roots were cultivated mostly on the substrates that contained both water and air and it was difficult to distinguish their different needs. In the end I found an interesting paper published two months earlier, titled: "Plant roots use a patterning mechanism to position lateral root branches toward available water". However, my hypothesis is that air prevents the formation of lateral roots and they can develop when the air is removed, and the immersion in water does exactly this.
The monstrous and unprecedented fraud perpetrated by the University of Toronto was conducted with confidence that reporting it in the media will be precluded, and the complete blackout exists to this day. Michael Pyshnov. Toronto, Canada. Phone: (416) 733 8936 Email Message board: http://www.voy.com/199644/ Fraud in academia: http://pyshnov.wordpress.com This site contains over 50 documents proving the fraud beyond any doubt (see list of documents), but the Canadian academia is corrupt and it has been covering up the fraud for two decades. The officials in charge of maintaining integrity of research routinely cover up fraud, and this is well known. "It’s the classic Canadian response to a problem like scientific misconduct - Deny, deny, deny. Sweep it under the carpet.", says University of Toronto prof. P. Pencharz. Moreover, they intentionally provoked one victim of fraud to violence. Yet, the question "Are the bribes being taken in Canadian academia?" is never asked. * * *
The authorship of my research was falsified before I could publish the research in my PhD thesis. My credentials were damaged and my prospects for a position in academia disappeared. I cannot speak, in any journal, about my ideas, research and discoveries. To return my research under my name, I need the official retraction of the plagiarised papers. In fact, the procedure for such retraction does exist. I became aware of it after the massive cleansing of scientific journals and the retraction of published papers containing falsified and plagiarised research began a year ago. On March 27, 2008, I made a request for the retraction of one obviously plagiarised paper. So far, however, the process is going nowhere.
The story of the plagiarised paper
Having removed me from the university, Larsen figured out that it would be good for her to publish one paper under my name and her name, and, so, to have a proof that I agreed that she was a co-author of my discoveries. She, secretly from me, wrote and submitted to the Transactions of the American Microscopical Society a short and inferior article, boldly claiming the two main discoveries made by me during the five years of my PhD program. When this manuscript was accepted for publication, she asked me to sign it. I, of course, refused, called her a thief and wrote a letter of protest to the Department. Larsen had to withdraw the manuscript.
Then, failing to obtain my consent to her co-authorship, but firmly believing in her impunity in the circle of friends in the corrupt Canadian academia, Larsen decided to send to the same journal a "new" paper claiming the same discoveries as her own. Incomprehensible as it is, the journal did publish it.
Below, are the titles, authors, abstracts and footnotes of the 1987 withdrawn manuscript and the paper published in 1989, side by side for comparison:
The withdrawn manuscript, Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., (MS #483-87, received April 14, 1987) (The manuscript is scanned here) The paper published in Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., 108(1): 51-57, 1989 (The paper is scanned here) Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver Stained Drosophila Imaginal Discs1 Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs of Drosophila1 Michael Pyshnov and Ellen Larsen
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Cananda
Ellen Larsen and Aaron Zorn
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada
Abstract. Outlines of cell borders on the basal side of cells in the imaginal discs of Drosophila larvae were studied after impregnation with silver. Disc-specific cell arrays were found in each type of disc studied. To determine if these patterns have morphogenetic significance, we compared normal antennal disc patterns with those of the Nasobemia mutant in which antennae are transformed into leg-like structures. The cell arrangement of mutant antenna discs resembles the one specific for leg discs but not antenna discs. We suggest that these cell arrays are under genetic influence, and are generated by specific patterns of cell division. Thus, they possess the characteristics of long sought after "pre-patterns" for morphogenesis. Abstract. Cell borders on the basal side of imaginal discs of Drosophila melanogaster were delineated after impregnation with silver. Leg discs differ from antennal discs in the kind of cell arrangement found. The arrangements in the antennal disc of the Nasobemia mutant (in which antennae are converted to leg-like structures) resemble those of leg discs rather than antenna discs. This finding suggests that the disc-specific cell arrays have morphogenetic significance, and may in fact create a "pre-pattern" for the development of appendages. The footnote reads: 1 We thank Drs. L. Trainor, H. McLaughlin and B. Goodwin for discussion of this work and S. Mathi and Dr. K. Wright for commenting on an earlier draft of the manuscript and Dr. N. Rivaud for editorial assistance. The footnote reads: 1 We thank Drs. H. McLaughlin, K. Wright, and B. Goodwin, as well as S. Mathi, for discussion of this work. We are further grateful to Dr. N. Rivaud for help with the plates and with editorial assistance. We thank Michael Pyshnov for sharing his silver staining technique and his ideas with us.
These abstracts are giving an incorrect description of the phenomenon. Larsen says that in the mutant, "antennae are transformed into leg-like structures" (1987), and "antennae are converted to leg-like structures" (1989). In fact, antennae were not transformed or converted into anything, they were not formed in the mutants at all. Simply, the antennal discs in the mutants produced leg-like structures. The text of the paper is also confusing. She could remember only some highlights of my research which she never understood. Later, she presented her "justifications" that admit her publishing of my research and ideas, but she proposed her own "concept of intellectual property" that would make it legitimate. Her prostitution of science never stopped (doc.25). Seeing the footnote of the 1989 paper, the reader can only say that my role was that of a helpful technician, not the author of the discoveries. The Editor of the journal, however, knew that the 1989 paper claimed the same two discoveries that were presented in the 1987 manuscript. Even the title of the 1989 paper contained the correction made by the Editor on the 1987 manuscript. Moreover, there is yet another document - Larsen's letter to the Editor, containing her admissions that the two discoveries claimed in the withdrawn manuscript were my discoveries and that the research and the experiments were done by me. This letter is stamped: "Office of the Chairman Department of Zoology University of Toronto" with the date SEP 16 1987. (The emphasis below in red is mine.)
September 16, 1987
Dr. Eugene H. Schmitz, Editor
Transactions of the American Microscopical Society Department of Zoology University of Arkansas Fayettville, Arkansas 72701 USA
Dear Dr. Schmitz,
I am writing with reference to MS 483-87. I regret that owing to circumstances I shall outline below, I must withdraw this manuscript from consideration. I intend, however, to submit the results of a similar study (performed by myself and an undergraduate) in the very near future, one which because of its somewhat wider scope may actually be a more satisfying contribution.
The first author of MS 483-87, Mr. M. Pyshnov was a graduate student under my supervision for some five years. In my opinion he is a very creative scientist with great technical flair. Unfortunately, after discovering disc specific cell arrangements and their modification in a homeotic mutant he became unable to do more research. A year after he produced his last preparations (those found in the MS) his graduate student status was changed to "lapsed student", ie, one who is free to return to complete requirements but who is no longer officially registered. I was hoping that publication of his work would encourage him and enable him to resume his progress towards a degree. Unfortunately he has changed his mind and decided for reasons of his own that he does not want his work published. I am not only disappointed with his decision but embarrassed to have to retract the work after so many other people have given it their expert time and effort.
In the new paper I shall try to incorporate both the reviewers' and your excellent stylistic suggestions so that these efforts will not have been entirely wasted.
