No. 7 – Letter hand delivered to the Compagnia di San Paolo at the meeting in Turin on January 22, 2014

January 22nd, 2014

Monasterolo di Savigliano, January 22, 2014

Dr. Sergio Chiamparino – President of the Foundation “Compagnia di San Paolo”

Dr. Carlo Bongiovanni – Assistant to the President

Dr. Luca Remmert – Vice President

Dr. Piero Gastaldo – Segretary General

Dr. Stefano Scaravelli – Responsable area Health Care and Scientific Research

Dr. Amalia Bosia – Board Member of the Foundation “Compagnia di San Paolo”

Dr. Giorgio Palestro – Board Member of the Foundation “Compagnia di San Paolo”

 

C.so Vittorio Emanuele II, 75 – 10128 Torino

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thirteen years after publication of Crosetto’s book [16] and scientific articles [9], in which he describes the feasibility and benefits of the innovative 3D-CBS, (3 Dimensional Complete Body Screening), hundreds of times more efficient than the current PET (Positron Emission Tomography), representatives of three of the most important U.S. universities, which had always denied the possibility to significantly improve the efficiency of the over 5,000 PET currently used in hospitals, instead now recognize [3] that it is feasible and that the increased efficiency can reduce the radiation to the patient to below 0.1 mSv. They also agree that it can provide other significant benefits to the patient.

Siemens also denied such a possibility; however, after the President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine and the Director of PET spent an entire day with Crosetto at his premises in DeSoto, Texas, on November 6, 2002, and after a series of subsequent conference calls between Crosetto and the leaders of the company, they changed their minds about the limits of feasibility that they had considered insurmountable.

Flavio Marchetto, a physicist from Turin, has just put in writing that he considers Crosetto’s invention feasible. He believes it is time for clinicians to decide to make a statement on the extent of the benefits to patients from the increased efficiency of the 3D-CBS innovative technology. The 3D-CBS is a new PET/CT with the potential to replace many tests such as the mammogram, colonoscopy, etc., with an effective single screening test to detect cancer and other diseases in most organs of the body at an early, curable stage. It provides more accurate information on minimum abnormal biological processes, quantified with a ratio between the measured value and the standard value. The increased sensitivity and specificity of the 3D-CBS device makes it possible to have a more accurate staging of the disease, the identification of micro-metastasis, the precise measuring of the cancer activity, inflammation, infections, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, heart and vascular diseases, etc. Its increased sensitivity opens the door to the discovery and development of new biomarkers that cannot be detected with the current inefficient PET, thus making their discovery difficult.

Many public scientific reviews that have compared Crosetto’s 3D-CBS innovative project with major projects in the field have proven its superiority, even winning the Leonardo da Vinci competition for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis (this contest was also sponsored by Dr. Chiamparino in his then position as President of ANCI).

In view of the above delays in the recognition of the validity of Crosetto’s inventions as an effective tool for the discovery of new particles and early cancer detection aimed at the reduction of premature cancer death, and in order to allow a more rational use of public resources in these areas of research, it is urgent and imperative to address this issue.

 

 

 

 

Without further hesitation, clinicians should decide to recognize the potential diagnostic and therapeutic benefits made possible when a detailed, accurate map of the abnormal biological processes at the cellular level is provided. This opportunity must not be ignored or dismissed within the scientific community, and particularly in medical physics. Crosetto and his team are readily available to answer any questions and to gain your support, eliminating whenever possible your doubts through calculations, logical reasoning, and experiments, so that the 3D-CBS can be funded as soon as possible.

It is urgent to tackle the global issue of funding research projects questioning the same criteria that guided the definition of the regulations in the various public institutions and/or funding agencies. The process and goals set by these regulations are often the main obstacles to the development of projects/applications that are truly innovative for the benefit of knowledge and humanity. We can no longer allow inventions such as those made by Crosetto to be ignored because they are tangled up in “networks” of regulations that more often favor the business of the companies rather than the advancement of knowledge and utilization of life changing inventions.

This distortion over the past 50 years has had serious consequences that are in the eyes of all: The treatment cost of cancer has increased a hundred-fold, reaching a total annual economic cancer cost of more than 1,100 billion dollars, with a paltry mortality reduction rate of only 5%, mostly as a result of abstention from smoking or other changes in lifestyle, and not due to the merits of research.

The reason for calling this meeting, and we thank you for granting it, cannot be reduced to a simple request for a contribution to research and experiment. Instead, it is aimed to efficiently (cost-effectively) address and resolve in the shortest amount of time, one of the greatest calamities that afflicts our planet (ref. Crosetto’s book [15]): cancer. We believe that this ambitious and essential goal unites the “Compagnia di San Paolo” and the association “Crosetto Foundation for the reduction of premature cancer deaths,” as evidenced in some areas of your own papers which state: ” The Compagnia shall pursue goals of social good, to foster civil, cultural and economic development, by operating in particular in the following sectors: scientific, economic and juridical research; education; art; conservation and enhancement of cultural heritage and activities and of heritage sites; health; assistance to the socially deprived categories. Such sectors are defined collectively in these articles of association as the Compagnia’s priority sectors of activity.” Let us then face together and promote a dialogue on these issues in order to objectively analyze and understand what has been achieved as a result of the investments made, and to ensure that opportunities offered by currently available knowledge are properly supported and encouraged.

The Association of the Crosetto Foundation therefore submits two proposals to the Compagnia di San Paolo which has the common goal of achieving maximum effectiveness in solving the most macroscopic and urgent problems faced by humanity. In the event the Company would identify more efficient methods or be deemed to modify the proposal, the Crosetto Foundation will be pleased to address these proposals in a constructive dialogue for the benefit of humanity.

The proposals are as follows:

  1. In accordance with the description on page 17 of the document “DPP_2013 -2016″ of the Compagnia di San Paolo on the “Dissemination of scientific culture”, we proposed for the Compagnia di San Paolo to participate and contribute to the activities carried out by the Crosetto Foundation for the last few years with the goal of building a stable connection and an effective communication at the scientific level between the leaders of the various areas of scientific research and citizens who largely finance and receive the

 

 

 

 

benefits of scientific research. More specifically, the Crosetto Foundation will include the Compagnia di San Paolo among the recipients of these communications attached hereto as Exhibit A, which shows the dialogue between those responsible for managing the funds and evaluating research projects, and those who propose solutions. It is expected by cancer patients, who are the recipient of the benefits that reviewers and proposers jointly motivate how their proposals and decisions to support or reject funding are consistent with the achievement of a significant reduction in premature cancer deaths and costs.

2. In light of the above invention made by Crosetto and its high potential to contribute to the reduction of premature cancer deaths and cost, it is proposed to the Compagnia di San Paolo to support (with a contribution to get started, avoiding adding delay of the benefits) the construction of three 3D-CBS prototypes targeted to early cancer detection with an affordable examination cost. This important objective will be achieved without further delay in the transfer of innovations to the bedside, with an immediate support to the Association of the Crosetto Foundation to create the infrastructure that makes it possible to start a joint work plan directed at defining costs, financing instruments and operating modes. In preparation for these activities, we point out the availability of Flavio Marchetto in making his expertise in medical physics available for comparison with your experts at a later meeting on Friday, January 24, 2014, with the understanding there may be additional meetings to openly support the need for constant scientific comparison.

