2014-07-12 – STAND UP for TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE

July 12th, 2014

See Pdf version at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/810.pdf

STAND UP for TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE

For the Benefit of Humanity as Cancer Patient Mulone Did

On January 12, 2011, a meeting was held at CERN between CERN Director of Research, Sergio Bertolucci; Cardio Surgeon, Vincenzo Vigna; and researcher, Dario Crosetto. Here is an excerpt from that meeting.

July 12, 2014

The transcript of the audio[1] of this excerpt of the meeting has been translated from Italian into English.

Because of its importance to humanity, including the thousands of people who had been waiting patiently for years for this meeting; and the over 7,000 people who signed a petition to request a review of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS technology for early cancer detection, and for the efforts of cancer patient, Lillo Mulone, who wrote letters to CERN and finally obtained this meeting, for all these reasons, and because the meeting held at Bertolucci’s office at CERN was not private, but dealing with a public issue (the door to his office was open and his secretary next door could hear the conversation), the conversation was recorded so that Mulone, and all those people who had been waiting patiently, could have an accurate report.

The translation of the Italian “cazzo” into “fuck” has been widely accepted and used by the media, as in the case of Francesco Schettino, Captain of the Costa Concordia, whose credibility was questioned after it sank off the coast of Italy in 2012. If this translation was justified for Captain Schettino, who was responsible for 5,000 lives and a ship valued at half a billion dollars, it can certainly be justified to determine the credibility of Sergio Bertolucci, Director of Research at CERN, who has a much higher responsibility of directing how to spend $1 billion each year ($5.5 billion from when he was first appointed in 2009 and reconfirmed in 2014 until 2017 for …..? Bertolucci directs the LHC project46 that has already cost society over $50 billion40, 20 years of work by 10,000 professionals, and is now seeking an additional $30 billion41) and for billions of people whose future and lives depend on his ethics[2] as a scientist to advance science for the benefit of humanity.

Crosetto has nothing personal[3] against Bertolucci or anyone else37; his objective is the advancement of science, and defending the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients by reducing cancer deaths and cost through effective early cancer detection tools. He offered CERN free licensing of his patents to use his inventions for research purposes and he committed to donate 80% of the income from licensing his patents to low income cancer patients.  Bertolucci’s and other influential scientists’ refusal to implement open transparent procedures obliged Crosetto to start a movement to STAND UP for TRANSPARENCY in science and tell the truth that could help overcome dishonesty and corruption while being fair to scientists and taxpayers, and at the same time advance science and benefit future cancer patients.

Dr. Vigna wrote a letter[4] to Bertolucci after the meeting asking for some clarifications as he was pursuing the same goal of identifying the best project as Bertolucci’s committee had the year before when it assigned a prize at the workshop “Physics for Health”, but Vigna’s request was refused.  Instead, Bertolucci answered with arrogance[5], using the excuse that CERN does not hold those kinds of competitions, denying the evidence[6] of CERN’s activities in 2010.  Since then, many failed attempts[7] have been made by other people to address the issue, including the Crosetto Foundation which was able to contact Bertolucci’s secretary.  More than a year later, Mulone was left with no choice but to make the meeting public by sending it to influential people in communication and other influential people who are interested in advancing civilization. These influential people can reach a larger number of persons by broadcasting the entire content of the meeting.

On the next page read the words by Bertolucci, leader of the largest, most expensive experiment in history

See Pdf version at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/810.pdf

[1] Original audio of the excerpt of the meeting: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MVczRjVWV19kR0k/edit?usp=sharing

[2] Code of ethics for scientist http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2007/09/13/a-code-of-ethics-for-scientist/

[3] Despite Bertolucci’s authoritarian attitude and refusal to collaborate on scientific grounds, Crosetto continued respectfully to offer scientific collaboration as shown in the following communication https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5dWJxQXI1OFpiV2c/edit?usp=sharing.