/signature/ Ellen Larsen
Other documents also confirm my authorship of the ideas, research and discoveries in the 1987 manuscript (and, therefore, in the 1989 paper). It has been admitted by Larsen and the University of Toronto that "the theoretical foundation" of my research was published by me in 1980 (Journal of Theoretical Biology), before I came to this university (Statement of Defense, paragraph 22). Soon after I began my PhD program, Larsen wrote that I "reviewed an extensive Drosophila literature, outlined an entirely novel approach to looking at morphogenesis in imaginal discs". Two years later, she said: "He has hypothesized that each disc should have specific cell arrangements which are "prepatterns" of the adult structures" and: "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". In fact, I predicted the results of my experiments. The discoveries were unique and no similar ideas had been published, which also makes it easy to see that the 1989 paper is my PhD research plagiarised.
At the time when Larsen was asking me to sign the 1987 MS, she was in the process of publishing (without my name and without my knowledge) two other papers stealing my research and ideas (published in 1987 and 1988). In these two papers, she lied that this research was published under my and her names previously, and, she gave a reference to a non-existing publication. In the 1989 paper, she removed the reference to my 1980 paper that was in the withdrawn manuscript and that she later admitted to be "the theoretical foundation" of my research. The 1987 manuscript used my term "whorls" for the specific structures discovered by me, but in the 1989 paper Larsen never used it, she substituted it with the term "clusters". However, her friends in UC at Berkeley where she spent a sabbatical year, published, nine years later, a paper where they say that Larsen and Zorn discovered "whorls"! Clearly, Larsen earlier presented to them this discovery with my term "whorls", and her later changing of the term was a fraud. In the 1989 paper Larsen claimed, as her own, "hundreds" of my experiments done "in the course of the last six years". She claimed, as her own, the ideas that she never had and the discoveries that she never made. And, she lied repeatedly about the reason for terminating of my PhD program - compare the above letter to the Editor with her fraudulent academic decision and with her later explanation where she also presents her own "concept of intellectual property" and says: "Perhaps Michael feels betrayed because he forfeited a publication for naught". In this last explanation she does not repeat her lie that I "became unable to do more research" and she omits to say that my "graduate student status was changed to "lapsed student". She is lying that I "left" because I had no money to continue my PhD program (in fact, I had the money and had never taken a student loan). E. Larsen is a liar and thief. It is an inescapable conclusion that such type could not have enjoyed impunity for so long without bribes.
It is interesting to note here that E. Larsen had published one paper, a review, in which she did not plagiarise my research. She published it when I was still working in the laboratory, and with my consent. In this paper she is describing my theory and my discoveries (those that she stole after I was removed from the university) as "personal communications" from me. It is even more interesting that among the 145 works cited in this review (including one my paper), there is not a single one of her own. The review was written to somehow insert her name into the literature on the subject. She missed the important points in my research after years of my explanations, but freely transferred my ideas in her pathological activity in scientific circles (see her letter to me); her own best ideas are in paradigm shifting.
My request to retract the plagiarised paper. The fraud now is spreading.
See my correspondence with the journal and with the publisher.
1. The journal is silent for seven months
While the proof of plagiarism is complete, the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Patrick D. Reynolds, whose duty is to retract this paper, is not doing this.
The publisher of the journal, John Wiley & Sons (now, Wiley-Blackwell) is the second largest publisher of scientific journals. Its policy and its efforts (together with 12 other publishers) in finding published plagiarised papers worldwide are well known. Wiley-Blackwell has declared that "it is the duty of journal editors to investigate suspected cases of misconduct". Wiley-Blackwell has adopted "A code of conduct for editors of biomedical journals" of the Committee on Publication Ethics. The code tells the editors to "maintain the integrity of the scientific record" and "always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed." Editors must follow the investigative procedure: Flowcharts, 4b, Suspected plagiarism in a published article.
Yet, none of this due process has been accomplished since I requested the retraction on March 27, 2008.
Dr. Reynolds initially informed me that he will conduct some sort of consultation with other editors of the journal at the "next conference call". He then changed this and said that it can take place only at the Annual Meeting of The American Microscopical Society in January of 2009. He stopped answering my emails in July of 2008.
Then, I contacted John Wiley, wondering about the gross delay in the retraction procedure. The Wiley Editor never answered my question repeated several times, about the timeline for the retraction procedure, but, I was assured that "Patrick Reynolds is taking your concern seriously and will be responding to you directly" and that "He is striving to respond to you presently". She, then, abruptly ended the correspondence. I sent another message to Dr. Reynolds, and it was ignored again. I don't know if Dr. Reynolds will continue as Editor-in-Chief after the January meeting. It is possible also that Ellen Larsen will flee the scene of the crime. Something very wrong is obviously going on. Nothing, however, can abolish the duty of the journal and the duty of the publisher to retract the paper in question.
2. The Editor answers my request, but not really
November 24, 2008. The paper is not retracted, and the reason is - University of Toronto does not want the retraction:
"Given that the charge of plagiarism in this article against Dr. Larsen has been dismissed by three investigations of the employer, the University of Toronto, and again by the Canadian federal funding agency NSERC, and in the absence of any new substantive information in the nearly two decades since publication in TAMS, the journal has no grounds to retract the article, nor to consider its removal or withdrawal. Despite your evident dissatisfaction with those investigations, neither the journal nor its co-publishers have standing to challenge their legitimacy."
Well, I wrote another letter:
November 27, 2008
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
You explain your decision not to retract the 1989 Larsen and Zorn article thus:
"Given that the charge of plagiarism in this article against Dr. Larsen has been dismissed by three investigations of the employer, the University of Toronto, and again by the Canadian federal funding agency NSERC, and in the absence of any new substantive information in the nearly two decades since publication in TAMS, the journal has no grounds to retract the article, nor to consider its removal or withdrawal. Despite your evident dissatisfaction with those investigations, neither the journal nor its co-publishers have standing to challenge their legitimacy."
(Please, notice that the repeated references in your letter to removal and withdrawal of an article are excessive as I never asked for the removal or withdrawal of the paper, but only for the retraction.)
I submit to you the following:
1. You should have presented your own findings of facts with references to evidence and the applications of law. The procedure required you, in the first step, to compare the articles in question for plagiarism. But you do not report your findings. Instead, you made an assumption that the local Canadian investigations denying plagiarism are legitimate, and you never mentioned a single point of evidence that could constitute the grounds for your decision. This was completely wrong. Your decision should not have been based on the supposed "legitimacy" of Canadian local investigations.
2. According to the procedure (Flowchart 4b of the COPE) you should have sent me the response of E. Larsen, so that I could make my comments, but you did not do this. I request that you do so now.
3. Your statement that you have no "standing to challenge their [local investigations] legitimacy" is completely erroneous. It is a well known fact that local investigations can cover up misconduct in research, and, in this case they have no "legitimacy". They cannot be blindly accepted. A journal's conclusions can potentially be totally different from the conclusions of the local investigators, but you made this legitimate possible outcome to appear illegitimate, forbidden and impossible, as you refused to challenge the "legitimacy" of Canadian investigations. While you could consult local investigations, you could not pronounce them legitimate a priori, otherwise, you make your own procedure and the due process impossible. Of course you have an obligation to conduct your own independent investigation of the documentary evidence in the case. And, if your findings contradict the local investigations, but you refuse to challenge them, you can find yourself doing greater harm - even perpetuating a local fraud. You are rrequired by the procedure to send your own findings to the local employer and the funding agency. Did you send them their own investigations instead?