 

In order to facilitate the understanding of the substantial documentation concerning this project and Crosetto’s inventions, below this letter you will find references to two recent articles in one page and 32 pages summarizing twenty years of obstacles and recognitions of Crosetto’s inventions. Below this you will find documents related to Crosetto’s inventions on page 1, 3,, 5, 14, 20 , 29, 32, 45, 55 , 70, and 260. The reader may stop reading at the level of detail he chooses and at any time may ask questions directly to the inventor, who will answer as satisfactorily as possible, even publicly, in order to render a service to others.

Crosetto has pledged to make a donation on behalf of cancer patients with80 % of the proceeds from the licensing of his patents.

Currently the Crosetto Foundation is funded as follows:

- Permanent ongoing contributions from the membership fees;

- Contributions at events, support for the publication of books;

- From crowd-funding fundraising, donations in memory of victims of cancer;

- Contributions by payment of five per thousand (in compliance with the Italian law that gives taxpayers the option to choose the beneficiary of their contribution).

 

On behalf of the members of the Crosetto Foundation to defeat premature mortality from cancer,

Dario Crosetto

 

 

 

 

Appendix A:

DIALOGUE between Crosetto and decision -makers in the field of particle detection and medical imaging, and people who care to contribute to make a better world. http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/806.pdf

 

References to recent documents of one page and of 32 pages and an 11-minute video that describes the 3D-CBS technology.

[1] One page article submitted at the Conference ” IEEE : the Grand Challenges of Science for Life” – 2-3 December 2013 , Singapore, and at the Workshop “The use of PET in the diagnosis of diseases of the nervous system. News and Perspectives” – January 13, 2014, National Neurological Institute C. Mondino, Pavia. http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/804.pdf

[2] 11-minute video describing the 3D-CBS technology: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwMnHRuWo4o

[3] 32-page article summarizing Crosetto’s innovations over the last 20 years, which prove to be “beyond the imagination of future science”. The article was presented at the Conference IEEE- NSS- MIC- RTSD held in Seoul, Korea, from October 27 to November 2, 2013. Title: “Breaking the Speed Barrier in Real-Time Applications to Make Advances in Particle Detection, Medical and Astrophysics.” IEEE- NSS- MIC- RTSD. Conf Rec R05 -52 , 2013. http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/800.pdf

 

References of documents from one page up to 260 pages.

[4] 1 page document describing the innovative architecture of the 3D-Flow Crosetto for the First Level Trigger: http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/291.pdf

[5] 1 page document describing Crosetto’s additional inventions for applications in medical diagnostics. Page summary of the main innovations of the 3D-CBS technology. The key elements are grouped into five main areas. The innovative electronics allow significant efficiency improvement in a simplified assembly of the detector which in turn allows changes in the ability to execute complex algorithms in real time. Additional innovations, such as those that make possible the use of less expensive crystals which allows to increase the length of the detector ( FOV) of the entire device at a reasonable cost, can be obtained as a result of the combination of the preceding innovations. See www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/254.pdf. Also compare slides 40 , 41, 44 , 47, 48 and 50 of the seminar at: www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/60.pdf

[6]   3 page document for laymen in English at http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/177.pdf or in Italian at http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/177.it.pdf

[7]  5 page article published in 2003 in English: “Complete Body Screening, 3D-CBS: Features and Implementation”, presented at IEEE-NSS-MIC-2003. Conference Record. M7-129 . www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/107.pdf or in Italian at:   http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/107.it.pdf

[8]   6 to 14 page article published in 1992, that describe the innovative 3D-Flow architecture. Within 35 days, Crosetto presented his basic invention at three international conferences, in Europe, Annecy, and the United States, Corpus Christi (Texas ) and Orlando ( Florida ), respectively, and published in prestigious scientific journals: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, and IEEE -NSS -MIC . See www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/420.pdf.

[9 ]   8 and 20 page articles presented to the Conference by Crosetto at IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging in Lyon, France, in 2000, the IEEE -2000-563, and IEEE- www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/69.pdf  2000-567 http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/99.pdf.

[10]  20 page document. Recognition of innovations made by Crosetto by an international auditing at Fermilab, simulation and demonstration of feasibility in hardware http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/300.pdf

[11]   22 page questionnaire compiled by the inspectors of the ABO Project, who reviewed the entire project for four days in Dallas, TX, during 17 hours of meetings (all videotaped). They approved and witnessed the benefits of the system. See www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/162.pdf

[12] 29 page article. Title: “Logical Reasoning and Reasonable Answers Consistent with Declared Objectives for the Benefit of Mankind.” Presented by Crosetto at the International Seminars on Planetary emergencies 40th Session, Erice, 19-24 August 2008. Editor: World Scientific 2009, p. 531.  www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/211.pdf

[13] 45 page article published in NIM in 1999. Title: “Base Implementation of the LHCb Trigger Level-0 with the 3D-Flow system,” in Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Sec A, vol. 436 (1999), p.341-385.Part 1: http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/147.it.pdf Part 2: http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/148.pdf

[14] 55 page article presented at the University of Geneva in 2001: http://www.crosettofoundation.com/uploads/100.pdf

[15 ]  70 page book for laymen entitled: “The Future is in Our Hands . EVERY YEAR : 10 million preventable deaths, trillions of Euros LOST ” http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/100.pdf.

[16] 260 page technical and Scientific book published by Crosetto presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science and Medical Imaging Symposium, Lyon , France, in 2000 , entitled : “Improvement of the Efficiency of the PET 400 Times”, reducing the radiation dose and low-cost screening for cancer. see www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/431.pdf

 

No. 6 – Comments in response to CPRIT solicitation to their draft of the Administrative Rules to assign grants

January 15th, 2014

Comments in response to the November 1, 2013 CPRIT (Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas) solicitation to their draft of the Administrative Rules to assign grants for cancer research aimed to significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost.

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]

Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:05 PM
To: ‘Kristen Doyle’
Cc: eread@cprit.state.tx.us; cprit@cprit.state.tx.us; unitedtoendcancer@att.net
Subject: RE: Comments to the proposed rules to the Texas Administrative Code Title 25, Chapters 701, 702, 703 and 704

 

Thank you for providing the extension for my reply until today, December 31, 2013.

 

Please find below my comments you requested to the changes proposed for Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 701, 702, 703 and 704 rules published in the November 1, 2013 edition of the Texas Register.

 

I would like to request that the final order on these rules will reflect my comments and recommended changes.

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dario Crosetto

President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

 

Comments in response to the November 1, 2013 CPRIT solicitation
to their draft of the Administrative Rules to assign grants for
cancer research aimed to significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost.

 

I will do my best to provide constructive comments that CPRIT (Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas) requested to their proposed Texas Administrative rules to assign grants for a total of $3 Billion of taxpayer money. These suggestions and comments are not intended solely for CPRIT but for all agencies raising and distributing funds for cancer research.