[4] Dr. Vigna’s letter written to CERN Scientific Director Sergio Bertolucci in regard to the meeting on 1/12/2011. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5cUJVVWV1Rm8zX1U/edit?usp=sharing

[5] Bertolucci responded with arrogance to Dr. Vigna’s letter with the excuse that CERN is not holding those kinds of competitions, denying the evidence of CERN’s 2010 competition “Physics for Health”. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5S2xiTmFMSmZoWHc/edit?usp=sharing

[6] Response to Bertolucci clarifying that the request for scientific information was legitimate and pertinent to the field of particle detection which is the expertise and leading role of CERN in the world. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NVFnaXZaNmNFLWM/edit?usp=sharing

[7] Several requests were made to CERN management for transparency and to address scientific issues, but each attempt was refused. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5TW1lbXJHbXFFWVk/edit?usp=sharing

2014-06-30 – The need to implement public scientific procedures to make the scientific truth prevail for the benefit of mankind

June 30th, 2014

(Table of Content is at Page 31, the pdf version of this document at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/809.pdf)

June 30, 2014

To: Ingrid-Maria Gregor Chair and Adam Bernstein Co-Chair of 2014 IEEE-NSS

This letter is to bring to your attention the importance of implementing public scientific procedures to make the scientific truth prevail regarding innovations in particle detection.  Without such transparency, there will continue to be negative repercussions in the advancement of science, not only for the discovery of new particles, but also in saving lives through early detection of cancer and other diseases when applied to medical imaging. This letter is being sent to a number of world leaders in the field of science and others who have publicly declared they care about making a better world for humanity, as well as to the media who have taken the responsibility to provide the public with information when it is in their best interest and benefit.

 

There is a need for a paradigm shift in the scientific culture. The enormous cost to taxpayers and society of over $50 billion and 20 years of work by over 10,000 professionals working on CERN’s largest, most expensive experiment in the history of the planet, and now a request for an additional $30 billion over the next 10 years, and the loss of over 100 million premature lives, many of which could have been saved with an effective early diagnosis achievable with the invention in particle detection described herein, calls for cooperation among all of us in discussing the technical issues in an open, public workshop.

Leaders of the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference

To. Anthony Lavietes 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD General Chair

To. Ed Lampo, 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Deputy General Chair

To Dr. Georges El Fakhri, Chair 2014 IEEE-MIC Conference

To. Dr. Katia Parodi Co-Chair2014 IEEE-MIC

 

Leaders of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference

To. Hee-Joung Kim, 2013-IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD General Chair

To. Steve Meikle, 2013-IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Deputy General Chair

To: Dr. Craig Levin, 2013-IEEE-MIC Deputy Program Chair

To: Dr. Jae Sung Lee, 2013-IEEE-MIC Program Chair

To. Gyuseong Cho, 2013-IEEE-NSS Program Chair

To. Ikuo Kanno, 2013-IEEE-NSS Deputy Program Chair

To. Lynn Evans, 2013-IEEE-NSS Plenary Talk (CERN)

To. Jaemoon Jo, 2013-IEEE-MIC Plenary Talk (Samsung Electronics)

To. Martin Pomper, 2013 IEEE-MIC Plenary Talk (Johns Hopkins Medical Institution)

 

Some IEEE senior scientists who support an open public scientific procedure

To. Ralph James, 2013-IEEE-RTSD Program Co-Chair

To. Jang Ho Ha, 2013-IEEE-RTSD Program Co-Chair

To. Uwe Bratzler, former IEEE-NSS-MIC General Chair

To. Aaron Brill, Professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center

 

Some scientists with responsibilities in the field of particle detection

To. Rolf Heuer, CERN Director General

To. Horst Wenninger, former CERN Director General

To. Peter Jenni, CERN-Atlas experiment

To. Fabiola Gianotti, CERN-Atlas experiment

To. Andrew Lankford, CERN-Atlas Experiment

To. Michel Della Negra, CERN-CMS Experiment

To. Tejinder Singh Virdee, CERN-CMS Experiment

To. Guido Tonelli, CERN-CMS Experiment

To. Joe Incandela, CERN-CMS Experiment

 

Government Funding Agencies:

To. Dr. Patricia Dehmer Director of the Department of Energy, Office of Science

To. Dr. Francis S. Collins Director of the National Institutes of Health

To. Dr. Alexandru Costescu Development of new diagnostic tools and technologies: in vivo medical imaging technologies. European Commission Agency funding Research

To. Dr. Torbjörn Ingemansson Tools and technologies for advanced therapies. European Commission Agency funding Research

To. Dr. Sasa Jenko Research and Innovation actions. European Commission Agency funding Research

To. Dr. Barbara Kerstiens Piloting personalised medicine in health and care systems European Commission Agency funding Research