4. Blindly accepting the results of Canadian investigations of misconduct was wrong:
a) The special report of Prof. Arthurs on the case of Prof. V. Fabrikant (http://pyshnov.wordpress.com/arthurs-report/), stated that two university investigations were "misleading", "superficial", "not based on a proper inquiry", "clearly and seriously deficient" and "inadequate". b) Recently, Canadian Medical Association Journal published the paper "Call for arm’s-length national research integrity agency" (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/6/749). 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." c) Next, the editorial titled "Research misconduct? What misconduct?", in the same journal (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/7/905) 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."
"Deny, deny, deny" is "the classic Canadian response", not an exception, and this is well known. The system of investigations in Canada is below the standards that you and your journal have to adhere to.
5. I must also bring to your attention the fact that your impression that there were "three investigations of the employer, the University of Toronto, and again by the Canadian federal funding agency NSERC" is incorrect. The University of Toronto President lied when he said that my complaint was "fully investigated by the University and by NSERC" (document #43). As a matter of fact, NSERC did not investigate my complaint and does not investigate other complaints. NSERC sends the complaints back to the university. The CMAJ article, referred to in the paragraph 4c, said: "Currently, the investigation of misconduct allegations is the domain of universities..." and "...the councils [NSERC and others] refer all complaints to the university that employs the alleged miscreant for investigation." Here you have a competent Canadian proof that the fact that NSERC is involved in the case, does not guarantee the correctness and "legitimacy" of the university investigation. On the contrary, there are grave doubts that a Canadian university becomes capable of conducting proper investigation by the involvement of NSERC. These grave doubts, the dissatisfaction with the flawed Canadian system of investigation of misconduct in science, and the failure of two university investigations, over many years, to stop the fraud in food science that became a concern around the world, prompted "An Examination of Research Integrity Issues..." of 2007 (www.mun.ca/marcomm/public_affairs/issues/pencharz_report_2007.pdf), that made recommendations to bring the investigations to the accepted international standards. The changes, however, are still resisted.
Therefore, your assumption about the "legitimacy" was wrong, and it became outrageously wrong when it resulted in your refusal to present your own findings relying on the evidence in the case.
6. You report that you thoroughly reviewed the "history of this issue" (i. e. my complaints to the local investigators and their answers). You know, therefore, that two University of Toronto investigations (documents #24 and #27) admitted the fact that E. Larsen repeated my original experiments and published my original experiments and results as her own, and you know that they did not consider this publication a plagiarism. These investigators committed several other similar frauds and falsifications of the academic law. You had no right to disregard all these obvious frauds in the investigations and make the decision that "the journal has no grounds to retract the article".
7. You did not challenge Canadian authorities and you did not challenge their fraud. As a result, your report does not have any analysis of the "history of this issue". Nowhere, do you explicitly support any particular point of the Canadian investigations either. Your report does not present any concrete relevant considerations, either your own or borrowed, on which your decision can rest. You do not present a single reference to any documentary evidence that can support your decision. You had seven months to conduct your investigation, but your report is totally devoid of any reliance on facts, and, you wrote an untenable decision that is totally unsupported by evidence. I am certain that you could not find a single piece of evidence supporting your decision.
8. While you are telling me that my request for retraction has been "thoroughly reviewed", with the implication that my request was found invalid, you do not report any conclusions of your review and I have no opportunity to answer any. Adding this to your refusal to challenge the supposed legitimacy of Canadian investigations, I believe that your impartiality and your numerous assurances of your "scrupulous fairness" are seriously undermined.
9. You have noted (and it stands as a material part of your decision), "the absence of any new substantive information in the nearly two decades since publication in TAMS". This is not correct. The document #25 presents the new substantive information - Larsen's admissions that she used my ideas and data. There are new admissions of the facts that any honest investigator would call the facts of plagiarism (in documents #24 and #27; I spoke of them in paragraph 6). There is also a new and extremely important admission made jointly by E. Larsen and the University of Toronto (document #36), that "the theoretical foundation" of my research was published by me in 1980, i. e. before I came to this university. All the above information came after the publication in TAMS.
10. The 1989 paper of Larsen and Zorn was accepted for publication by the same journal that had, at the same time, the manuscript of 1987 with the same title and claiming the same discoveries, but with different authors. It was absolutely wrong to publish this paper in the first place. In this case, the retraction should only require some simple honesty to admit the journal's mistake or whatever it was. Your journal was notified on March 27, 2008, and it cannot continue to support this plagiarised, fraudulent publication. The information (the 1987 manuscript and the accompanying documents) that your journal was aware of at the time of publication, and that was put before you again, is absolutely sufficient grounds for retracting the 1989 article immediately. This publication, falsifying my authorship of the discoveries and very seriously damaging my credentials, with extremely serious consequences for my life, amounts to defamation, to say the least. I request an immediate retraction of this paper and the publication of all reasons for the retraction, explicitly restoring my rights as an author.
(This letter was not answered. The emphasis in red in paragraph 10 is only here, not in my email. Three typos are corrected.)
* * *
How can a journal be prohibited to investigate plagiarism in one of its papers and forced to accept an obvious fraud? Normally, Dr. Reynolds should have protested and resigned. Taking away the editorial independence and causing such indignity to the Editor, to the journal and to the scientific society publishing this journal is an act of unprecedented corrupt influence.
The University of Toronto, however, did it before and did it many times. This criminal gang monopolised the right to pronounce judgement on this paper. They prohibited every other office and every individual to look at this paper. Here are just some of the examples of how it was repeated again and again:
When I asked 78 professors of the Department for their expert opinion on this paper, the university lawyer sent each of them a letter making it impossible for them. Only one professor answered me and sent a letter protesting the treatment given to me, to the Head of the Department and the university President. He, then, was intimidated by the Head of the Department.
When I asked Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to investigate the fraud committed by the University of Toronto, they refused (were bribed?), saying that only the university can decide its own "academic matters".
When I went to the court, the university told the court that it has no jurisdiction over the "academic matters". The court agreed (was bribed?). (The decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal.)
Scores of media reporters were prohibited to publish a single word about the plagiarism and corruption at the University of Toronto. They range from the campus press to Eliot Marshal of the Science magazine.
* * *
In the hands of the Committee on Publication Ethics
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) received (on February 2, 2009) my complaint of editorial misconduct and fraud perpetrated by the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Reynolds.
Last year, the Committee adopted 5000 scientific journals and their respective Editors as members of COPE who must obey the Code of Conduct issued by COPE. In fact, the publishers of these journals established the same rules and procedures for their Editors (copying the COPE Code of Conduct and the COPE Flowcharts for each type of case) years before that. Last year, however, the Editors became formally answerable to COPE for their conduct.
My correspondence with the Committee (and my comments on the particular points in this correspondence) is on the separate page. It shows that the Committee did everything to protect Ellen Larsen and her plagiarised paper, leaving the record of science in the journal permanently falsified.