Because of the importance of this issue involving millions of people affected by cancer, which still is the most deadly and costly calamity in the world, I would like to share my proposal with the public and request 15 days delay in order to be able to receive their feedback before CPRIT makes the final decision.

We should analyze the errors made in the past, to make sure that the new rules prevent them from repeating in the future and also make sure that the new rules provide the best means to achieve the goal of significantly reducing premature cancer deaths and cost.

Public financing must act where private initiative, in compliance to market practice, fails to pursue the higher purposes of basic research devoted to enhance knowledge and human well-being. Therefore, applicants that are unable to provide financial guarantees should not be penalized. Public financing must give to any worthy project the same opportunity to reach the claimed objective, always keeping detailed control of the way public money is spent. A single inventor and a big company may convey the same value to the community, which must be suitably acknowledged by the institutions.

The following points should be addressed to best achieve the goal:

  1. The rules should state clearly at the beginning of the document and in the specific sections throughout the document that the $3 billion of taxpayers money should be used to fund projects which demonstrate having a high potential to significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost, and which:
    1. are based on solid scientific arguments,
    2. have been compared with other projects showing their advantages in achieving both reduction in cancer deaths and costs,
    3. no one has provided scientific arguments to invalidate the proposer’s substantial claims,
    4. provide a plan to test their expected results on a sample population.

These objectives are not stated a single time in the current draft of the CPRIT Administrative Rules. I have explicitly asked several agencies that assign grants to point out the administrative rules stating that the applicants must aim at reducing cancer deaths and costs. Unfortunately, none of the agencies was able to point to the relevant paragraph in their rules. Yet this objective is essential. This is why I recommend that CPRIT rules mention this requirement explicitly.

  1. Identify those taxpayers, legislators, philanthropists, physicians, cancer organizations, etc. who have as their main goal and objective to “substantially reduce cancer deaths and cost” and work with them to make these rules align more with their objective, asking them for comments and suggestions on the way to improve these rules to best achieve the declared goal.
  2. All comments and suggestions received should be published and addressed. Those that are inconsistent with best achieving the declared goal and show clearly they pursue a different agenda should be dismissed. However, before doing so, the proposers of the comments/suggestions must be contacted by CPRIT. CRPIT should point out the specific inconsistencies and invite them to explain or clarify their alternative strategy to contribute to achieving the primary objective of reducing cancer deaths and cost. In the absence of a reply or if the replies do not demonstrate an advantage for the taxpayer, the comments/suggestions should be dismissed. All documentation relative to this process should be made public in all cases.
  3. The roles of CPRIT and the applicants should be reversed:
    1. Instead of the applicant hunting for a “gift”, i.e. the grant, CPRIT should hunt for projects with highest potentials to reduce cancer deaths and costs. Reviewers should be held accountable for providing acceptance claims or rejection claims supported by scientific arguments. History will provide evidence of significant errors that damaged society, which were made by reviewers and should be made public to inform everyone, so that their influential position will not further damage society.
    2. The communication between the reviewers and applicants should not be prevented but explicitly requested and made public, so that everyone can evaluate the competence of both and through the dialogue based on scientific arguments the scientific truth can emerge.
  4. The scientific merit of submitted projects in best achieving the goal of significantly reducing cancer deaths and cost should prevail over any other criteria of evaluation.
  5. Only half of the funds made available by CPRIT should be allocated to the matching funds program, requesting the applicant to contribute with one half the Grant Award. This mechanism of awards assigned to companies which can afford matching CPRIT awards with millions of dollars can fall into subsidizing private investors or companies with taxpayers money. It is fair that companies or investors who request taxpayers to subsidize their projects to give a return to the community, otherwise these entities could pursue their business just with their own money. These companies should:
    1. provide public transparency of the research, mission, milestones that they intend to achieve and the results they finally achieved at the declared deadlines,
    2. provide a return to the taxpayers investment by assigning to the community a percentage of the income from the licensing of patents. The percentage should be lower than the percentage returned by an individual who received full funding of the project. For example, the return of investment could take the form of free drugs or medical equipment to hospitals, or free drugs or examinations to low income cancer patients.
  6. The other half of the CPRIT available funds should be assigned to projects with highest potentials to reduce cancer deaths and cost being unable to match available Grant Awards. Individual or entities who cannot afford to fund the project may receive awards for its full implementation because of the extraordinary scientific merit of their research. In this case, the applicants must provide:
    1. the full description of the way the Award Grant money is spent,
    2. the milestones that they intend to achieve and what they achieved at the declared deadline,
    3. a return to the taxpayers investment, by assigning to the collectivity a percentage of the income obtained from the licensing of patents. The percentage should be higher than the percentage returned by a company or investor who contributed with one half the Grant Awards. The return could be the donation of free drugs or medical equipment to hospitals and free drugs or examinations to low income cancer patients.

 

The objective of these rules is to satisfy the taxpayers, philanthropists, legislators, physicians, cancer organizations, hospitals, etc., who have the goal of “substantially reducing cancer deaths and cost”. If this is not the main purpose, the alternative would be for CPRIT (or any agency assigning grants for cancer research) to clearly state their objective, and legislators should make sure that voters and taxpayers are supportive of its alternative objective because they believe it to be in their best interest.

CPRIT is responsible for verifying that each chapter and paragraph of the 126 pages of the draft rules is legitimate, consistent, in agreement with, in compliance with and helpful in achieving the objective of substantially reducing cancer deaths and cost. Should this not be the case, rules should be modified to be consistent with the final objective.

The following are some inconsistencies found in the current version of the CPRIT Administrative rules that need to be addressed:

 

703.3

Page 63

Add: “…shall request to demonstrate the objective and capability to reduce cancer deaths and cost per each life saved compared to current costs and shall request to quantify the expected percentage of cancer deaths and cost reduction when tested on a sample population.”

Page 64

Add: “…demonstrating achieving a reduction in cancer deaths and cost per life saved compared to current costs.”

 

703.5

Page 70

Add: “Each committee member must provide scientific arguments, and/or references, calculations, demonstrations supporting their rejection claims of the project and/or the superiority in efficiency and potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost of one project that they approve for funding with respect to others that they do not approve for funding. When applicants will make measurements on a sample population, proving success or failure of the funded project due to a conceptual error and not because of a lack of implementation, these results will be used to improve the review process.  Reviewers who had the vision of the benefit to the public from an innovation that proved reduction of cancer deaths and cost will be included in a list of expert reviewers in the field. Those who rejected funding a project that later had success for the above mentioned goal (with CPRIT funding or with funding from a different source) will be attributed a lower priority in the list of experts in the field.”

 

703.6

Page 74

Add: “Applicants submitting any type of proposal to fight cancer, whether it be for a vaccine, drug, screening device, a program to educate individuals and promoting a change in their lifestyle, or any program aimed at reducing cancer deaths and cost, should estimate and then provide a plan to measure the results on a sample population. For example, the sample population could include 10,000 people in the age group 55 to 74 taken from a location where the mortality rate was constant (e.g. 0.5%) in the previous 20 years. Applicants and reviewers should keep in mind the mandate from the taxpayers to the Texas legislators, to CPRIT that is handling their money: taxpayers are prepared to invest provided that a significant reduction in cancer deaths and cost per life saved compared to current cost is obtained. A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the solution proposed.”

