List of documents.
In the Petition to the U of T President, Dr.
R. Birgeneau, a request was made to show any document that may contradict
the evidence of the fraud (perpetrated before his term, but continuing
now) in the documents which I have presented. I have the Affidavits given
under oath by Larsen and the U of T representative, producing, as they
say, all relevant documents. I know that evidence to the contrary does
not exist and can not exist. Yet, the public must know that such chance
had been given to the perpetrators of the crime.
No such document was presented.
The petition was ignored.
Document # > Description
> The article that I published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology
in 1980. > This work was done in Athens when I stayed
there as a refugee. The article has set out principles governing proliferation
of cells in the organism. It answered the questions: What is the spatial
pattern of cell division in the tissue? How the stem cells divide to produce
the mature cells? How the cells multiply and replace dying cells without
destroying the overall structure of a tissue? Although this article considered
one tissue, other proliferating animal and even plant tissues contain the
same basic structure (a cylinder closed at one end) and must function on
the same principles. Subsequently, in my Ph.D. research at the U of T,
I used the logic of this work to answer the similar questions related to
embryogenesis. However, in the absence of cultural, intellectual and moral
values at the U of T, my work was doomed. The fate of science there is
in the hands of the corrupt officials and the corrupt President. Ellen
Larsen who stole my research, could not even understand it (see her letter
in Document 1B, next below).
> Letter from E. Larsen.
> My Ph.D. program requirements and thesis proposal. > All
courses were finished long before 1986; computer graphics were replaced
by another course. It can be seen in Larsen's own documents (see below)
that all my research for the thesis, mentioned here, was done. Here, items
of the research were, in fact, only the predictions from my theory (again,
admitted by Larsen); they later were all proven true.
> Recommendation for NSERC scholarship, written by Larsen.
> It was written four months after I came to the lab. What
she speaks about was "weeks at a time" of my work with the "extensive
Drosophila literature" which resulted in my "entirely novel approach".
At the time, she was stunned by the theory, later - stole it.
> Same as previous, written by the Department. > As
I understand, this opinion was formed from Larsen's words and from my published
> E. Rapport's (as E. Larsen then was) recommendation for MRC scholarship.
> She, in her Affidavit, puts it in 1983. Scientific details
could have been written up better. Again, her admissions of what was done
by me make her subsequent plagiarism an insane act; well, if not for her
power to subvert justice.
> The report of the Graduate Committee, 3d May, 1985.
> Letter from Dr. Elinson, Graduate Affairs of the Department.
> This is October 18, 1985. Confirmed - I have one more year.
Yet, some people now tell me that his talk about difficulties with extensions
is unusual, especially, when "evidence of substantial progress"
was so obvious.
> Letter from E. Rapport to me. > Given to me by her,
agitated, some half an hour after I read letter from Elinson. This was
totally unexpected, my thesis was never before in doubt. But, again, confirmed
- I have one more year.
> Report of the Graduate Committee. > At the time,
they were saying: "You are out. But don't panic now, you can come
back some time later." Since then, the U of T has given two versions
of the reason for my departure. One is that my "graduate student status
was changed to "lapsed student"", because I "became
unable to do more research". The second is that I "abandoned
Ph.D. program amicably" when my "funding run out". All three
members of the Committee were members of the U of T "chapter"
of the pro-communist organization "Science for Peace". On the
evening of this same day I had a meeting, arranged by Larsen, with Prof.
Anatol Rapoport, the President of this organization, who, Larsen said,
was, as a mathematician, interested in my work. Yet, he spoke only about
my need to join their organization. I had politely refused. (This paragraph
is continued at the end of this page.)
> E. Rapport's letter to the journal. > The handwriting
from the secretary to me: "Please, indicate whose name should appear
under "Yours truly", yours or Dr. Rapport?" I did not sign
this letter and E. Rapport said something like: Well, that's your business.
> E. Larsen's letter to another journal. > This was
sent without my knowledge and further steps for publication were pursued
secretly till the last moment when my signature was needed.
> The manuscript #483-87, unpublished. > (Abundant
editor's corrections, mostly illegible even in my copy.) This MS was given
to me by Larsen with the request to sign the Copyright Transfer. I put
it in my bag, closed the bag and called her a thief. Still, she was demanding
the signature and I went to see the Chair of the Department.
> A reviewer's comments to the MS. > The copy of it
was given to me with the MS, together with the next three documents.
> Another reviewer's comments.
> Letter from the Editor to E. Larsen.
> Copyright Transfer. > The signatures of the authors
are required. Larsen had already put hers.
> My letter to the Chair of Zoology.