The first answer that I received was that my complaint of plagiarism is not a complaint of plagiarism because I said that my UNPUBLISHED research was plagiarised. The Committee perverted the definition of plagiarism, excluding from it plagiarism of unpublished research. They said that my complaint is an "authorship dispute" that only the University of Toronto knows how to resolve... In fact, of course, (see the documents above), there was no authorship dispute; on the contrary - Larsen many times admitted my authorship of the research, discoveries and ideas in question. She did a fraud - she withdrew the first manuscript but published the same research and discoveries saying that her paper is just a "similar study". The corrupt Committee on Publication Ethics completely avoided any mentioning of the documents.
Next, still insisting on their own "interpretation" of the definition of plagiarism, the Committee brought up another pretext for rejecting my complaint against the Editor: the Editor was not a member of COPE at the time when he received my case. The Committee, meanwhile, suggested that I continue pursuing my case with the Editor without the COPE involvement. I replied that if I do this, the Editor, being now a member of COPE, must follow the Code of Conduct and COPE must monitor his present conduct. No way, said the Committee: "Our view is that if you return to Dr Reynolds or Wiley-Blackwell you are doing no more than continuing a case that was first opened with them in March 2008..." Is there anything wrong with my case against the plagiarist, forbidding the COPE to monitor the present and future conduct of the Editor in my case? The Committee never gave a clear explanation; they, obviously, did not want the Editor to follow the Code of Conduct in my case. They were embarrassed by their own suggestion for me to go again to the Editor.
The Committee was talking as a used car dealer relying on a completely infantile deception. Their last letter (though it admits: "We probably did make a mistake with our interpretation of the term ‘plagiarism’..."), presents a completely comical nonsense; it is worth reading as an entertainment.
How did this Committee become an advisor and a judge in matters of publication ethics in 5000 scientific journals, when not a single word of these people can be trusted? How they can be trusted to investigate drug testing, cancer treatment, falsification of scientific data and falsification of the authorship in scientific publications, when they are covering up the obvious fraud? How long it will take for someone to notice this corruption of science and to take action?
In Canada: Saving Professor Larsen from jail. Falsifying, perverting and abolishing the law.
Below is further evidence of fraud and criminal conspiracy perpetrated by the following: former President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) T. Brzustowski, former Ontario Minister D. Cunningham, former Ont. Attorney General J. Flaherty, former University of Toronto President R. Birgeneau (presently - Chancellor of the UC at Berkeley), University of Toronto professors: I. Orchard, D. Dewees, B. Roots, S. Desser, P. Gooch, E. Larsen.
The details of the fraud, references to articles and the links to scanned documents are here:
Ruthless Science Fraud at the University of Toronto
On this page are the main events, the present situation, the links to other pages of this web site and insight into the social causes of the continuing fraud. Links to the parts of this page (it can also be scrolled continuously):
Fraud is so obvious -My research is stolen -The fraud of "academic decision" -The University fraud -My academic record falsified Canadian Procedure: A satanic celebration of corrupt power Canada's war against a scientist U of T President and the fraud Events in 2002-2003 The conspiracy Links to other pages
Fraud is so obvious
My research is stolen
In 1986, after 5 years of very successful research my PhD program was terminated despite the official assurance that I had at least one more year to finish the thesis. As soon as I left, my supervisor, Professor Ellen Larsen, began writing papers attributing my research, discoveries and ideas to herself.
The first two papers
The first paper published after my departure was entitled: "The Morphogenetic Alphabet: Lessons for Simple-Minded Genes". The joy of having me out of the way was so great that she and her co-author (H.M.G. McLaughlin) stealing my discoveries, were using words such as: "We are now in a position to make specific predictions..", "We have presented a scenario..", "we marshal evidence..". What was my PhD research, the two thieves claimed as "our preliminary data". They posed as the discoverers and also gave "..general conclusions about research strategies".
In these two papers, to avoid accusations of stealing and of breaching confidentiality, Larsen was pretending that this research had already been published. She was giving a bogus reference to a non-existent publication. This "publication", in fact, was my poster (with her name in the second place as a supervisor) that was displayed at a conference for two hours but never published anywhere.
A more calculated fraud is difficult to imagine.
Larsen's third paper was discussed above. It is worth reading the opinions of two professors (one, A. Hilliker, was the President of The Canadian Genetics Society), (Doc. 30 and 33), considering plagiarism in this paper.
When I found that all my research was stolen and complained to the University, Larsen wrote an explanation (Doc. 25). She said: "In the retracted work, wild-type discs were compared to mutant discs, in the second paper, discs from two mutant strains were compared..." She was blatantly lying: the titles, abstracts and texts of both, the withdrawn manuscript and her paper, compare wild-type and mutant strains.
The withdrawn manuscript: "Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver Stained Drosophila Imaginal Discs", Michael Pyshnov and Ellen Larsen.
Larsen's paper: "Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs of Drosophila", Ellen Larsen and Aaron Zorn.
So, how she "compared" two mutant strains? Her paper says that she used also a second mutant. But, she did not analyze its mutation! She says that she looked at its normal tissue which was exactly the same as in any normal fly. Therefore, there was no comparing of the two mutants. The second mutant was not even mentioned in the abstract. The paper is a deception, plagiarism and fraud. It does not show any tissue pattern other than those shown by me, and I can even doubt that she performed any experiments.
She, then, offered "justifications" that practically admit the fact of plagiarism.
One "justification" was the same one that communists used while taking away private property: she said that my discoveries belong not to me, but to "community" and that therefore she was entitled to publish my research under her own name. She said that I can not "suppress the use of ideas".
Another was this: "The results of the second paper corroborate the first...". But, the "first" is not published; for the readers her paper is the original research, not a corroborating data. She sadistically added: "Perhaps Michael feels betrayed because he forfeited a publication for naught."
The fraud of "academic decision"
On October 18, 1985, I received a letter from the Associate Chairman of the Department (Doc. 6) saying that I had one more year to complete my thesis and that "extensions are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, unless there are extenuating circumstances and evidence of substantial progress". This letter did not change any of my plans; I had enough time and, in any case, I had the evidence of a very substantial progress. But, minutes after receiving her copy of this letter, Larsen handed me her own letter, making the first step in a fraud intended to terminate my program much sooner and prevent me from writing the thesis. She wrote: "Since I have serious doubts about your ability to complete your experiments and thesis requirements in the time remaining, I intend to convene a committee meeting in early January to review your situation and make appropriate recommendations." (Doc.7) Then, in January, she wrote the academic decision (Doc. 8):
"The committee met on 24 January 1986 and found the work of the student may not be completed by the time his financial support terminates in April 1986. If this occurs he would allow his Ph.D. candidacy to lapse with the expectation of being reinstated when his theoretical models have fully matured."
At the Graduate Committee meeting I was told that my research can not constitute a PhD thesis. When I said: "Let me write the thesis", I was told: "Michael, you have no thesis". I was also asked if I will need money to continue my research. I answered that if I will need money I can borrow it from the student burse (I did not need to do this before). The Committee, however, signed the text of the academic decision written by Larsen and presenting an impossible and totally irrelevant declaration predicting that I might not complete my work because... I will not have money in my pocket when my scholarship ends in April of 1986! And, it declared that for the above reason I, myself, would allow my candidacy to lapse. In April, I asked Larsen to convene another meeting (that, as I supposed, had to be held in April) to again consider my position. She flatly refused, saying: "There is no need for the second meeting. You are out".