Add: “…with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost per each life saved compared to current costs.”

Add: “…identify projects with higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. Their evaluation should base rejection or approval of a proposal not simply on the basis of reviewer’s “opinion”, expressed with a score (number or letter). Reviewers should support publicly their rejection or approval claims, with scientific arguments, calculations, reference data, logical reasoning to reject or approve the application. Reviewers should demonstrate the superiority in efficiency and/or lower cost of approved projects when compared to other projects, or inferiority in the case of a claimed rejection. The “score” should be calculated based on the written scientific arguments and comparisons provided by the reviewer. Both, scientific arguments and scores should be made public.”

page 75

Add: “When an application is funded and implemented, experimental results on a sample population will prove if the reviewer’s evaluation was from an expert, or a knowledgeable person or not. Reviewers who provided scientific arguments in support of projects that demonstrated with a successful test on a sample population to reduce cancer deaths and cost will be included in a list of experts. Reviewers who could not recognize the scientific value and potential of a proposal that demonstrated benefits, or who approved projects that demonstrate to be a failure, should be removed from the list of experts, and their arguments to reject or approve projects will be included in a list of pitfalls, so that the same errors are not repeated, resulting in stopping or delaying the benefits from innovations.”

Page 77

Add: “…based on the criteria that projects with higher potential to significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost will be top in the priority list.”

Add: “They should confirm or provide objections supported by scientific arguments in regard to the calculations, reference material, and logical reasoning that was provided by the reviewers.”

Page 80

Add: “All comments/remarks from any observer from the public that address and provide useful information in comparing and identifying projects with highest potentials to reduce cancer deaths and cost should be included in the minutes of the meeting. Any observer from the public could document and request to include in the minutes of the meeting any rules of the Institute’s Grant Review Process that are not followed/applied.”

 

703.10

Page 89

Add: “Applicants must estimate the percent of the reduction of cancer deaths and cost per each life saved compared to current cost, including the proposed measurement in achieving such results on a sample population (for example, measuring results in percent of cancer deaths reduction on a sample population of 10,000 people in the age group 55 to 74 taken from a location where, in the previous 20 years, the mortality rate was constant -e.g. 0.5%) and comparing those with the mortality rate of a similar group that did not receive the benefits from the proposed applications. All intermediate results during the implementation of the proposed application that will lead to the expected final result should be translated into measurable milestones in the contract that should be verified as the project is funded and implemented.”

Add: “Taxpayers money provided to the applicant as a grant should fund the specific proposed research that has been evaluated to have a higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost when compared to other proposals that did not receive funding. Justification of expenses must be provided. Using taxpayers money to build a capital improvement of the applicant’s business not directly related to the implementation of the application to reduce cancer deaths and cost is not permitted.”

Deleted Page 89: Section c.2.A and c.2.B

 

703.11

Page 93

Deleted Section a., b.1., b.2., b.3, b.4, b.5, c.1, c.2, c.3, c.4, c.5, d.1, d.2, d.3, d.4, d.5, d.6, d.7

Comment: “In 2007, taxpayers approved the assignment of $3 billion to the CPRIT project to fund research aiming at reducing cancer deaths and cost, without asking CPRIT to show they had $1.5 billion in their hands already allocated for that purpose. In fact CPRIT at that time did not have a CEO, a Scientific Director, etc.  CPRIT at that time did not even have an office with employees. Furthermore, an institution or a business submitting a $10 million grant proposal application to CPRIT that has in house $5 million (and perhaps has spent already hundreds of millions of dollars in cancer research without being able to demonstrate on a sample population to have achieved a percentage in cancer death reduction), has a better chance to attract money from private investors. Instead the applicant who does not have 50% of the money in house, but who has an invention that would reduce cancer deaths and cost that no one could invalidate and that has been recognized valuable from top experts in the field can provide benefits to taxpayers if they receive the funding from taxpayers. The key issue is to identify reviewers who are experts in recognizing what can reduce cancer deaths and cost. The best way to identify those reviewers is by looking at who approved funding of projects that provided results in cancer deaths and cost reduction and who funded projects that did not provide results. There are more details regarding the creation of the list of experts in cancer deaths and cost reduction in RULE 703.5.”

Deleted entire Page 95

Deleted entire Page 96

 

703.21

Page 113

Add: “…demonstrating the completion of the construction of the project.”

“The report of the measurements on a sample population that will quantify the success of the project should be provided after the test period, as specified in the contract.”

 

 

From: Kristen Doyle [mailto:kdoyle@cprit.state.tx.us]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 4:17 PM
To: ‘Dario Crosetto’
Cc: Kristen Doyle
Subject: RE: Comments to the proposed rules to the Texas Administrative Code Title 25, Chapters 701, 702, 703 and 704

 

Dr. Crosetto,

 

Thank you for your comments.  So that I can assure that CPRIT addresses each comment you have made, can you please submit a list of rules (e.g. 703.3, 703.5, etc) where you have embedded comments?  I would appreciate it if you could provide the list by December 30, 2013.

 

Thank you, Kristen

 

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 4:43 PM
To: Kristen Doyle
Cc: Ellen Read; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas; unitedtoendcancer@att.net
Subject: Comments to the proposed rules to the Texas Administrative Code Title 25, Chapters 701, 702, 703 and 704

 

 

To: CPRIT Oversight Committee:

 

Dear members of CPRIT Oversight Committee and CPRIT Executive Team,

 

Please find attached my comments you requested to the changes proposed for Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 701, 702, 703 and 704 rules published in the November 1, 2013 edition of the Texas Register.

 

I would like to request that the final order on these rules will reflect my comments and recommended changes.

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dario Crosetto

No. 5 – We need your help in solving cancer problem

January 12th, 2014

Express your opinion to shape a better future for you and future generations. Solving the cancer problem should start with the rules used to fund cancer research; they should assign and support projects with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths, but often, because of the way the rules are written, they just serve to increase the cancer business.

You can read the entire document related to the CPRIT rules to assign grant at the website of CPRIT (http://www.cprit.state.tx.us/images/uploads/proposed-changes-to-cprit-administrative-rules-2013-11-01.pdf); however, to facilitate your work, I am summarizing in a few questions the choices you can make to help this revolution.

