An Issue of Argue with "Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology"(the Journal of Elsevier Publisher), Xin Ni, Ph.D Special Issue Guest Editor Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology (based at the e-mail address: <ees.pbmb.0.3b6393.ec55f389@eesmail.elsevier.com>)

1. 1
An Issue of Argue with "Progress in Biophysics and Molecular
Biology"(the Journal of Elsevier Publisher), Xin Ni, Ph.D Special
Issue Guest Editor Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology
(based at the e-mail address:
<ees.pbmb.0.3b6393.ec55f389@eesmail.elsevier.com>)
Dear Editor ,
Thank you for the provided comments which we feel to perceive as the
very formal declaration.
Recently, the certain appeals have been made to the President of the
USA, Japanese Prime Minister Abe, HM British Queen Elizabeth II
about the Genealogical studies inherent to Dr. Mark Babizhayev and the
Members of his Family .
The inheritance has been unequivocally proved with the number of
relevant modern and classical approaches.
Dr. Mark Babizhayev is the Senior Great Grandson of Wallis
Simpson (Bessie Wallis Warfield-Spencer-Simpson) USA wife of
Edward VIII & King of UK Edward VIII “David” (Edward Albert
Christian George Andrew Patrick David) Prince of Wales UK, Duke
& Duchess of Windsor .
In other words, Dr. Mark Babizhayev has an "Unofficial Status of a
King of UK" and is the Major relative of the British Royal Family.
The data are described shortly on The Twitter :
Albert II Grimaldi@markinmonaco .
https://twitter.com/markinmonaco/with_replies
We invite you to publish our work in your scientific vehicle/Journal as it
is, in view of the above Official assumption, regardless the Subjective
opinions of your provided Reviewers' reports presented below.

2. 2
Please, make the following note upon the Publication of the Materials
making the asterics following the title of the Article :
Dr. Mark Babizhayev is the Senior Great Grandson of Wallis Simpson
(Bessie Wallis Warfield-Spencer-Simpson) USA wife of Edward VIII &
King of UK Edward VIII “David” (Edward Albert Christian George
Andrew Patrick David) Prince of Wales UK, Duke & Duchess of
Windsor .
In other words, Dr. Mark Babizhayev has an "Unofficial Status of a
King of UK" and is the Major relative of the British Royal Family.
Here are below the Illustration Photos :
The Upper Image:
Dr. Mark A. Babizhayev in Germany (Bonn)
The Lower image
Edward VII (Albert Edward; 9 November 1841 – 6 May 1910) was
King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and
Emperor of India from 22 January 1901 until his death in 1910.
The eldest son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg
and Gotha, Edward was related to royalty throughout Europe.
Before his accession to the throne, he served as heir apparent and
held the title of Prince of Wales for longer than any of his
predecessors.

3. 3

4. 4
Here are below the next pair of the Illustration Photos :
The Upper image
Edward VII (Albert Edward; 9 November 1841 – 6 May 1910) was
King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and
Emperor of India from 22 January 1901 until his death in 1910.
The eldest son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg
and Gotha, Edward was related to royalty throughout Europe.
Before his accession to the throne, he served as heir apparent and
held the title of Prince of Wales for longer than any of his
predecessors.

5. 5
Dr. Mark Babizhayev in the State of Philadlephia, The United States
of America

6. 6
If we would not hear the positive answer from your Staff at soonest,
being appropriate, we will raise the Public Discussion against your
Journal through the Washington Post and other important International
platforms through Twitter, accordingly.
Please, review the Twitter account of our Group :
https://twitter.com/markinmonaco/with_replies
Note, that the materials of the submission have been patented by the
Author according to the PCT system. We have attached the Declaration ,
resend this again.
After we manage to start and act against your Staff in the mentioned
above way, if you fail to comply with our Requirements, we predict that
your Journal would be most probably removed from the Public Domain
based on the importance of the considered issues.
We are very interested to hear your next comments.
Thank you.
Cordially, Dr. Mark Babizhayev
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/18/16, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology
<ees.pbmb.0.3b6393.ec55f389@eesmail.elsevier.com> wrote:
Subject: Your Submission
To: markbabizhayev@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, August 18, 2016, 1:20 PM
Ms. Ref. No.: PBMB-D-16-00028
Title:
Dear Dr Mark Babizhayev,
I regret to inform you that the reviewers of your manuscript
have advised against publication, and I must therefore

7. 7
reject it.
For your guidance, the reviewers' comments are included
below.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your
work.
Yours sincerely,
Xin Ni, Ph.D
Special Issue Guest Editor
Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology
An Argue is based on the voluntary comments of the randomly
allocated Reviewers…
***
Declaration on Patenting, Originality and Linguistics
Dear Editors ,
Dear Sir/Madam ,
Please, consider below our Declaration of Interest/Explanation :
The main concern of the originality raised during the application and uses
CrossCheck powered by iThenticate software is the subject of plagiarism.
This programme is dedicated to reveal the subjects of plagiarism in the
submitted manuscripts.
The application of iThenticate programme to the current case is prohibited as
there is no traces of plagiarism in the contents of this article supported by the
filed and issued Patents according to the PCT International system cited
below.
See below the more detailed description of the case.
The Journal employs a plagiarism detection system. By submitting the
manuscript to the Journal one accepts that the submitted manuscript may be
screened for plagiarism. However, kindly note that this subject of originality
is not sufficient and is not legally applicable to the current submitted article