The Doc. 19 (Larsen's letter to the journal editor written upon my refusal to sign a paper with her name as an author) was quoted in full above. This letter confirms that my status was changed by the academic decision, but there is no connection in it with my scholarship money. Here she said that the reason for changing my status was that I "became unable to do more research". But, later, in Doc. 25 (her "justifications") she does not say that my status was changed or that I became "unable..."; she says: "he was not forced out of the Ph.D.", "He left the program amicably when his money ran out". The University investigator, I. Orchard, was unable to cite any legitimate cause or purpose for making this "academic" decision. He said in his report (Doc. 24) that the academic decision indicated that "his 5 year term was up". He lied. It did not and could not indicate this.
What was my reaction to this decision? At the time, there was no any conflict situation. I could not understand why I was prevented from continuing my research, but I was sure that Larsen will apologize and will call me back because I knew the value of my research. She knew this also: over the five years, my research and my abilities were characterised by Larsen in the most laudable terms possible. (These are quoted below.) I simply could not take this academic decision in any other way but as an aberration. However, it was not proper to challenge the Committee's judgement of my work. I would not demand better marks. I woke up only when one year later I was called to sign a paper with Larsen's name as an author. Until this very moment Larsen pretended to be my best friend, and I had no idea that she already sent to the journals two other papers stealing my research.
The letter to the Editor shows Larsen's astonishing mendacity. She did not inform the editor of the main relevant fact - that I protested her authorship of the manuscript. She also did not say that this manuscript was sent secretly from me. She lied: "he has changed his mind and decided for reasons of his own that he does not want his work published".
Very interesting is the fact that in this manuscript she did not state the number of experiments done at all and it was all written in a manner of a claim, without a proper scientific discussion. The goal of this manuscript was only to have her name as an author published with my name and with my consent just once, just to give the fraud some legitimacy. At this time she already plagiarized my discoveries and ideas in two other papers, and she also had published, before I left, a review paper boasting of the discoveries made by me in her laboratory, so, she could always say that the first author of one of her papers was her unsuccessful student. When my consent was denied, she published her "similar study" that included even the "stylistic suggestions" made for the withdrawn manuscript, but only a person who read her letter to the editor or the withdrawn manuscript knows that the paper is a fraud.
She, therefore, made four papers out of the research which she herself could hardly even understand.
Clearly, I was not an unsuccessful student. And, obviously, Larsen is a criminal plagiarist and falsificator. She terminated my PhD program to steal my research. What she had done in the capacity of my supervisor should be studied as an encyclopedia of fraud in university.
Below is a part of Doc. 34 (an Appeal from the Graduate Students' Union to the members of the faculty with the request to speak out):
The University fraud
There were two University of Toronto own investigations from which it is obvious that in her "similar study" Larsen stole my research.
The first investigator (I. Orchard, Doc. 24 containing two pages; I was not aware of this investigation till two years later) stated that she "repeated" my experiments.
Second investigator (D. Dewees, Doc. 27 containing four pages; It was the only official investigation ever done) stated that her paper had "replications or extensions" of my results and that she did not acknowledge this fact.
Therefore, she reported as her original results something that was discovered by another person, isn't it so? But, the investigators were not bothered with the criterion of originality, they falsified rules and definitions that are universally recognized for centuries, and denied any plagiarism.
I doubt that Larsen even repeated my experiments. But, whatever she repeated or replicated, she knew the results and she published a forgery to fit these results and falsified the authorship of my research, i.e. committed plagiarism. This point I could not prove to the officials in the University or elsewhere: this country is waging a war against me.
Moreover, the University administration continued the fraud in still another direction: a theory was invented that Larsen "salvaged" my research when I refused to publish the manuscript!
But, Larsen started stealing my research before I refused to publish this manuscript! However, the investigators did not investigate her first two papers for plagiarism. The evidence related to the third paper (that Larsen's "salvaging" included falsification of authorship, that she removed any reference to my research, made bogus reference to a non-existent "publication" and wrote a fake acknowledgment) was suppressed. Her admissions in Doc. 19 and 25 were never considered. Her ridiculous "justifications" in Doc. 25 were never questioned. The truthfulness of Larsen's statements was never questioned!
My academic record falsified
Falsification of the authorship of my research is of course a falsification of my academic record. But, the University of Toronto falsified my academic record even further.
Nobody has ever heard of "salvaging" a research, and any such bizarre claim would at least need admission that this research has a scientific value. But, if the University of Toronto had confirmed this scientific value, firing me and then "salvaging" my research would betray a fraud. So, the University insisted on the "paucity" of my research and denied any value to it as a research for my PhD thesis. They accused me of "laziness", which would hardly be possible to say if the "hundreds" of experiments that Larsen claimed to have conducted "in the course of the last six years" were returned under my name.
How barbarous was the fraud can be seen from the following.
This is from my Open Letter to The President of The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Rabinovitch:
U of T says now that I did almost nothing in five years. If so, why would anybody desire to "salvage" my research? Below are the abbreviated quotations from previous recommendations (all available in full text, as well as other documents): "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.." (Quotations are from the Documents 2, 3, 4 and 19)
In 1980, a year before I came to the University of Toronto, I published a study of the patterns of cell division in an organism (J. Theor. Biol., v.87, p.189-200; scanned here). I postulated and described a "division wave" in a tissue and showed that the division wave is the only way how the cells can divide and multiply without destroying the structure of the tissue.
This article has given a new foundation for the research in stem cells, cancer, in development and evolution of organs and other areas. It allows to estimate the lifetimes and numbers of stem cells and, most importantly, it gives, for the first time, the clue to the understanding what the cellular structure of tissues really means, what are the laws that produce it.
My PhD research which started with certain predictions from my theory that were all proved later by me experimentally, the discovery of the "whorls" and, predicted by me, discovery of embryonic cell patterns responsible for the structure of adult organs, all this (admitted as my work, my ideas and my discoveries by Larsen in her letters and other documents written by her) was judged by the University of Toronto absolutely insufficient for the degree.
This University did a horrific fraud in science as well. The University terminated the research in the important area of science, to which my work made great contributions. It has not "salvaged" anything.
Canadian Procedure: A satanic celebration of corrupt power
That the two U of T investigations were a criminal sham is obvious from the documents (Doc. 24 and 27) where each and every paragraph contains lies, fraud and monstrous falsification of law. In addition to what is noted above under "The University fraud":
1) Donald Dewees, considering my complaint that Larsen falsified the authorship of hundreds of my experiments (page 54 of her article), did not actually investigate my complaint; he just declared that these experiments could be mine as well as hers.
2) Dewees and the other investigator, Ian Orchard, falsified the law of plagiarism: while the U of T (and any other) definition of plagiarism includes appropriation of the "work" (not only the words) of another, they denied Larsen's plagiarism on the grounds that she wrote both the first manuscript and the subsequent paper herself. Yet, the fact of plagiarism was absolutely clear: in the first manuscript she described my discoveries (which was admitted by Larsen several times) and Larsen's own paper subsequently claimed the same discoveries (again, admitted by her).