  1. Which objective do you think the rules should state?
    1.  The specific objective of “Reducing Cancer Deaths and Cost”
    2. A generic statement “Cancer Research” which over the past 50 years has mainly meant “increasing cancer business” rather than “reducing cancer deaths”
  2. What do you think the rules should ask applicants?
    a. Demonstrate with scientific arguments and estimate how their proposed project, stand alone or combined with other projects, will “Reduce Cancer Deaths and Cost”
    b. Only show the proposed project is related to “Cancer Research” without asking which of the two possible objectives it will achieve: “increasing the cancer business” and/or “reducing cancer deaths and cost”.
    c. Other (specify). If by hypothesis you have only enough funds to support 20 projects from among 1,000, which criteria should the rules use to achieve the highest reduction in cancer deaths and cost?
  3. Should it be the Funding Agency or the Applicant who plays the role of the rabbit (as opposed to the carrot)?
    a. The projects should be the carrot and the funding agency should be the rabbit. Projects should be equally exposed by the media, scientific conferences and journals. Media should play the important role to create public forums among project’s owners who claim highest benefits to humanity in cancer deaths and cost reduction. Funding agencies should be responsible to identify and fund projects with highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. Failing this, either history will prove that funded projects did not provide expected results because of incompetence or corruption, or ignored projects will prove instead to be highly beneficial to humanity. This should be made public so that the Funding Agency’s influential position will not further damage society.
    b. The Funding Agency should be the carrot and the project should be the rabbit. The Funding agency, after receiving donations and taxpayer money, and the mandate from citizens to solve the cancer problem, should assume the role of the carrot, so that everyone should desire to seek it because it have the power to give a gift, “grant”, that is not linked specifically to achieve maximum reduction in cancer deaths and cost.
  4. Who has had in the past and will have in the future the greater ability to make advancements in scientific research that should deserve to be fully (or mostly) funded by money raised from donations and taxpayers?
    a. Universities, research centers and individual scientists, such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, etc., who have the greater need for resources to fund their projects/inventions. Denying funds to these categories will mean the closure of research centers in laboratories and universities, and deny to mankind the benefits of the inventions of the best and brightest minds.
    b. Pharmaceutical and large companies who ask for subsidies to support their research with donations and taxpayer money without committing to give anything in return for their investment and without being transparent in their research; their mission is not to reduce cancer deaths and cost but to increase their cancer business, which could be detrimental to the advancement of science.

Please provide your answers by just mentioning the number and the letter.

Please send your support and/or your comments to these changes at: request@unitedtoendcancer.org.

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

Crosetto Foundation

No. 4 – Happy New Year 2014!

January 5th, 2014

Available in Acrobat at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/2014.pdf

*

/\

*****

|  |

HAPPY NEW YEAR

TO THE ONE

|  |

who still loves ideals

who greets with a hug or kiss

who has faith in the young and the future

who gets up early to help a friend

who forms an opinion without prejudice

who does not wait for Christmas to be good

who looks at facts as a basis for discussion

who prefers making friends over profits

who keeps silent if he or she has nothing to say

who likes to sleep but wakes up in a good mood

who  responds with sincerity and assumes responsibilities

who does not behave irresponsibly claiming to exercise freedom

who separates the trash to preserve the environment for future generations

who picks up after the dog when taking it for a walk

who turns off the television to talk with others

who seeks to understand others before answering

who admits that there ALSO exists the scientific culture

who helps to create a better world by observing the rule of law and the laws of  nature (science)

and follows the golden rule: ? do unto others as you would have them do unto you ?;

who proclaims PEACE not only remotely but also locally

who has the enthusiasm of a child and the thoughts of an adult

who understands that his or her freedom ends where respect toward others begins

who demonstrates the right answer with facts and reasoning rather than arrogance

who takes responsibility rather than hides behind the word: ?privacy?

who chooses to be part of cultural groups taking responsibility for the ? refinement of the intellect ?

who understands that over 30 million Google citations : ? cancer breakthroughs ? without results in cancer death reduction is a contradiction

who recognizes the failure of decision-makers who postpone solving the cancer problem after receiving the money requested

who believes those who raise and spend money to fight cancer must provide estimated results of their effort supported by

scientific arguments and a plan to measure their results on a sample population in order to eliminate those contradictions;

who understands that a $1.4 trillion global cancer annual cost without results is a contradiction

(equivalent to spending $45,000 every second for one entire year);

who understands the inconsistency of the 100 fold cost increase for cancer treatment and the annual premature deaths of 6.5 million knowing

for over 60 years 50% could have been saved with early cancer detection as stated by reputable sources and confirmed by experimental data ;

who understands that many of these lives could have been saved with the 3D-CBS invention for early cancer detection which was crushed

by decision-makers in the field. Now, 13 years later, they recognize its benefits as they propose to build a device similar to the 3D-CBS,

but costing 10 times more to be used only for the development of new drugs and not for saving lives through early cancer detection;

who understands we are all responsible for 13 years of needless premature deaths of those who could have been saved with the 3D-CBS early

detection device and continue to be responsible if we do not support (a) constructing the 3D-CBS and (b) the public DIALOGUE on radio,

television, newspapers, etc., between myself and decision-makers to shorten the time required to recognize all benefits of the 3D-CBS;

who understands that the revolution in this field must start from changing the rules that assign grants (billions of dollars every year) for cancer

research. Rules should specify the objective to ?significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost?. Applicants should explain in their requests

for grants how they intend to achieve this specific objective, not only use the generic statement ?cancer research?;

who explains what else I can do besides provide the truth with facts and scientific arguments in 1 page and 32 pages

and donate 80% of the income from my patents to the collectivity;

who collaborates and participates, and has paid attention to the advantages of my 3D-CBS innovative technology which is explained in 5 books

and many articles so they can tell the unaware philanthropists, and taxpayers who have been financing other less efficient projects;

who supports with a contribution http://blog.u2ec.com/donationEN.htm   to eliminate inconsistencies

through a civil DIALOGUE so that the scientific truth for the benefit of mankind can prevail and to support the construction of the 3D-CBS ;

who wants a world in which people work together to fight this and every disease

|   |

AND TO THE SAME I WISH ALL A 2014 FULL OF HEALTH, HAPPINESS, SATISFACTION AND JOY

Dario Crosetto

Opt-in to the newsletter: http://blog.u2ec.com/wordpress/?page_id=82 to receive the LATEST cancer

Detection information updates and an eye opening document: beneficial information that everyone should know.

No. 3 – Revelations on who prevented saving millions of lives per year. What you can do to save them.

December 24th, 2013

Revelations on who prevented saving millions of lives per year. What you can do to save them.

(Supported in two scientific articles: one page at http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/802.pdf and 32 pages at: http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/800.pdf ).

During this holiday time of giving and receiving, our hearts go out to those who are in need. Although every situation causing suffering deserves consideration, how can we ignore the 6.5 million people who suffer and die prematurely every year from cancer and its exorbitant economic global cost of $1.4 trillion per year?

We have known for over 60 years that 50% of these people could be saved with early cancer detection as stated by reputable sources and confirmed by experimental data .

Media, leaders in the world and citizens were rightly outraged by the mass killing of 1,400 people in Syria, and held the Assad regime accountable . Likewise, Hitler was found accountable for the killing of 6 million Jews.

Therefore, the logical question is: who is accountable for the millions of lives lost of which many could have been saved with the 3D-CBS invention for early cancer detection ? First of all, scientists are accountable in particular those who hold positions of responsibility to decide which projects have to be funded or recommended for funding and which do not. Their evaluations should be based on which projects have the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. Listen to statements from CERN’s Research Director, Sergio Bertolucci at http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/880.mp3 , with inconsistent answers and foul language repeating “F***” 33 times, and when asked why his committee gave the first prize to Joram’s CERN-Axial PET project that is less efficient and more costly than the current PET (Positron Emission Tomography) he answered, “don’t give a “F***” for Joram”. By having leaders and decision-makers in the field not taking responsibility for the positions they hold, many people die and continue to die needlessly.