Entrepreneurs interested in the advancements of physics for the benefit of mankind

cc. Yuri Milner, the Russian entrepreneur who startled the scientific world in 2012 by handing awards to scientists

 

Private Funding Agencies and Billionaires leading “The Giving Pledge,” an organization of billionaires committed to dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy

cc. Luca Remmert, President, Compagnia di San Paolo, Turin, Italy (Leading Private Foundation in Europe)

cc. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Co-Chairs

cc. Warren Buffet, American business magnate, investor, and philanthropist. Co-Chair of “The Giving Pledge”

 

cc Television, Newspapers, Magazines and Online News who wrote about CERN and the movie Particle Fever: BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, One Guy’s Opinion, Groucho Reviews, It’s Just Movies, SF Weekly, Seattle Weekly, The Patriot Ledger, Blu-ray.com, East Bay Express, Philadelphia Inquirer, Metro, Boston Globe, Minneapolis Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Arizona Republic, Paste Magazine, Chicago Reader, Daily Herald (IL), San Francisco Chronicle, Salon.com, NPR, Christian Science Monitor, Canada.com, Flick Filosopher, Globe and Mail, Los Angeles Times, Toronto Star, New York Daily News, AV Club, Slant Magazine, RogerEbert.com, Time Out New York, Village Voice, The Dissolve, Daily Telegraph, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, [44].

cc. Mark Levinson, Director of the movie “Particle Fever

 

Letter in response to Ingrid-Maria Gregor, Chair and Adam Bernstein, Co-Chair of the 2014 IEEE-NSS Conference (see Gregor-Bernstein original letter, below at the end of this letter), refusing the implementation of a public workshop for political reasons on November 9, 2014 to make the scientific truth for the benefit of mankind prevail by the title: “How does your project/idea/invention compare in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?” Specifying the procedure of the workshop as: “It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual…”  

The pdf version of this document is available at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/809.pdf

2014-06-05 – PARTICLE FEVER THE BIGGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE EXPERIMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET (over $50 Billions) WHOSE RESULTS DEMAND HONESTY FROM THE SCIENTISTS TO THE TAXPAYERS

June 5th, 2014

Advertisement of the film by the USA FILM FESTIVAL 2014: Directed by physicist turned filmmaker Mark Levinson, PARTICLE FEVER is a celebration of discovery, revealing the human stories behind our generation’s most inspiring scientific breakthrough. Imagine being able to watch as Edison turned on the first light bulb, or as Franklin received his first jolt of electricity. For the first time, a film gives audiences a front seat to a significant and inspiring scientific breakthrough as it happens. The documentary follows six brilliant scientists during the launch of the Large Hadron Collider, marking the start–up of the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet and pushing the edge of human innovation. As they seek to unravel the mysteries of the universe, 10,000 scientists from over 100 countries join forces in pursuit of a single goal: to recreate conditions that existed just moments after the Big Bang and find the Higgs boson, potentially explaining the origin of all matter. But our heroes confront an even bigger challenge: Have we reached our limit in understanding why we exist? [[1]].

Theoretical physicist, Savas Dimopulos, states in the movie: “…we are little people on a little planet with a tiny brain, who can go so deep and understand…” However, no matter how “tiny brained” we might be, we can still choose to be honest when confronted with evidence from the laws of nature that are understandable and indisputable, which show wrong and/or inconclusive results from implementing the wrong procedure, by building the wrong instrument that does not have the capability to measure the desired parameters, even while knowing at the time that there was the possibility to build the right instrument that would have provided unambiguous results and at a much lower cost. Any “tiny brain” can decide whether to tell the truth or to deceive in order to implement their own agenda instead of pursuing the interest of the public who are funding them and paying their salary.

Nobel Prize winner, Rita Levi di Montalicini, when asked what the most difficult moment she faced during her life as a research scientist was, answered: “To admit to being wrong before the evidence.”