3) U of T, before, during or after investigations never let anyone from the Department of Zoology, nor any biologist, talk to me. Dewees (a lawyer) was the only investigator in the only official investigation, although the U of T rules required a panel of experts. Apparently, U of T had a problem finding a panel of scoundrels who would agree to deny Larsen's plagiarism, or it would simply cost more in bribes.
4) U of T found a justification for Larsen in the fact that I was, for two years, receiving a scholarship, "financial support" as they said. This is from the Statement of Defense in court jointly filed by Larsen and U of T:
"Indeed, due to the fact that Pyshnov spent five years in Dr. Larsen's laboratory, received considerable academic and financial support, Dr. Larsen had a responsibility to the sources of the research funding to salvage as much as possible from the paucity of work that Pyshnov had completed before his departure."
Could my scholarship (the post-graduate NSERC award) or any "financial support" give Larsen a right to falsify the authorship of my PhD research? The scholarship was intended to support me in my task of obtaining a PhD degree. Of course, the bizarre claim of "salvaging" was made to obfuscate the real problem: the NSERC award, as well as any other financial support, could not have been intended to support my slave labour and her plagiarizing of my research.
In fact, Larsen had an obligation to explain to the NSERC why my program was terminated, and how, when I left, she fabricated three articles, boasting of the "salvaged" discoveries that she herself never made.
Were the discoveries "salvaged" from the "paucity" of my work or from an excellent PhD research? A year earlier, as soon as some of my important experiments were finished, Larsen published a review article on the subject to which she never contributed anything (not a single reference to her research), but with the sole purpose of showing what a great research is going on in her laboratory (a reference to my 1980 paper, discussion of my results and "personal communications").
Why, when I left, would she hire the undergraduate student (Aaron Zorn) to repeat experiments that were already done by me? Clearly, for fraud: she knew the results, but wanted to publish them as her own. Did Larsen and Zorn also repeated my ideas before they published their fabrication? How U of T investigators could turn this fraud into a "salvaging" operation?
There was also an NSERC grant that Larsen obtained for herself, but with the proposal consisting of my PhD research project. This grant, after I left, was taken away from her because of her failure to accomplish anything.
Incredibly, following my complaint, the NSERC's Office of Research Integrity found Larsen not guilty of plagiarism. They "explained" it to me with just a single sentence, completely deceitful, but not actually denying plagiarism:
"The Committee considered that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable manner given your refusal to have the 1987 article published." (Doc. 31)
Did I not have a right to refuse to sign any paper whatsoever, and particularly one that was written and sent for publication secretly from me but with my name on it? Of course I had this right. But, were they even serious when giving me the above "explanation"? No, they were not. This was a brazen show of corrupt arbitrary power, a mockery and a fraudulent attempt to cover up fraud by finding me in breach of some supposed, but unexplained (and, of course, also - nonexistent) rules.
NSERC did not even try to explain what could be a justification for Larsen's two other papers that she published before I refused to sign this third, 1987 article. For these two papers, no claim of "salvaging" was made: my research and ideas were plagiarized, period.
This NSERC letter stated that the case was closed. My next letter was not answered.
Later, in 2001, U of T President Birgeneau declared that my case was investigated by the University and by the NSERC and it is closed (see further on this page "U of T President and the fraud").
Then, I wrote to NSERC again. This time they said that NSERC did not really investigate the case but only relied on the Dewees's investigation. Well, I thought, may be they will now? No, the NSERC President Tom Brzustowski said:
"There is no basis for any new action..." (Doc. 49)
Then, Brzustowski referred to "policies in effect at the time" which apparently allowed NSERC to cover up fraud by not going into the substance of my case:
"I am satisfied that this difficult case was treated fairly and in accordance with policies in effect at the time." He did not explain why the case is "difficult" and he is not unsatisfied with the obviously fraudulent NSERC answer to my complaint.
Brzustowski's answer is somewhat similar to the answer of the U of T Vice-Provost Paul Gooch to my complaint that Dewees's investigation that was conducted on the request from the NSERC, was conducted by him alone, not by a panel as required by the U of T Guidelines:
"First, the Guidelines for inquiry and investigation were only in draft and not officially adopted when I asked Dean Dewees to begin his independent investigation." (Doc. 29)
Very amazing: NSERC policy required the U of T to have the Guidelines, so, Dewees quoted the Guidelines in his report, but he deceived the NSERC by ignoring the Guidelines when they were in draft! But was the NSERC really deceived? No, it fully cooperated with the U of T: my complaint to the NSERC about this deception was ignored.
All my complaints made to the government led to nothing: Ontario Government refused to conduct an investigation, Federal Ministry of Justice never answered me, the police and RCMP refused to investigate.
This is the result of the interplay between the various agencies: the fraud was officially investigated only by the corporation that perpetrated it - the University of Toronto, and, by one man only - Donald Dewees.
The fraud is continuing despite the incontrovertible evidence of fraud contained in the documents written by the perpetrators themselves. This is what they say:
Doc. 19 and 25 are Larsen's side of the story. Doc. 24 and 27 are the U of T side of the story. Larsen's and the U of T joint Statement of Defense in court is Doc. 36. Doc. 2, 4 and 8 were written by Larsen, earlier. Doc. 3 and 20 are from the Department. (See the annotated List of documents.) ___________________________________________________________
Canada's war against a scientist
Following the fraud, the University of Toronto made going to the trial in civil court against it completely impossible. The administration had (a) falsified and perverted, in court documents, the law and custom of university, leaving no room for the right of authorship, (b) acted in a manner of organized crime - intimidated the potential witnesses (professors of the Department) who would be needed to confront the fraudulent interpretation of university law and custom presented by the administration.
The criminal prosecution was also made impossible - Canada made a mockery of my constitutional right to the protection of Law. The administration in both, the Ontario and the Federal government, took the side of the professors-criminals. Police, at all levels, refused to investigate the fraud.
Any reporting of this affair, contents of the documents and subsequent events in the media is prohibited. At the huge, publicly funded CBC alone, the story was killed four times.
All legal routes to the restoration of my name and rights were closed. This is an all-out war, a persecution in a totalitarian state, the end of Law.
This country must understand that destroying my life and my name and causing for twenty years such agony is not possible without paying for it.
My research must be returned under my name. All the legal consequences must follow: the compensation to me must be paid, the criminals who committed the fraud and all who covered up the fraud must be prosecuted.
But, time is running out. The continuing fraud and provocation make me sick. I will never ever agree to accept the present situation as the final result of my life. The sadistic provocation must end. The Rule of Law must be restored. The conspiracy of silence must be broken.
This warning was first issued on August 14, 2003. There will be no further warning.
U of T President and the fraud
On July 19, 2000, I came to the University of Toronto campus and began distributing my documents to hundreds of people, students and professors. 11,000 copies of the Open Letter to CBC President were distributed.
No one had expressed doubts that the documents showed my research being stolen. The campus press, however, kept complete silence. I was harassed by the police. (See Protest on campus for details.)
On April 24, 2001, after nine months of protest, the following Petition with 417 signatures and my letter (Doc. 42) were delivered to the U of T President:
Dr. Robert Birgeneau,
President, University of Toronto.
Dear Dr. Birgeneau,
The evidence that Mr. M. Pyshnov has presented to the University community makes us ask you to identify and release any document that may refute his allegations of fraud and cover-up (in: "Ruthless Science Fraud at the University of Toronto"). Mr. Pyshnov does not object to the disclosure of any evidence whatsoever.