What can you do to save millions of lives?

•  Support this effort with $10 or whatever amount you can at http://blog.u2ec.net/donationEN.htmto address and eliminate the inconsistencies so that the scientific truth for the benefit of mankind can prevail.

•  Have the courage as the late cancer patient, Lillo Mulone, did to address inconsistencies in the choice of the strategy to fight cancer (as Mulone calls “ mattanza ”) by (a) asking leaders in the field to take responsibility, (b) asking leaders to meet with me, (c) asking leaders to explain why they fund less efficient projects rather than the 3D-CBS, and (d) providing the report of our meeting for its dissemination to the BBC and other entities which have the people’s trust.

•  Share this information with family, friends, the media, journalists, by e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, etc.,

•  Send this message to all philanthropists who want to support projects that have the maximum impact benefitting humanity.

Continue to read this blog by clicking here.

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

Click OPT-IN NOW to receive the LATEST cancer detection information updates and an eye opening document: beneficial information that everyone should know.

The Team of “United To End Cancer”

No. 3 – Continue

December 23rd, 2013

(Supported in two scientific articles: one page at http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/802.pdf and 32 pages at: http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/800.pdf).

 

I made a promise to my late friend, Lillo Mulone, cancer patients, taxpayers and over 8,000 signatories of a petition asking CERN Directors and leaders in the field why they have neither funded nor recommended the funding of the 3D-CBS device, or provided references to other projects they believe have a higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost.

I promised to serve their interest and point out the scientific inconsistencies that prevent the reduction of cancer deaths and cost.

Mulone asked CERN Research Director, Sergio Bertolucci in an e-mail to meet with me and evaluate the particle detection aspect of my 3D-CBS project and or provide the references to other projects with higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. Bertolucci granted this meeting with me and Dr. Vigna.

I gave Mulone a detailed written report on the meeting he had requested.  Bertolucci could not invalidate my claims, but made inconsistent statements, for example that CERN uses the latest most advanced, most expensive technology, although its approach will neither solve the problem of accurately measuring all characteristics of a new particle to be able to rule out uncertainties, nor can it provide an early cancer detection. I demonstrated that my invention, using less expensive components and technology, could achieve a higher performance in solving the specific task of finding new particles and provide an effective early detection.

Dr. Vigna and I made every effort to implement a dialogue with Bertolucci, asking him to organize a public forum with his experts in particle detection.  This request for transparency was refused and his foul language neither showed respect nor was conducive to any logical scientific dialogue.

Nevertheless, I am still available to address the scientific issues with Bertolucci or any person who holds a position of responsibility in the field. I trust that if a scientific procedure is followed, an agreement can be reached and/or disagreements can be resolved with calculations, logical reasoning, and ultimately by funding an experiment at a minimum cost where the results would resolve any disagreement.

Mulone sent my written report to the BBC and to other entities which have the people’s trust to receive information in their best interest.

The proof that my 3D-CBS invention could have saved many of the 100 million people with an effective early cancer detection from when I conceived, validated and presented it 14 years ago, was confirmed recently at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference held October 27 through November 2, 2013, in Seoul, Korea by scientists from three major universities. In the past, they had rejected my claims and calculations and prevented me from presenting them at IEEE conferences. After 14 years, results of their calculations proved that I was right in claiming all benefits of early detection of diseases and low radiation to the patient because with their design using thinner crystals, stopping less signals from tumor markers (compared to my 3D-CBS design), they confirm a radiation of only 0.1 mSv. Therefore, with my 3D-CBS using thicker crystals, the radiation is even lower and safer, as low as 0.08 mSv.

I bring this to your attention because after more than a year, citizens of the world have not been informed.

What you can do to save millions of lives.

  • Request everyone raising or spending money to fight cancer, whether it be for a vaccine, drug, screening device, or a program to educate high risk individuals to change their lifestyle, should provide an estimate of the reduction of cancer deaths they expect to attain with their research and a plan to measure them on a sample population. For example: 10,000 people in the age group 55 to 74 taken from a location where, in the previous 20 years, the mortality rate was constant (e.g. 0.5%). A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution.
  • Share this information with family friends, the media, journalists, by e-mails, Facebook, Twitter, word of mouth, etc.,
  • Send this message to all philanthropists who are looking for projects that will provide maximum,  benefit to humanity, and tell them that I am available to meet with any experts in the field.  I will also be available for public debates and will work together to resolve the inconsistencies that can solve the cancer problem which has still not been resolved in spite of thousands of people who are dedicating their lives toward this cause.

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

Click OPT-IN NOW to receive the LATEST cancer detection information updates and an eye opening document: beneficial information that everyone should know.

The Team of “United To End Cancer”

No. 2 – Cancer! DIALOGUE at the largest scientific conference in the world. 5 questions to save lives and reduce costs.

October 30th, 2013

Five questions from a group of young people to achieve transparency in research presented at one of the largest Scientific Conference taking place now in Seoul, Korea.

This is a continuation to the first newsletter implementing a DIALOGUE to identify projects/approaches/inventions with high potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs so you can be informed of the reasons why your tax-dollars and donations toward cancer did not significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs and what it takes to achieve it. Support this cause at www.u2ec.org.

The youth from St. Stefano asked 5 questions regarding transparency in research to the 2,355 scientists and organizers of one of the largest scientific conferences in this field, which is being held this week, for the first time in Asia, in Seoul, Korea.

Research scientist Dario Crosetto, who has an article accepted at the conference, acting as their delegate and spokesman, voiced their requests during the plenary meeting, before about 1,000 scientists when the session chairman asked if there were any questions. After the session, Crosetto was able to briefly meet the General Chairman, He-Joung Kim, and the Chairman of the Medical Imaging Conference, Jae Sung Lee, giving them a printed copy of the article with the questions translated from Italian to English and asking if they could kindly provide an answer to the five questions below, and organize a forum. (See article published on the newspaper “magaze” at: http://links.unitedtoendcancer.info/doc2/614.pdf).

Please join the youth from St. Stefano and in your best interest, support their requests of transparency and support the delegate/spokesperson, Dario Crosetto, who will report the news about the conference and the answers received.

