Here are some deservedly (in my opinion) unfavourable reviews of Plichta's God's Secret Formula:
 

Sometimes the ramblings of a man whose ambitions are beyond his talents are nonetheless educational. You will have to be the judge.
 

Reviewer: A reader from Canada

...within the text there exist so many arbitrary statements (such as Dr. Ps' belief that he has been chosen by God to lead the world into a scientific era of revelation, that modern science is dogma, etc., etc.) and arbitrary number tricks (that Plichta has stolen from old math-game-books, and claimed authorship of), that Dr. Plichta can be generally considered a fanatic without any merit at all. The mathmatics within, though completely unrelated to the prime number code, are interesting enough to make the reader come back out of no reason more than interest. However, Dr. Ps' negative attitudes towards modern physics and his delusions of being the greatest mind of all time, tend to irritate me. I recomend this book only to extremists who have completely shut the doors of open mindedness toward modern science.
 

Reviewer: A reader from Seattle, Washington

Another self proclaimed "genius" spouting off gradeschool math and not educated enough to realize how incredibly simple his "discovery" is. OF COURSE EVERY PRIME NUMBER IS OF THE FORM 6n +/- 1! Every number in general is of the form 6n-3, 6n-2, 6n-1, 6n, 6n+1, 6n+2. Since 6n-3=3*(2n-1) it's not prime. 6n-2 and 6n+2 are both divisible by 2 and 6n is divisible by 6. What's left? 6n +/- 1. Wow. Big surprise. Plichta's mistaken belief that he is somehow the "discoverer" of this "revelation" just shows how little he understands of math. He also makes the claim that defining 2 as the only "odd prime" is some sort of mistaken exception. This is no less wrongheaded than his 6n +/- 1 "discovery". Guess what? In the same way that 2 is the only even prime (which means "divisible by 2"), 3 is the only prime divisible by 3. 17 is the only prime divisible by 17. Every prime is no more nor less an "exception" in this sense than 2 is. The only difference is that the English language has assigned a name to the concept of "divisibility by 2" - namely, "even". Had we called all numbers divisible by 3 "triune" numbers then we would all be surprised that 3 is the only "triune" number. Mathematical exceptions based on the vagaries of the language like Plichta's are not exceptions at all. Once again, Plichta's failure to grasp this marks him as a mathematician of the lowest calibre. His views are not "controversial" as he would like us to believe. They are merely irrelevant, trite and misguided to anyone but the mathematically gullible.
 

Reviewer: John Warren from Alexandria, Virginia United States

This book really has only two flaws: 1) The author is extremely full of himself, and 2) The entire book acts as a kind of prelude for some "earth-shattering" discovery concerning prime numbers - a discovery which the reader is left anticipating after finishing the last paragraph. All that egotistical buildup, but to what end? Don't waste your time on this one. (Not to mention, the silver lettering on the paperback edition rubs off quite easily,my spine looks like God's S____e_ ____ula, even though it spent only one day in my hands).
 

Reviewer: A reader from NE

I took a chance on this book, picking it up for 3 dollars from the bargain rack at a local bookstore. After leaving the store my friend asked me what I got, I told him, "I don't know.. I think I got a para-science book." Obviously I had no idea that there was absolutely NOTHING scientific about this book. I read the first few chapters, and have never read anything that was so full of grandiose claims yet so utterly devoid of substance, all from an author who is unbelievably full of himself. I don't know exactly how book publishing works, but I always assumed people actually read the books before publishing them. After this book, I no longer believe that. There is no way that anyone read this book before it was published, or else it would never have been printed. This is the first book I ever threw in the garbage. But don't let my experience deter you from buying this book...
 

Reviewer: A reader from Winslow, Arizona

Good Lord, what an incomprehensible book!!! I have a doctorate (in an unrelated field), but there were entire pages where I had NO CLUE what the author was trying to say. I guess I was expecting something more along the lines of Fred Alan Wolf's laymen's guides to quantum physics. The author may well be the Scientist of the Millenium that he keeps telling you (and telling you, and telling you ...) he is, and his theories may well be the paradigm-shattering bombs that he claims, but frankly I never even understood what the heck he was talking about. It truly seemed to me like near-gibberish. You'd better have some background in chemistry and advanced mathematics, or you're going to be as lost as me. I learned more about the author's theories in a 15-second offhand comment on National Public Radio than I learned from trying to wade my way through this wacky book. I bought the equally incomprehensible Physics of Immortality at the same time -- I think the Universe is trying to tell me to lighten up.
 

Note: Plicha's "prime number code" should not be confused with Hartmut Müller's "prime number code of the universe":

H. Müller, "Der Primzahlen-Code des Universums", Raum & Zeit 108 (November/December 2000) 51-55.

"As with the elementary particles in the universe, prime numbers are the building blocks of all natural numbers. There are infinitely many prime numbers, however their distribution on the number line remains to this day a mystery in many respects. From the view of number theory this is a mathematical problem. Meanwhile, recent discoveries in certain areas of physics suggest analogies between the distribution of matter in the universe and the distribution of the prime numbers on the number line. Now many centuries of continuous mathematical research into the distribution of prime numbers gain a new physical dimension."

As I have not yet had time to translate the entire article, it remains unclear as to whether M¨ller's work has any more scientific merit than Plichta's.