> Letter from Prof. Dunham to the Chair of Zoology. >
This I found in the Affidavits. Apparently, it was an "independent
investigation" of the allegations in my letter. I was not contacted,
nor the results or even a fact of this investigation were communicated
to me, - so great was the fear of the entirely different evidence, showing
that Larsen, having removed me, was in the process of stealing my research.
So, from August 6, 1987, they all knew what they were doing.
> Letter from Larsen to the Editor. > She is lying
that there are "difficulties with the revisions", not with her
authorship. She is not promising the Editor new experiments and ideas,
but a... "revised copy" after she will "get everything in
order". And that means: Michael now thinks that I will not steal the
research. No, I will!
> Letter from Larsen to the Editor. > One of the most
> Letter from the Chair of the Department to me. >
Was I just bothering a very busy people? When I read this letter, I thought:
at least, I prevented Larsen from stealing the work. Documents 17, 18 and
19 were not given to me.
> The article published by Larsen and her undergraduate student.
> This is one of the four articles that were making her career (together
with travels and seminars and private talks, etc.) for years. In "Ruthless
Science Fraud.." I speak mostly about this article because this one
had a history in previous documents and because the U of T "investigations"
consider only this article, all of which is showing the fraud and the cover-up
without going into scientific details. On the other side, in the article,
she only skimmed the results of my research; science also fell the victim
> My letter to the U of T President R. Prichard. >
After I found the Larsen's articles, it took me four months to compose
myself, to make photocopies of the articles and to write this letter. I
had no idea who Prichard is and what the U of T is. I had no doubt that
after this letter justice will be restored.
> Letter from President Prichard.
> The investigation by Ian Orchard.
> The Larsen's explanation. > The most revealing document.
> The letter from S. Desser, Chair of the Department. >
I received only this answer, documents 24 and 25 were not given to me.
As he said that Larsen did not plagiarize my work, I had to go to court.
Inviting me to present my thesis to Larsen (?), to this Department (?)
or to this University was a cunning invitation for failure. And, actually,
in the following documents the U of T has stated that my research was worth
nothing. Moreover, he was lying wildly that I "abandoned" Ph.D.
program when my funding run out!
> The investigation by D. Dewees. > This report is
written completely fraudulently, the issues are intermixed and his findings
of facts are hardly separated from his attack on the very principles of
authorship of research. He and Orchard intentionally played foolish bureaucrats
who are unfamiliar with scientific research. In "Ruthless Science
Fraud.." I tried to put the items of his argumentation in a meaningful
sequence. This man is the author (together with Pres. Prichard and two
others) of the remarkable book "The Choice of the Governing Instrument",
giving the Government an instruction on how to manipulate people.
> My letter to Vice-Provost, Paul Gooch. > Upon receiving
the Dewees's report, I requested a meeting with Gooch; he refused to see
> Answer from P. Gooch. > One of the lies: Guidelines,
you see, were not adopted at the time. Why, then, Dewees is quoting these
Guidelines in the first paragraph of his report?
> Expert letter from the President of The Canadian Genetics Society,
Prof. A. Hilliker, and Prof. S. Blecher.
> Answer to my complaint from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
> My letter to NSERC. > It was not answered - this
matter was just closed!
> Second letter from Prof. S. Blecher and Prof. A. Hilliker.
> When I received the NSERC letter I spoke to Prof. Blecher on
the phone, he said: no, NSERC is wrong, they are still on my side. (See
more on this.)
> Appeal for Michael Pyshnov, from the Graduate Students' Union.
> This was issued on March 31, 1998. My previous complaints to the GSU were
not followed. Even in this Appeal, Larsen's name was not mentioned. The
Appeal was posted on the GSU web site and sent to every professor of Zoology
in a letter. Professors did not answer. Code of silence (plainly, the intimidation
of potential witnesses) was imposed on them a couple of years before this,
when I, myself, sent them my letter. On September 22, 1999, one U of T
newspaper (The Independent) published a vague account of the case, saying
that I was "forced" to leave, but omitting the word "fraud"
and Larsen's name. The Independent quoted the GSU as saying that they were
"unable to pursue the case" and saying: "[Pyshnov] is not
a student, and we had pressing issues that arose."
> My Statement of Claim in court. > I could never
get a lawyer to help me, so this is written by me as also every other document
signed by me.
> Statement of Defense.
> My letter to the Attorney General of Ontario. >
The same letter was sent to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Anne McLellan, but I did not receive any answer.
> The answer from the Ministry of Attorney General.