Here are the questions:

  1. We approve the initiative of the Chairman of IEEE- NSS -MIC- RTSD of October 27, 2013 in Seoul, and we would like to request the list of projects presented that are consistent with the theme of the meeting, giving us the link to the document that each author has prepared to demonstrate they have a project/approach/invention going “beyond the imagination of future science”.
  2. We would like to request the list of names of experts in reducing premature cancer deaths and costs.
  3. We would like to request the list of projects having the greatest potential to reduce premature cancer deaths and cost, the link to the documents that describes the project, the link to their practical plan to implement it, the costs and the length of time it takes from receipt of funding for results, and how the author or inventor plans to measure the results on a sample population.
  4. We would like to know if there are projects with greater potential to reduce premature cancer deaths and the related costs compared to Crosetto’s technology, which has been recognized as valid by numerous public and scientific reviews and received the Leonardo da Vinci Award. Please list these projects, provide documentation, the plan of action and verification of a sample population. If you are unable to identify any projects that can demonstrate a greater potential to reducing premature cancer deaths compared with the 3D-CBS project, then funding agencies for research projects should be informed to support the 3D-CBS project to finally achieve all the benefits we should have been experiencing for years.
  5. We also would like to know what are the benefits for our day-to-day lives from the projects presented at the conference by the researchers.

 Support this cause with a contribution at www.u2ec.org.

It is essential that we all contribute by asking those who raise and spend cancer funds for an estimate of the reduction of cancer deaths they expect to attain. This will avoid having a $1.4 trillion economic cost of cancer per year that continues to increase. The date to reach this objective is postponed year after year, since President Nixon stated that cancer would be defeated by the end of 1970’s.

Click OPT-IN NOW to receive the LATEST cancer detection information updates and an eye opening document: beneficial information that everyone should know.

The Team of “United To End Cancer”

No. 1 – Cancer! You can save lives and maybe even win an iPhone, addressing the issue of the largest scientific conference in the world.

October 19th, 2013

How to reduce premature cancer deaths and costs THROUGH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR EARLY DETECTION.

If cancer treatments have not significantly reduced premature cancer deaths, then only EARLY DIAGNOSIS can defeat the disease. It will take an innovative technology.

WHERE IS THIS TECHNOLOGY (click here)?

The President of one of the most important conferences in the world, the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Scientific Conference, has launched a challenge to more than 3,000 scientists (physicists, doctors, chemists, biologists, engineers, etc.) who will meet October 27, 2013 in Seoul, Korea to present over 1,500 scientific articles. The challenge is to demonstrate that their project, invention, and/or discovery is “Beyond Imagination of Future Science.”

At this time, a single invention has demonstrated that it goes “BEYOND IMAGINATION OF FUTURE SCIENCE” in the discovery of new subatomic particles and also in providing a significant leap forward in the reduction of premature cancer deaths and cost through an effective early cancer detection.

This invention when applied to medical imaging, permitted the inventor to create the 3D-CBS technology that for the first time provides the possibility to make an effective early diagnosis of most types of cancer by annually performing a single cost-effective examination of the entire body, using low radiation. From a conservative estimate, the premature cancer deaths could be reduced by over 33% in six years utilizing the 3D-CBS device.

Further details of this invention and its implementation are available on the website, www.u2ec.org.

The inventor made a promise to his friend who recently died of cancer, and to all those who are or have been victims of this disease, and to those who really care to eradicate this calamity, to be their spokesperson when the leading experts gather at the conference in Korea and to be their spokesperson whenever addressing those persons responsible in this field. He will seek satisfactory answers to pass along to those who support this cause. The answers should explain the discrepancy between the high cancer costs and the almost zero results in reducing premature deaths.

Support the mission of the inventor of the 3D-CBS technology in Korea by requesting on behalf of everyone a DIALOGUE so that the 3D-CBS will be compared with all other projects. It is necessary to analyze calculations and scientific arguments in public in a TRANSPARENT way. The ultimate goal is to demonstrate that the 3D-CBS is the most innovative invention with greater potential to reduce premature cancer deaths and cost. In the event someone doubts this technology, they should propose a more advantageous, alternative project. However, if claims of several authors cannot be invalidated with scientific arguments, prototypes of the 3D-CBS and other projects targeted to the same objective to reduce cancer deaths and cost should be funded and built.

Your contribution of at least $5 will support the construction of prototypes to perform a test on a sample population gathering experimental data showing results.  This is the path to the scientific truth for the benefit of mankind, not advertising approaches or treatments that do not provide results.

The EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS will demonstrate that the 3D-CBS can save more lives and reduce health costs better than current devices and other prototypes. It should be noted that the annual economic cost of cancer reaches $1.4 trillion with limited results in reducing cancer deaths: after 50 years, only 5%, mainly due to cessation from smoking and changes in lifestyle and not to research. The number of premature deaths from cancer per year has risen to 6.5 million people, with a 100 times cost of treatment increase in 50 years. A paradigm shift is necessary which can only take place as a result of your participation and support.

If you are interested in references and a demonstration of how the invention cited is going “Beyond Imagination of Future Science” to reduce your risk of dying prematurely from cancer, you can continue to read the blog by clicking here. (You will also find information on how you can win in the iPhone).

Click OPT-IN NOW to receive the LATEST cancer detection information updates and an eye opening document: beneficial information that everyone should know.

The Team of “United To End Cancer”

No. 1 – Continue

October 18th, 2013

Continuation of newsletter No. 1:

How to reduce premature cancer deaths and costs THROUGH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR EARLY CANCER DETECTION.

The following are the references to the invention, needing DIALOGUE and TRANSPARENCY to accelerate the benefits for humanity.

In 1992, the invention of the 3D-Flow parallel-processing system was presented to the scientific community. It represented and still represents a major step forward in the discovery of new subatomic particles, which also reduces the cost of High Energy Physics experiments. This project has been approved by a major scientific review and described extensively in articles published in scientific journals.

From 2000 onwards, the 3D-Flow system has been applied to a revolutionary technology that can detect cancer at an earlier stage than ever before: The 3D-CBS (total-body screening, or complete examination of the human body in 3-D). This technology passed several international scientific reviews held publicly in a transparent way (also via web) in 2003, 2008 and 2010. In 2008, it was also presented to the top experts in the field at a series of “Seminars on Planetary Emergencies“. In 2011 it won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize as the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis

THE NEED FOR DIALOGUE AND TRANSPARENCY TO SOLVE THE CANCER PROBLEM, THE MOST DEADLY AND COSTLY CALAMITY IN THE WORLD.

HOW CAN YOU HELP SAVE MANY LIVES?

You can learn about a life-saving solution to the problem of cancer which is currently the most deadly and costly disaster on the planet. Read the information extracted from reliable sources provided in this newsletter to understand that the cancer problem can only be resolved through DIALOGUE and TRANSPARENCY. Please also provide your references to information relating to significant data on the fight against cancer, and it will be published on a blog (or  published directly by you) at: http://unitedtoendcancer.wordpress.com/category/english/.

THE PROBLEM

It is important you know that for more than half a century it has been widely accepted that approximately 50% OF CANCER DEATHS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED WITH AN EFFECTIVE EARLY CANCER DETECTION. Why haven’t projects that able to demonstrate they can achieve an effective early detection been funded?  It is also important you know that according to data reported by several sources, including the American Cancer Society and the Livestrong Foundation, that the economic cost of cancer is about $1.4 trillion per year. Year after year the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the United States reports the cost of cancer treatment and cancer death rate. An analysis of this data reveals that the cost of cancer treatment has increased 100 times in 50 years, while the death rate was reduced by only 5%, mainly due to abstinence from smoking and other lifestyle changes, and not due to research.

