University of Toronto Fraud
var yviContents='http://geocities.yahoo.com/themis/as.php?cc=ca&s=382091084&l=NE&b=1&t=1228289729';yviR='ca';yfiEA(0);
University of Toronto Fraud
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 22 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.
This fraud 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 Canadian 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.
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.
Sincerely,
/signature/
Ellen Larsen
Other documents also confirm my authorship
of the ideas, research and discoveries in both, the 1987 manuscript and
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 begun 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 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.
The journal is silent
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.
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. The journal and the publisher, as they have been now notified,
cannot continue to support this fraudulent publication, and I request an
immediate retraction of the paper.
See my correspondence
with Dr. Reynolds and with the Publisher.
I will post new developments here.
---------------------------------
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.
Justifications
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. The recent work in which
I participated presents, for the first time, a computer program, the animated
spatial-temporal model of proliferating tissue; it is published at www.cell-division-program.com
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 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.
Petition
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.
Yours sincerely,
(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.
Yours sincerely,
/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.
Yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
Ontario Government (Ministry of
Training, Colleges and Universities) refused to investigate
fraud, lied about laws and procedures. See the exchange
of letters.
___________________________________________________________
The
conspiracy
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.
Ontario Government:
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.
Federal Government:
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, biual 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. Text: 350 KB. Documents:
9500 KB.
Last modified - November 19, 2008.
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), (205.138.200.84), (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.
geovisit();
|
|