> My second letter to the Attorney General. >
I pointed out here that my first letter was "misunderstood",
in fact, its content was perverted intentionally, in order to give a totally
> The answer from the Attorney General. > Here,
Attorney General is denying that one of his functions is "to restore
the rule of law", i.e., to look at the cases where previous attempts
to start prosecution failed, especially where the crimes are alleged against
individuals in the powerful institutions. Attorney General does have power
to order criminal investigations. He says: "This Ministry has examined
and reviewed your concerns" and he refers to my meeting with T. Shaw
which lasted.. 10 minutes. No one wants to look at the documents, period.
Interestingly, before Mr. Flaherty became the Attorney General, I contacted
his law firm and gave the documents to Catherine Zingg who subsequently
told me that I should not even come close to this firm because of the conflict
of interest situation.
> My letter to the U of T President, Dr. Birgeneau, Sept. 7, 2000.
> My letter to President Birgeneau, April 24, 2001.
> Response from President Birgeneau, May 17, 2001.
> My letter to President Birgeneau, May 22, 2001.
> Exchange of messages with The Canadian Association of University Teachers.
> Letter to the Police Chief of the U of T.
> ADDED DOCUMENTS (3).
> Exchange of letters with the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges
> Exchange of letters with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC).
To document #8:
Am I saying that it was just a political persecution?
No, I am not. Political structure has always been a weapon used by communists
for private goals. There was a bad case of envy here. In Summer of 1985,
at my home, Larsen said to my wife: "I am not a scientist, Michael
is a scientist." There were other outbursts, later - with hatred completely
unexplained. I don't know whether the other two members of the Committee
who signed this "academic decision" knew that Larsen was about
to steal the research; I can suppose that they did not. But, only now when
she managed to silence the press, her influence is becoming to reveal its
As the marihuana generation of scientists
came to power, fraud in science should be a thing expected. The propaganda
has painted an image of a scientist curing your deadly disease and leading
you personally into the era of progress. Meanwhile, the system is making
daily announcements of one breakthrough after another, made, understandably,
by the role model scientists in the progressive institutions. Although,
I never belonged to any political group and never desired a political activity,
it would not be difficult for Larsen to persuade the friendly administration
that my presence was undesirable. She did this at the very last moment;
had I remained at the University, my research would have become known.
At the time, the conclusions from my theory expanded into several important
areas; for instance, the behavior of stem cells, both - in time and space,
was predicted in 1977 and 1980 in my articles. (No, don't make a parallel
with the fascists, - they never stole the discoveries of the scientists
whom they expelled.) It is not a joke, but a fact: the "Science for
Peace" was co-sponsor of a conference on ethics in science; see: "Ethics
in Science and Scholarship: the Toronto Resolution", published in
"Accountability in Research", vol. 3, 1994; then, Science for
Peace published a "sequel" in vol. 4, 1995, - "Do Scientific
and Scholarly Codes of Ethics Take Social Issues into Account?".
my records of research, that I had destroyed.
After I had received the letter from the Chair
of the Department (September, 1987), I hardly could do anything. My life
and my work were rendered meaningless. I published my first work on the
subject in 1968. What happened at the University of Toronto was a thing
unimaginable and unbelievable. I looked at my things, in the drawers, I
was finding things which were useless and showed my complete failure in
life. I could not bear the burden of looking at them. I threw into the
garbage, with anger, one after another, my papers. One day, my M.Sc. diploma
followed. I still kept a few photographs, transparencies from my seminar
at Physics Dept. and the bundle with the manuscript that Larsen gave me
in 1987, together with a couple of documents which I demanded a day later
from the Graduate office. My letter to the Chair of Zoology, 1987, the
handwritten copy, disappeared.
But, in 1993, discovering (by a mere coincidence)
the Larsen's articles, I said I will present them to the "scientists".
I actually had only her articles and that manuscript and the answer from
the Chair. I expected that the U of T, starting to investigate the allegations
in my seven-page letter to Prichard, would demand my original records,
but I was not worried because I did not believe that they could deny everything.
But, they never wanted to investigate and never asked me to present the
records. They were afraid that I will present these records to them. The
first time I had to mention and explain the absence of the records, was
in my Affidavit of documents. The Larsen's and the U of T documents, however,
supplied practically all admissions that I needed. The criminal power,
U of T, had concentrated on perverting the law and the custom of science
(inventing the "salvaging" operation), rather than denying the
facts. Larsen's defense now (supported by Orchard and Dewees) is that she
didn't do what her article says in the title, and she didn't claim what
her abstract is claiming.
Paragraph 32 of the Statement of Defense says:
"The defendants further deny that Pyshnov has suffered mental distress
and put Pyshnov to the strict proof thereof." I still have a tiny
bit of hope that the strict proof can be avoided. And with this hope I
am delivering these documents to the public.
BACK TO THE MAIN PAGE