As this site is just being opened, this page will serve as general discussion for questions, suggestions, new cases and as Contact.
It can happen that the access to posting here will be hacked by those who work hard to prevent the unwanted discussion. See if your posting actually appears here.
Science Mishandled 
Everyone is welcome!
Why you didn’t sue the University back then?
There are hungry lawyers looking for cases, willing to take no-win-no-fee.
For instance,
-Sue them for potential lost income
-Steal property, based on copyrights law
-Sue them for the psycological/mental stress they have provoke you
-and so on
I, in fact, sued them. You will find the documents (# 35 and 36) on my site http://www.universitytorontofraud.com
As to your “hungry lawyers”, you simply don’t know Canada. One lawyer explained to me: “If a lawyer takes your case, his children will not be able to find a job in Canada”.
I also needed expert who will tell the court that Larsen indeed stole/plagiarised my reseach. Two experts (Hilliker and Blecher) wrote me two letters (documents 30 and 33 on my site) which confirmed plagiarism and denounced the investigation of Dewees by UofT. Later, however, I found that they were going to tell the court exactly the opposite; they were part of conspiracy/bribery scheme. Read the documents on my site! It’s all there.
Michael
Mr. Pyshnov,
I’m sympathetic with you and I hope you get justice done someday.
I would only like to give you one piece of advice from someone who tried to understand your case:
If you want more people to know about your case and read your story, change how you present data.
This new website is Okish… but your other website, where you have most information, is just (and sorry if this hurts you) HORRIBLE. Everything is messed up, you can’t know where to start and where to finish, you have just too much information. No one in its right state of mind will read all that.
Concise information, leave the Science specific part out of it (you’ll attract a wider audience if they don’t have to be grad students to understand what you write) and separate things through different pages where you can click next to go to the next piece in information.
I was always told this: If you can’t state your case to a 8year old without him falling sleep, then something is just wrong with the way you’re presenting Data
Best of luck
R
Hi, and thank you for your advice.
But first about your hope – I will get justice. Someday I intend to get justice. I won’t be given justice, though, I will have to get it myself.
Now, what you write about my presentation is correct, but this has an explanation. I know it’s not good for the readers, but… I had written my first page in 1999-2000, when I could barely compose anything, my nerves and my psychic were about to collapse (it did not collapse, but it continues collapsing). Then, I started simply to add more documents as the events progressed. And, strangely perhaps, I was unwilling to remove anything written before, I wanted to preserve the form that reflected my state of mind at the time. My web site is a testimony.
I know it’s unconventional, but nothing about what was done, and continuing to be done to me is conventional. Nothing is conventional about my reaction also, I simply haven’t read about anything comparable. I survive the way people survived in communist concentration camps, their spirit survived and the body survived with it.
I just hope that people can understand all this: this is what a man under torture says. Those who first understand this, can then read documents.
Michael
“Later, however, I found that they were going to tell the court exactly the opposite; they were part of conspiracy/bribery scheme.”
1) How did you find that out?
2) How were they part of the conspiracy/bribery scheme?
3) If they were part of the conspiracy/bribery scene, why were they giving you — in writing — their opinion which supported your position?
Dear “neoteny”,
You are asking me questions that are nothing less than a legal inquiry. I have no indication that a legal inquiry of any sort is underway, although I firmly believe that such inquiry is needed. Unfortunately, as the matter stands now, the documents posted on my site and viewed often by the University of Toronto, by canadian government including NSERC, canadian press and by everybody involved, remain where they are, on my web site. I have no indication whatsoever that the documents and the whole affair are given a hearing anywhere. Naturally, I wonder who you are and what is your interest in making such inquiry.
Having said this, I assure you that I have the answers to your 1-st and 3-rd questions. I do not understand what information do you expect to receive on your 2-nd question, you have to elaborate. Of course, you need to make it clear who you are and what is your interest in making such inquiry, in which case I will consider your request.
I should add that this is the first time in the 13 years elapsed since the documents and my explanation were published that someone actually is asking me such questions.
Michael
“you have to elaborate”
No; semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
—-
I came across your site while reading up on the Valery Fabrikant case. In light of that, I find your statement:
“I will get justice. Someday I intend to get justice. I won’t be given justice, though, I will have to get it myself.”
rather ominous.
