The title above is an alternative for the posting which this note follows, as Google have changed (on their site) the title as we wrote it — perhaps they have received a complaint? — missing out ours entirely; for the full details of Jim Perrin’s ‘PhD’, as far as we have so far discovered, please do read the information in the preceding post. However, the question remains: if Jim Perrin’s PhD is spurious a complaint would be understandable as the complainant would not wish more attention to be drawn to any possible deception: proof,  on the other hand, would settle the matter…

Jac’s sisters.