It is not the intention of this document to claim the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson, because this cannot be claimed by a person and is not an opinion, but rather the result of experiments that prove its existence or not. Instead, its intention is to bring you facts that can neither be denied nor invalidated because they are supported by evidence:

  1. Over $50 billion [[2]] of taxpayers’ money, as well as 20 years of many students’ post-doc’s and scientists’ time have been wasted because decision makers in science, although knowing for 22 years that a more powerful and less expensive solution to detect new particles was invented, built detector instrumentations that are not adequate to trap, capture and measure characteristics of new particles, including the Higgs boson.
  2. A serious investigation will unveil the dishonesty of some, incompetence of others and much unawareness of many others.  The truth has surfaced from the contradictory statements and actions made by the same experimental scientists who publicize distorted results, being inconsistent with the laws of nature and with the ethics of a scientist. The facts can be easily understood by laymen.  The investigation will also unveil how these scientists are deceiving the public by refusing to address issues in scientific, public, open procedures like the workshops [[3]] submitted at the largest scientific conferences in the field, [] and by using manipulated information and publicity through the media to distort the reality of scientific evidence like in the movie “Particle Fever.” How is this possible in the 21st century? As Pope Francis says: “money is the dung of the devil…” (also translated as “money is the root of evil…”). Unfortunately, although money can in many cases solve problems and leave a positive legacy for those who use it to support good causes, it can also be used for unsavory purposes, even buying science, and has the power to prevent the advancement of the understanding of the laws of nature, distorting results with powerful publicity like in this case of the Higgs boson, instead of limiting its role to present results of experiments as they are to explain the laws of nature.
  3. The movie doesn’t deliver a clear message of reality. When it shows apprehensive faces looking at computer monitor screens expecting to see a beam pop-up, champagne celebration, cheering among scientists, etc., the audience might interpret such enthusiasm as the discovery of the Higgs boson; instead, it is only for the start of operation of the accelerator Large Hadron Collider at 1.5 TeV that generates particles to be smashed and hopefully the Higgs boson could be among those generated. Those who built the Large Hadron Collider (Lynn Evans, Steve Myers, etc.) perhaps deserve the Nobel Prize, but the LHC accelerator is not detecting particles, that’s the job of the detector instrumentation (e.g. Atlas, CMS, Alice, LHCb, etc.) shown in the movie as a five-story building of custom electronics and detectors. It is supposed to unequivocally trap, capture, and measure the Higgs boson; instead, it has many flaws and does not have that capability.
  4. Let’s get the facts straight. The movie should have clearly explained the role of (a) the “particle accelerator” that is like a big hammer breaking matter into small particles and (b) the role of the “detector instrumentation” that is tasked to trap, capture and measure specific particles among the thousands generated by the smashing activity of the accelerator. It should have given an overview of the advancement of technology on both instruments over the past 50 years and present what happened at CERN during the past 20 years on the development of both and the results obtained.
  5. Particle accelerators are a $500 billion business per year and the leading edge for its design was the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in Texas that was supposed to have a perimeter of 84 km and a power of 20 TeV.  However, it was never completed and the project was terminated by the U.S. Congress in 1993. The world record of 0.98 TeV had been held by the US Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory’s (FERMILab) Tevatron collider until November 30, 2009 when LHC at CERN in Geneva reached 11% [[4]] of its nominal power at 1.18 TeV. FERMILab Tevatron was built in 1983 at a cost of $120 million and operated until September 30, 2011. It was expected to be surpassed by the LHC in Geneva in 1996 with half the power of the SSC, but this happened only 13 years later when on September 10, 2008, the LHC accelerator was turned on for the first time with a big celebration as seen in the movie “Particle Fever”.  However, because sensors that measure resistance at interconnecting points and temperature protections were not in place, apparently due to pressure from the CERN General Director, Robert Aymar, who wanted to inaugurate the start of LHC under his term ending December 2008, nine days after the start of its activity, several LHC magnets melted (seen in the movie) causing millions of dollars of damage and a two-year delay. Despite this failure of wasted time and money, there was no call for Aymar’s resignation, and plans for a big champagne celebration scheduled for a few weeks later in which delegates from 38 countries were to attend, continued. LHC restarted the activity reaching 3.5 TeV on March 30, 2010, and operated until February 11, 2013, when it was shut down for two years to upgrade its power to 6.5 TeV (still only 65% of its nominal power of 10 TeV, one third the SSC).