8. 8
and to this considered case.
The reason of this is as follows :
The clue moment of the raised dispute with your Journal is the point about
plagiarism. If it is officially clear that there are NO traces of plagiarism in the
submitted article that is supported by the presented and clearly cited in the
scope of the Manuscript PCT patent applications which privilege the priority
of the Authors in this field and the absence of the prior art/published issues
infringing the priority of the Authors, accordingly there are absolutely NO
other intent or restrictions to make the wording text new or original
according to your criteria based on the use iThenticate software .
The therapeutic modalities described in details in the text and the content of
the current submission have been specifically patented by the Author (Dr.
Mark A. Babizhayev) with the list of the International PCT patent
applications worldwide available and US Patents allowed and pending :
WO 94/19325;
WO 95/12581;
WO 2004/064866 A1
Babizhayev, M.A. and Meguro, K., 2004. COMBINED USE OF
CARNOSINASE INHIBITOR WITH L-CARNOSINES AND
COMPOSITION. WO 2004/064866 PCT/JP2004/000351. Filed 20 January
2003 (20.01.2003).
The Patent Applications and allowed Patents are listed in the scope of the
submitted manuscript of the article.
Thus, according to the PCT convention and the acting International rules, this
work can NOT be considered as plagiarism or self-plagiarism of any kind
because all States allocated charges and fees have been timely and accurately
payed by Dr. Babizhayev and the priority validity of the Inventions and the
contents of the material to the name of Dr. Mark A. Babizhayev and disclosed
in this submission has been proved in front of the US Patent Office , European
Patent Office and the Japanese Patent Office thus appearing quite original
through the World.
The present submission of the considered article summarizes the contents of
the patented Inventions, Claims and its Specifications which might be

9. 9
remained unchanged in their contents with the major parts .
Please, appreciate that according the existing rules of the PCT Convention of
Intellectual Property, after filing the PCT applications supporting the priority
of the Applicant, the Authors can use any kind of the published material to
promote scientifically and industrially this kind of patented Intellectual
property, making the due citations where necessary. Obviously, the references
to all necessary materials have been duly made punctially in the scope of the
considered article. The percentage of repetitions is significantly low,
according to your Report.
Accordingly , we suggest in compliance with the acting International law, that
based on the available International patent protection, we can insist that your
reputable Journal can process our submitted work for the review/publication
without making revisions as presented by Reviewer for linguistic repetitions
in some places of the article as it is obvious that there is no sign of plagiarism
in the presented work describing the patented therapeutic modality.
As there are factually NO TRACES OF ANY TYPE OF PLAGIARISM in the
submitted Manuscript, there are no other reasons to insist on the completely
different wording in the text of the article , in view that all due citations in the
submitted article have been accurately made. The linguistic phonema used
might be legally preserved in several parts of the article for clarity on the
distinguished desire of the Authors.
Truly, the manuscript overall represents quite original material in its
proprietary and other senses with no component of plagiarism existing.
It is anticipated that you might be willing to legally traverse the reasons of
decline/rejection of our manuscript, if any.
The similarities can not be judged as an objective or subjective reason of
rejection per se. The linguistic similarities per se are occurred everywhere,
Any sentence includes the words that are repeated from time to time, the
words in English language contain the similar set of the chosen letters in Latin
that are repeated regularly in many sentences through the text as a matter of
fact. The linguistic similarities per se can not be the reason of rejections.
Now , it is clear to you that there are no traces of plagiarism in our
submission, and as such, we have the authorized right to use any information
we want to prove our ideas with clarity, supported by the PCT Convention of
Intellectual property, we have presented the numbers of the available Patents
and International Patent Applications in our possession in the current
submission.

10. 10
Your Journal belongs to the International reputable Publishing Scientific
House , which Organization should respect the International Laws of
Intellectual Properties.
Thank you.
Kindly, note that there is no personal prejudice or the unrespected attitude to
your Journal or Publishers in the above stated disclosure.
Thank you very much for your pending amicable and Intellectual
consideration of the Problem.
Looking forward to hearing from you with the weighted response and
pending acceptance of our official position.
Thank you.
Cordially, Dr. Mark A. Babizhayev, Ph.D., Executive Director, Innovative
Vision Products, Inc., DE, USA.
Innovative Vision Products, Inc.
Delaware Office :
3511 Silverside Road, Suite 105, County of New Castle, Delaware, USA 19810
e-mail: markbabizhayev@yahoo.com
Moscow Office :
Ivanovskaya 20, Suite 74,
Moscow 127434, Russian Federation
e-mail: markbabizhayev@mail.ru
Tel/Fax: +7(499)977-2387
mobile phone : +7(965)371-79-89
Skype address: Dr_Mark_Babizhayev
http://www.innovative-vision-products.com