If such evidence does not exist, we urge you to take immediate measures to stop the crime. The present situation is worrying us and we welcome your detailed comments on the case.
(417 signatures attached)
On May 17, the Petition was cynically rejected. Here is the answer (Doc. 43):
May 17, 2001
Dear Mr. Pyshnov:
In response to your letter to me of April 24, 2001 I have been informed that your complaint was fully investigated by the University and by NSERC. The University considers the matter closed.
/signature/ Robert J. Birgeneau
How was it "investigated"? The investigations were arranged in such way that I could not talk to a biologist, to anyone who could understand the articles in question, even a single time! I delivered a second letter (Doc. 44), pointing to this travesty and to other efforts of the University of Toronto to cover up the fraud. My letter was never answered and he refused to meet with me. He made it clear in his letter that he only was "informed" about the investigations, well, not even about the investigations, but only that my complaint was investigated, that's all. He is lying. And he repeated it again on February 12, 2003, in an email. Can it be proven in court that he is lying and that he knows about the fraud? Yes, in court, his denial of knowledge would be called unbelievable.
Obviously, the fraud goes so deep that the President did not want to answer the specific points in the petition and in my letters. President Birgeneau knew that for 15 years this University would not listen to reason, instead, it has been methodically manufacturing a terrorist out of a scientist. Dr. Birgeneau decided to finalize this job. Silence and provocation became the only ways how the professors-criminals can escape jail.
Events in 2002-2003
Publication in academic community. The on-line journal www.JustResponse.net has published an interview entitled "Genetic manipulations". See this interview: http://www.justresponse.net/Genetic_manipulations.html
President Birgeneau is clearly planning eventually to defend himself with the formula "I personally did not know anything", spitting on the request for the investigation, made after this interview. (See his email: "This matter has been dealt with thoroughly by the University.")
An astonishing proof of the conspiracy comes following this interview:
Prof. S. Blecher, one of the two professors (A. Hilliker and S. Blecher) who undertook to testify in court giving the proof of Larsen's plagiarism and wrote two letters giving the details of her plagiarism, wrote an amazing letter to "JustResponse" denying that their two letters ever confirmed the plagiarism. (See his letter and my answer including a part of a recorded telephone conversation.)
I did suspect for some time that the professors would act in court not for me, but against me, saving Larsen and other crooks. I did because they were at the same time refusing to say that Larsen or any of the U of T officials committed fraud or even acted in bad faith. Plagiarism is usually considered a fraud and a theft together. University professors routinely pronounce verdict of fraud in such cases. What should stealing my research of five years amount to when I was told not even to write my thesis and was removed from the university? Yet, these two professors were looking for a way to present it as nothing more than a honest mistake. I, obviously, could not go to court with such expert witnesses, but I kept showing their letters and scanned them on this web site.
Prof. Blecher, apparently together with Prof. Hilliker as he writes for both, decided that enough is enough, that these letters are doing great harm to the very people they wanted to save and that now their own words in their own letters must be given the opposite meaning. He probably believed this would be a very authoritative statement. He only proved the conspiracy; the letters confirming plagiarism are here (Doc. 30 and 33).
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) is continuing fraud, outrage and provocation. See the exchange of letters via email.
Letter to the NSERC President Tom Brzustowski, February 26, 2003:
Dear Dr. Brzustowski,
In your letter of February 24, 2003, you have admitted that you reviewed the file.
You know that NSERC said: "The Committee considered that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable manner given your refusal to have the 1987 article published."
You know that the Committee covered up the fraud, because:
1. Larsen herself withdrew this publication when I complained to the Department that it was my work and not hers. 2. Larsen had admitted twice that 1987 article was my work. 3. Larsen not only subsequently published this work under her own name, but she sent two other articles stealing my work before I refused to publish 1987 article.
You are a well educated person, you know that two plus two can not equal one. When you see such fraudulent result, but you write: "There is no basis for any new action on this matter by NSERC", you are continuing covering up the fraud. You refer to the "policies in effect at the time", but you know that there can not be any policy that allows covering up fraud.
You must stop this fraud or resign.
Ontario Government (Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities) refused to investigate fraud, lied about laws and procedures. See the exchange of letters. ___________________________________________________________
Why my research is still not returned under my name?
Why Larsen is still teaching students?
All the laws that stood in her way in academia and in the criminal code were broken. Yet, she was and she is now absolutely certain about her total impunity. In her explanation to the Chair of the Department (Doc. 25), she carelessly and sadistically celebrates the success of roguery and the demise of the victim and makes an exercise in openly fraudulent demagogy. Her justifications are openly ridiculous; it is not possible that anyone could sincerely believe in her innocence. Her successful avoiding of prosecution continued on the scale of the state. Somehow, she had each and every official in her pocket.
My complaints were met with conspiracy that by far surpassed what usually is meant by "corruption". Below, are more details.
In civil court:
Having a couple of hundred dollars and without a lawyer, I went to the court. The first judge, in 20 minutes that remained to the end of the day, made 12 mistakes (corrected later by the Court of Appeal where I, also, did not have a lawyer) and agreed with the University of Toronto that the court has no jurisdiction over what the University called "academic matters". The University lawyers not only dragged time (extending a 30-day limit for delivering Statement of Defense to 17 months) but stated to the court that I should be panhandling to pay the court fees. Their friends in the Law Society had rejected my application for Legal Aid five times. 51 law firms in Toronto capable of confronting the crime have declared conflict of interest.
Moreover, the University of Toronto made it completely impossible for me to bring the matter to trial: defending Larsen, the administration perverted and falsified the universally recognized academic rules and definitions, making the fraud not a fraud at all. At the same time, they sent a letter to every professor of the Department of Zoology and silenced the potential witnesses - their own professors, who have the authority to say in court what the real rules and definitions are. (The letter was sent on the next morning after I asked the faculty to give expert opinions on Larsen's plagiarized papers.) The new evidence that followed publication in JustResponse, proved that even the two professors from another university (University of Guelph) who undertook to testify in court on my side were, in fact, working against me, which I had suspected then.
To go to the trial, alone, I could not. The justice was subverted in too many ways.
My repeated complaints to the Ontario Government (Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, formerly, Ministry of Education) to which the University is accountable were met with refusal to follow the due process, misstating of the law and procedure and even misstating of my complaint itself, and denial of jurisdiction. My complaints were never answered in substance. Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, had declared conflict of interest.
My complaint to the Federal Office of Research Integrity at NSERC, indicating that it was a criminal matter and asking them to refer it to prosecution (which is stated as a part of their procedure), was, incredibly, sent back to the University that was asked to conduct self-investigation. Then, the Committee of the Office of Research Integrity approved the self-investigation, did not give me the report of the Committee and, practically, did not even try to hide that their investigation was just a farce. My recent attempt to talk to NSERC was again met with impossible lies. (See also above.)
Criminal case impossible. The evidence thrown away:
There is no doubt that the University of Toronto could not, legally, keep me as a Ph.D. student for five years and, having removed me, falsify the authorship of my research. This is - criminal fraud. This University is given the statutory power to grant degrees and granting a degree means recognition of academic achievement, recognition of authorship. When the University of Toronto had transferred my research under the authorship of other persons they committed both a criminal fraud and a fraud on the law in Ontario.