  6. The performance of detector instrumentations, designed to trap, capture and measure characteristics of new particles, must increase as particle accelerators increase in power and generate more particles during smashing. One unit called “Trigger” (decision unit) in the detector instrumentation has a key role in discovering new particles. In modern physics experiments its task is to select the frame among over 600 million frames per second (called events) which most likely could contain the “pearl” (the unknown particle such as the Higgs boson). Recording all frames on hard drive and taking this decision at a later time at a slower pace will fill all hard drives of this planet in one day. For this reason the decision should be taken in real-time. An inefficient Trigger would render useless all other billions of dollars of investment, data processing and years spent by thousands of scientists.  All would be wasted because 100,000 computers (as stated in the movie) would process data with no value, with no “pearl”, with no possible discovery of a sought after new particle. While the scientific community struggled to solve this challenging problem of designing the “Trigger Unit”, in 1992 research scientist, Dario Crosetto, invented a breakthrough technique that is a synergy of new electronics, parallel-processing, detector assembly and segmentation, coupling of the detector with the electronics, that breaks the speed barrier in real-time application, allowing the use of standard, low cost technology to efficiently solve the task. It got the attention of major scientists and top experiments in the field even those in competition with each other because all recognized the benefits of Crosetto’s invention to science and humanity. This convinced the Director of the SSC (also Director of FERMILab) to request a major international scientific review of Crosetto’s invention. He passed the review before hundreds of scientists in the FERMILab auditorium and before a smaller panel of experts from industry, universities, research centers, including expert from CERN, who interrogated him for an entire day. The value and benefits of his invention were officially recognized in a written report by the review panel. However, 2 years later CERN chose to build less efficient, less powerful and more costly Trigger Units ignoring Crosetto’s invention and without going through a similar open, public, scientific procedure assessing the most cost-effective solution to trap and accurately measure any new particle. Why would they do this? Because some scientists use their credentials to be part of a large experiment to receive grant money from Government agencies without being honest enough to disclose how their project/approach compares to other projects; or even worse, by preventing Crosetto to present his invention to international scientific conferences and furthermore clearly wanting to deceive the funding agencies and the public by preventing his recent proposal for a workshop that compares fairly all projects/approaches. The issue is that there is no synergy among those pieces to detect new particles, and we can prove this statement by analyzing the limitations of the billion dollar detector instrumentations and the flawed results. Here are a few; however, by going deeper with our little brain, we can unveil many more:
    1. One experiment invalidates the results of the other experiment. Why is it that after 20 years of work and over $50 billion spent building instrumentations to precisely measure a quantity (e.g. energy of the Higgs boson) related to a natural phenomenon, the two instruments are recording different measurements when they should be yielding the same results no matter which one does the measuring? Clearly one value is wrong, or both are wrong. See at minute 84:49 the alleged Higgs boson energy value of 125.3 GeV measured by the CMS detector instrumentation and 126.5 GeV measured by the Atlas detector instrumentation. If you would give $50 billion to 10,000 scientists to build a precise scale, you would be surprised if one group provided you with a scale indicating your weight at 125.3 lbs. and another group of scientists provided a scale measuring your weight at 126.5 lbs. For $50 billion and 20 years of work you would expect two scales to match your weight with a precision greater than 1/10 of oz. Clearly one of the two scales is wrong, or both are flawed, and you still do not know your precise weight.
    2. Scientists’ public claims are different from the conclusions that an ethical scientist would make because there is no room for error.  The same scientists who advertise to the public that they have built a detector instrumentation capable of detecting new particles, including the Higgs boson (which is not true) admitted through their spokespersons at the 2013 largest international conference in the field IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD in Seoul, Korea, that the key part of the detector instrumentation, the “Trigger”, as explained above, was flawed and needed to be replaced. This is because the level-1 (or level-0) trigger showed only 50% efficiency in detecting Hadrons and did not have the capability to execute programmable, complex real-time algorithms. These capabilities were instead recognized by world experts at the 1993 FERMILab international review of Crosetto’s invention. That the detector instrumentation is not adequate to trap, capture and measure the Higgs boson and that the electronics need replacing, is only disclosed at scientific conferences.  Instead, the public is deceived into believing the current instrumentation has found the Higgs boson, that they are a success and not a failure, and therefore need more money from taxpayers to continue their good work, when in reality the money is needed to fix their mistakes.