—-
It’s no skin off my nose if you are unwilling to back up your accusations against the two University of Guelph professors — who were supportive of your stance –; but I find it quite telling that you think it is reasonable to accuse them with being part of a grand conspiracy against you … without even attempting to provide any backup for such a charge.
—-
The history of academic life is full of priority disputes in which the parties behaved in a less than stellar manner (for example Newton and Leibniz), people of serious accomplishments were treated rather shabbily (for example Alan Turing), people’s fundamental contributions to scientific results were played down (for example Rosalind Franklin). It is entirely possible that you were treated less than well at the U. of T. in ’85-’86. But making it into a personal crusade to wring “justice” (on your personal terms) out of them is a serious error of setting priorities — especially if it involved giving up your scientific career.
I feel for you as a suffering human being — but it seems to me that to a large extent, the source of your feeling of permanent victimhood is within you. Everybody moved on — even Ellen Larsen –; it is only you who got stuck in the unenviable role of Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.
1. I can not read Latin.
2. You are manipulating my words “In light of that…” – Valery Fabrikant case.
3. You are saying that I accuse two U. of Guelph professors “without even attempting to provide any backup for such a charge”. That’s a lie; on my web site the part played by these two is well described, read it again under Events in 2002-2003. I refer to the interview with me published at http://www.justresponse.net/Genetic_manipulations.html
and I say:
“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).”
4. Then, you are trying to turn the unprecedented and now continuing fraud into a possibility that “you were treated less than well at the U. of T” by using Newton, Leibnitz, Alan Turing and Rosalin Franklin.
5. Then, you say that my fight involves “giving up your scientific career”. That’s again, a lie. In fact, I published terrific papers; see the references here under “THE AUTHOR”.
6. Then… you put the blame on me. Moreover, you have the temerity to say that Larsen “moved on”. Of course she moved on instead of moving to jail.
You are a dishonest manipulator, you should not expect such detailed reply, if any, from me in the future.
1) Google is your friend.
2) How did I ‘manipulate’ your words by directly quoting them? Or are you saying that I’m not entitled to my opinion as to their implications in light of the Fabrikant case (and your paranoid ramblings about how his contempt of court hearing was the means for an attack on his life)?
3) “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” — So what you’re saying is that because they refused to adopt and state _your_ views on the matter, “they were part of conspiracy/bribery scheme”.
4) Because you never explained what happened between the Oct. 18, 1985 letter and the Jan. 24, 1986 Graduate Committee meeting, furthermore you never stated when did you leave the PhD program, it is impossible to form an opinion regarding what did you do (or failed to do) to complete your thesis work. Without that, it is impossible to decide how well (or badly) were you treated by the U. of T.
5) Then why did you say in the JustResponse interview:
“Aside from the fact that I could not find a job after that and that all the other consequences of this affair went on unfolding in the following years, I suffer enormously from having practically lost my very name. Larsen was practically stealing my name and is continuing to do so. I have nothing left.”?
6) Everybody is a “dishonest manipulator” (or “part of conspiracy/bribery scheme”) in your eyes who doesn’t fully adopt your view of the matter.
The great thing about conspiracy theories is that any attempt to point to the lack of conspiracy is _de facto_ proof of the existence of the conspiracy in the eye of the believer.
—-
But you’re right: you don’t have any duty to answer any of my questions and you don’t owe me any explanations. Carry on with your quest for “justice”; I’m sure I’ll hear about when you’re “proven right” and “this university will […] go down the drain”.
2. “How did I ‘manipulate’ your words by directly quoting them?” You changed their meaning when you interpreted them “in light” of another case.
3. Not “because they refused to adopt and state _your_ views on the matter” but because plagiarism is fraud and plagiarising the research of her PhD student is double fraud, breach of trust, etc., etc. This is not as you say my “views”, this is a rule that has no exceptions. It was obviously an extremely suspicious act when these two professors concluded the fact of plagiarism but refused to say “fraud”. And when they subsequently wrote a comment to this interview saying that they did not confirm plagiarism, any doubt about their collaboration with UofT disappeared. Their two letters compared with the subsequent denial of plagiarism are probably the hardest evidence of corruption/conspiracy/bribery/collusion, you name it, ever happened in academia. This only happens among the lowest ranks of criminal gangs.