Despite this data, these organizations continue to spread reassuring messages about the great progress achieved. If a mere 5 % is a great advance, what should you say about the 74% reduction in deaths from stroke, 64% reduction from cardiovascular disease and 58 % reduction from influenza and pneumonia reported for the same period?

WHEN DO WE STOP SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR POOR RESULTS?

Without results, do you think we should continue spending all that money in the same way? Don’t you think it would be better to ask where all the money goes and expect a new strategy that provides better results?

WE CANNOT AFFORD NOT TO SUPPORT THE 3D-CBS TECHNOLOGY

You can change this situation and reduce premature cancer deaths.

Let’s see how

You can ask anyone who raises or spends money taken from your taxes and donations for the fight against cancer to:

  1.  Provide a reliable estimate of the reduction in cancer deaths they expect to attain from the funds raised.
  2. Compare projects that require funds with other projects in a public open forum to establish transparently the best project worthy of funding.

These two points of fundamental importance summarize what researcher Crosetto has been claiming is necessary for several years to create an effective paradigm change in the fight against cancer (See the website www.u2ec.org).

THE BASIC INVENTION AND THE 3D-CBS TECHNOLOGY

Initially designed for the detection of sub-atomic particles, Crosetto’s 3D-Flow innovative concept has proven to be the only hardware solution that exceeds the limits of technology allowing the execution of different level-1 trigger algorithms.  This was also confirmed by the top leaders in the field.

Furthermore, this invention applied to medical imaging, along with other inventions developed by Crosetto after the year 2000, permitted him to create the 3D-CBS technology, which is 400 times more efficient than the technology used in the current 5,000+ PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices, requiring approximately 30 times less radiation, and reducing the examination cost to about one-tenth. These features make it possible to save millions of lives and significantly reduce the cost of healthcare, as described by Crosetto in several articles. By a conservative estimate, the number of premature cancer deaths could be reduced by over 33% in six years by utilizing the 3D-CBS device. This can be verified with a precise plan for obtaining experimental results from tests on a sample population.

Recently, of the 1,583 articles accepted by the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, one of the most important Scientific Conferences in the world, to be held in October 2013 in Korea, Crosetto’s article was the only one responding to the request by the General Chairman of the Conference for inventions (or projects) that demonstrate they go “Beyond Imagination of Future Science.”

Act now! Support Crosetto’s initiative within the international public forum in which every scientist attending the conference has a responsibility to not only publish their work, but also to demonstrate how it reduces (or how it can help with other projects to reduce) premature cancer deaths and cost. Visit www.u2ec.org to support this initiative.

- THINK ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT COULD BE SAVED!

- THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH SUFFERING COULD BE AVOIDED OR ALLEVIATED!

- THINK OF THE GRATIFICATION OF THOUSANDS OF CARE-GIVERS WHO PUT THEIR HEART AND SOUL INTO CARING FOR THEIR PATIENTS… IF THEY COULD USE THE 3D-CBS PROVIDING THEM AN EFFECTIVE EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS INSTEAD OF BEING POWERLESS AND WATCHING THEIR PATIENTS DIE.

Thousands of doctors, healthcare workers, volunteers, donors and taxpayers, etc., who care deeply for cancer patients , putting their heart and soul into saving them with all the means at their disposal, often watch them die in spite of their efforts because they cannot avail themselves of viable technologies.

Think of the gratification of these care givers to whom we are all grateful for their work and commitment, if they had access to a tool like the 3D -CBS which would help with early diagnosis of cancer. This would allow them to see their patients and their loved ones live instead of being powerless and watch them suffer and die because the cancer was diagnosed too late and there is no medication with a high probability to extend their life beyond a short period. Instead, what they are left with is a high cost, not only in monetary terms, but in suffering as well.

It is time for leaders in the field to think of how to plan an effective early cancer detection strategy by providing a better diagnostic tool!

 YOUR SUPPORT

Contribute with a minimum of $5 (or more according to your ability) by participating in the crowd-funding at www.u2ec.org.

In this way you will support the realization of the 3D-CBS device and Crosetto’s mission attending the conference in Korea, where he will be the spokesperson for cancer patients and those who care about this issue. He will do everything possible to get satisfactory answers from the decision-makers in the field and will fight to support the creation of the infrastructure needed for the construction of the first three 3D-CBS prototypes targeted to early cancer detection.

Thanks from the team supporting this cause!

HOW CAN YOU WIN AN iPHONE?

Keep this e-mail: There are two benefits. A first immediate advantage is that you can win an iPhone if the number that appears in your email x.xxx.xxx matches the number selected at random at the public drawing that will be broadcasted in real time at the following address: www.livestream.com. This will occur when the minimum amount of        $50,000 is raised. When this figure is exceeded there will be other prizes.

Click OPT-IN NOW to receive the LATEST cancer detection information updates and an eye opening document: beneficial information that everyone should know.

The Team of “United To End Cancer”

A realistic Proposal. Opt-In to This Newsletter.

October 8th, 2013
A realistic proposal

With an extensive scientific documentation, and as evidenced by the testimonials of several world top experts in the field, the proposal herein presented is ready for the production of a prototype device based on an improved version of PET (Positron Emission Tomography) with characteristics of a low radiation level and higher sensitivity providing better information for the early detection of cancer.

To achieve this it is necessary that those who make decisions on the projects to be funded must change their mindset, and not fund those more popular and/or advertised but those that show solid scientific arguments that have the highest potential to achieve what they claim.
More info (11 minute video).

 

Our Mission is…

To significantly reduce premature cancer deaths and cost achievable by promoting a different attitude of the institutions involved in the financing of projects so that the choice is made through a dialogue between presenters of projects who must describe the advantages and disadvantages, and verify the expected cost-effectiveness and benefits. All of them must be adequately documented in a public forum, where reviewers are required to provide scientific arguments of their choice.

We believe, because the data on hand about cancer deaths are still too high and health care systems too expensive, that the creation of an effective tool for early detection is the key goal we should reach as soon as possible.

Several projects are presented as the most effective in early detection, however not all of them allow for a breakthrough improvement with details that can be observed and not all are low in radiation released in the body.

Since the criteria for the selection of projects to be financed is not fully transparent and not clearly expressed, we ask for a more ethical and responsible attitude on the part of both funding agencies and developers of projects.

Who we are

Established in 2008, on the initiative of the research scientist Dario Crosetto, and with the support of the foundation, “United to End Cancer” was created from the need to know the innovative aspects of the invention so as to enable its implementation, then make it available to the public for early diagnosis.

Target

People of good will who are interested in addressing the issues of the fight against cancer.

 

Authorization Request

Click OPT-IN NOW to receive the LATEST cancer detection information updates and an eye opening document: beneficial information that everyone should know.

The Team of “United To End Cancer”

If you do not wish to receive future communications from “United To End Cancer ” you may unsubscribe by clicking at the bottom of any of our e-mails. Important: remember to authorize our e-mail address (info@u2ec.net) as “trusted” on your e-mail program, so the newsletter “United To End Cancer” will not go to spam, and you will always be up to date with the latest news!