However, both the police and the Attorney General of Ontario simply refused to see my documents. I was told that to charge or not to charge is a matter in the police discretion. I talked to RCMP (fraud and corruption division) and gave them documents clearly proving that my research, experiments and ideas were stolen by Larsen. RCMP responded with the letter making a fraudulent blanket remark that it would be impossible to prove now whose ideas it were and denying the RCMP jurisdiction, although it clearly had the jurisdiction as the evidence of fraud and concealment of fraud implicated both Ontario and Federal Governments. My letters sent to the Minister of Justice of Canada and, then, to the Prime Minister of Canada were not answered. For me, it was the end of the legal road.
Social change - Untouchable criminals - Mandatory dishonesty>
"You have falsified, perverted and destroyed the Law"
Judge in the film "Nuremberg Trial"
The University of Toronto and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada say that Professor Larsen did not steal my research, and that they made this conclusion in accordance with the existing rules, regulations, policy and procedure.
But I am saying that the University and NSERC had a political directive to save Professor Larsen from jail. I am saying that the other governmental officials, law enforcement, unions, academic organizations and the media who all refused to react to my complaints were given the political directive to avoid the matter at any price.
Ellen Larsen has always been presenting herself as an intelligent and idealistic Jewish scientist with a passion for social justice and harmony. In fact, she was always a fraud, a communistic slogan-weaver, full of envy and contempt for the doers, a parasite that should have never been allowed to come near a university.
Here, a communist professor was a slave keeper. And she, the female scientist, was a fraud. And she, the Jewish female, brought the holocaust upon a scientist. She committed crimes unprecedented in any university. But, can she be found guilty? And of such crimes? And of hatred and sadism? No, there is no "political will" for this. Ellen Larsen - the politically correct substitute of a professor, the sadistic criminal and the prostitute of science is still teaching students.
The regime of "change" set up a network of offices and organizations to receive complaints and to screen them for political admissibility. There is no issue or a case left where politics is not put above the facts and above the law. There is no such lie that can not be made into a justification for this. The only protest that is heard in Canada is the protest orchestrated by communist organizations.
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.
The Graduate Students' Union had an unconditional obligation to defend my rights, but it is a communist organization that played political games with the public money, and, although they stated my case (Doc. 34), they in fact supported Larsen and the administration (see Protest on campus).
The University of Toronto Faculty Association that should have stripped Larsen of its membership, displays pictures of tortured female bodies and "lesbians" on the walls. Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is defending professors according to these categories: "White women who are disadvantaged as White women with respect to White men, but advantaged as White women with respect to Black, Aboriginal, Asian and other racial minority men and women" and "gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered". To me they said: "we would like very much to know the truth in this case". Then, they read the documents, learned "the truth in this case" and said: "After careful consideration, we have concluded that there is no role for the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee." (See Doc. 45) The President of the University of Toronto swore to fight "historical injustice" suffered by "females" and Jews and continued covering up the fraud.
Taking away my right as a citizen to the protection of Law meant nothing. Taking away my right of authorship of my work (Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other treaties) meant nothing. Ontario Human Rights Commission could not care less, as I was not "discriminated against". Jewish communist Alan Borovoy, the chief civil rights activist, said that his Association does not react to "individual cases". (Yet, everybody sees him on television when an "individual case" appears.)
This mob actually enjoyed Larsen's fraud and did as much as they could for her crime to continue.
It would be very naive to think that anything described above can happen in a free country where the press can report the events and make public the contents of the documents.
I have appealed to a hundred of journalists, all in vain. Almost all the press and the television stations in Canada are owned by four Jewish families. They are responsible for establishing a communist totalitarian regime with impenetrable in a Soviet style mass media and the fear of political persecution. Even a courageous protest, a few years ago, by a number of journalists who complained about impossibility to write truth about Israeli crimes in the whole chain of the main newspapers owned by Mr. Asper, did not result in any change. Some journalists were fired.
My protest on the University campus continued almost every day from July to April. The banner "Prof. Larsen - liar and thief" was seen and read from the other side of the street. There was no law suit for defamation. Nothing was reported in any media. The main campus newspaper, Varsity, waited for a few months and after that, canceled its report, giving the ridiculous pretext of my "anti-semitism" although they knew of my Jewish origin. Had it published the report, there would be nothing in it except the naked fraud proved with documents, but, it was the reporting of the fraud that was prohibited.
There is no doubt that the University of Toronto, the governmental officials and the law enforcement were guaranteed the complete silence of the press. Bribes alone would not be enough.
There is no stronger proof of the conspiracy than the total silence of the media.
For some years, the reaction to my complaints was for me a maddening mystery. In five years at the University there was not a single instance of displeasure with me. I was also never close to politics. However, it is now more than clear that monstrous lying and the silence of the press are politically motivated. I was made virtually an outlaw for whom the law is not even supposed to work, and many times I was made to feel this. Some encounters are appearing in my memory again and again, but none of them I will ever forget.
Read in the documents on this web site (there are links on this page and on the other pages) the official justifications of the sadistic fraud that took away 25 years of my life, including the 5 years of slave labor. These justifications are no longer a mystery. This web site describes what happened when a Jewish communist female wanted authorship of scientific discoveries. More facts were posted on the Forum:
Authorship Scam and The New Science Order
Prof. John P. Lesko says on his web site www.famousplagiarists.com/scienceandmedicine.htm : "Rumours abound of graduate students in similar situations, although not quite as sensational as Pyshnov's case - their work having been appropriated by their mentors and supervisors, which the students only discover after it is too late to do much about it."
Canadian academia operates as a criminal organization. For the corrupt academia, Prof. V. Fabrikant case was not enough and, subsequently, my case was taken as the next opportunity to show its criminal power extending all the way to the Government. This is no longer tolerable.
Links to other pages
My last complaint: Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada
Ruthless Science Fraud at the University of Toronto
Open Letter to The President of The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Rabinovitch
The article from which my PhD research originated This article has set out principles governing proliferation of cells in the organism.
The evidence in more than 50 documents (annotated list of scanned documents)
Protest on campus; police silencing my protest
President Birgeneau and the discrimination in University of Toronto
The exchange of letters with James L. Turk, The Executive Director of Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) ___________________________________________________________ This site started on February 6, 2001. ("Ruthless Science Fraud at the University of Toronto" was published before - on September 21, 1999.) I continued adding materials to the Main page. I had to rewrite it several times, also, because it was difficult, especially under the stress and mental torture, to describe so much in so little space. The entire site is printable.
A war is waged against me that includes sabotage of my communications and attacks on my computer. My computer firewall showed constant attacks, sometimes more than once per minute, from my ISP (tht.net), (continued for years), and from the Washington DC law firm Hogan & Hartson (Barbara Mishkin is a partner there, defending university professors), (126.96.36.199), (continued for months); see screen shots below. The attacks (or at least what I am able to detect) from both sources ceased within a few hours after the screen shots were put on this page in January 2004. The evidence, however, will remain here. If this site is not always accessible, you can print "university of toronto fraud" in Google and click on "Cached" link.
This site created with Netscape Navigator Gold.