4. What happened between Oct. 18, 1985 letter and the Jan. 24, 1986? It’s this. Larsen wanted more experiments. She suggested that I do experiments to see how temperature changes cell patterns; I indeed planned this before. I did this. Now I should tell you that Larsen could not understand the results, could not find a meaningful explanation. I told her what the results mean. I recall that she latter published these results as done by her, but the explanation (I don’t remember exactly, I should look again at the paper) was either absent or given incorrectly. Next, at the meeting of Jan. 24, she and two committee members, after my presentation, in a chorus – literally, declared: “Michael, you have no thesis”. I cannot give here the whole story of the meeting, although there were most interesting moments there; some of this is published in parts of my web site. I left in August of 1986.
Now you can also compare Larsen’s reasons for termination of my program; there are two different versions of these reasons in the “academic decision” of Jan. 24 and in her later explanation (doc. 25) and in her letter to the editor (doc. 19). Yes, the “academic decision” was totally a fraud. (One reason – my inability to work, a lie. The other – I had no money to continue, another lie, but this is in the text of the “academic decision”. In fact, I had money, (I have a proof of this); and I never took a penny in a student loan. Interestingly, this prostitute of science said the Dept. had no money for me. Another shock – she found money to give to an undergraduate student to repeat my experiments.
5. What I said, it’s just what it is.
I believe you were wrongfully forced to withdraw from the program and left discredited, without a degree. I can not imagine the pain and grief you’ve had to endure because of this event. And I hope that one day you are truly recognized for all your hard work.
It cannot be said that I was “forced to withdraw from the program”. I was removed without any of my part in this removal. This should be clearly understood. If you see the so-called “acdemic decision”, it says:
“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.”
1. The words “he would allow his Ph.D. candidacy to lapse” are a lie. I never agreed to allow my candidacy to lapse. Moreover, I was not asked to allow.
Everything else is also a lie.
2. The words “The committee …. found the work of the student may not be completed by the time his financial support terminates in April 1986.” were a fraud because as they followed by “If this occurs…”, I, in April, asked for another meeting to find if this actualy occured, but Larsen said: “There is no need for another meeting. You are out.” She never planned to find if “this occurs”.
3. The formula of this “academic decision” was completely fraudulent.
Moreover, at the meeting I was asked if I will have money to continue (i. e. my personal money, not the funding!) I answed that if I will not have enough money, I can always borrow from student burse. I never borrowed a penny before. Some borrow tens of thousands of dollars. Actually, I had my own money and have a proof of this. Then, I also said that I will have a TA hours, to which she immediately replayed that TA will not be available to me.
Next, in such situations, Dept. always helps with some money. She said that Dept. will have no money for me.
Next, she had a grant money for THAT MY project, but she offered nothing.
Next, when I left, she found money to hire an undergraduate student (Zorn) to repeat my experiments. Why no money for me?
4. Now, you will wonder why such crazy formula was used in “academic decision”? As you see above, money problem was a pretext, this problem did not exist!
This is why. Larsen first wrote a different text saying that my thesis was not finished. Then, she left to call her lawyer and returned saying that text must be rewritten. She wrote second version that did not refer to any present or past facts, but to the FUTURE SITUATION. Much later, when I started reading the law books, I found that, in fraud, false statement about present or past situation is a fraudulent misrepresentation, but a statement about the future situation is not a misrepresentation. This is why the text came out so weird.
5. And there is another important point. Larsen’s previous letter to me and all that was said at the meeting, refered to the need for more experiments, which of course would require my presence in the lab. But, suddenly, “academic decision” required more “theoretical models”, not the experiments! This prostitute of science obviously needed my ABSENCE from the lab, because she planned to repeat my work by another person, an undergraduate, and publish my research as her own, with that Zorn.
Do I need to bring up more facts to prove this elaborate fraud? I think this is quite enough for now, but of course there are more facts, contradicting the formula in the “academic decision” in her other documents.
=( this is horrible. Let me know if I can help you with anything. I am a current undergrad at UofT
Hi!
Sorry for late answering. My email stopped sending me messages about new postings here and probaly is under attack. First, you have to understand that some messages above were made by the UofT crooks to provoke me, extract information for Larsen, etc.
The first thing UofT did was to make sure that my communications will not work.
Thank you for your message.
My best wishes to you.
Michael
COPE is a farce.