    3. Scientists recant their previous statements and claims made years before to Crosetto. On August 26, 2008, Crosetto gave a seminar at CERN broadcasted via EVO system to the world and met the CERN Director General Robert Aymar and the leaders of the Trigger of major LHC experiments the next day. Wesley Smith, leader of the CMS Trigger, recanted his written statements made to Crosetto 16 years earlier at the SSC, including one where he stated that there was no need for programmability at the first level trigger. Nick Ellis, leader of Atlas Trigger, admitted that Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention in 1992 could have replaced the Triggers of all LHC experiments giving each one more power in discovering particles at a lower cost. Joao Varela, one of the leaders of the CMS experiment, made the excuse that when Crosetto first presented his invention in 1992 it was too early, and when he gave seminars at CERN in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1998, and published his peer-review 45-page article in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in 1999, it was too late. However, Crosetto showed Varela, that in spite of not having the millions of dollars CERN had to build their less efficient, non-programmable Trigger, he built the first proof of concept of his invention in hardware with his own money, and presented it at the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego, and its industrialized modular board with 68 processors per board at the 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Portland, Oregon. He tested the communication between the two modular boards, showing feasibility and functionality, thus proving that a system for any detector size could be built. This shows that there was not a lack from Crosetto in presenting ideas and results, but rather a lack from leaders in science. For example, Peter Sharp and Wesley Smith prevented Crosetto from participating at the Snowmass workshop on LHC in 1994. The reasons given for denying a dialogue which would follow scientific procedures as requested by Crosetto did not comply with scientific ethics or of a scientist who wants to understand the laws of nature as stated in the movie at minute xx, but were instead opposing logical reasoning which would have led to the creation of an instrument capable of understanding the laws of nature. Time after time, Crosetto’s inventions and approaches have proven correct, however, billions of dollars and decades have been wasted because of the inconsistencies of the leaders in the field toward their role as scientists.
    4. A serious investigation will reveal flaws. A serious investigation into the circuits and detectors built for the billion dollar detector instrumentation and how the data is collected from the detector will reveal that it is not providing full coverage and capability to capture the “pearl”, the new unknown particle. As an analogy we can compare the detectors to the U.S. SEALS who were charged with capturing Osama bin Laden. The plan should anticipate that when surrounded, he might try to escape from the North, East, West, or South, from above ground or below ground, at any time day or night. If their plan was not sound, bin Laden would have found a way to escape. The reason their mission was a success was because the SEALS had a plan to cover all possible events. Similarly, if a scientist needs to capture an unknown new particle, he must build a detector instrumentation capable of trapping it under any condition. Instead, by analyzing the current electronics and detector instrumentation, the “pearl” could be unnoticed by the instrument because it does not have the capability to execute complex real-time algorithms that can efficiently distinguish the “pearl” from noise or from particles of no importance. It cannot accurately measure its energy, as indicated by the one experiment CMS 125.3 GeV which is invalidating the measurement 126.5 GeV of the other Atlas. They cannot efficiently detect the decay of the Higgs boson in pairs of Tau. In the analogy it would be as if Osama bin Laden is passing by the SEALS and they do not recognize him.
    5. CERN’S Low Reputation: Flaws in the detector instrumentation are numerous and the low reputation of CERN statements demand to verify every little detail to be consistent with measurements, with reality, with the truth and not trust their explanations. For example, CERN explained that the error of the mistaken measurement of the speed of the neutrino was caused by a faulty connector and a clock running too fast. Instead there were much more serious mistakes in the conceptual design of the experiment and inaccuracies that were contradicting what published by CERN, also in their October 2011 Bulletin with statements that the electronics of the CERN-OPERA experiment has “outstanding accuracy”. Crosetto hand delivered in a meeting with CERN Director General on February 28, 2012 the references to the hardware of instrumentation for particle detection in HEP and medical imaging for early cancer detection that he designed, built and tested in 2003 [[5]], which shows to be hundreds of times more accurate than what was claimed in the October, 2011 CERN Bulletin, designed and built at CERN five years later. Similar less accurate electronics was also used in CERN experiments to detect the Higgs boson in spite Crosetto published how to build more accurate clock distribution in a peer-review article in 1999 NIM vol. 436, pp. 341-385. Crosetto’s schematics showing hundreds of times better accuracy were irrefutable and the two leaders of the OPERA experiment resigned from their position on March 30, 2012. A deeper study of other circuits and approaches in designing the detector instrumentation will lead to the resignation of other leaders in the field who cannot understand or explain what is best to build an instrument that could unambiguously trap and identify new particles and pass the leadership to those who implement scientific procedures to identify the most cost-effective solution as the proposed workshop for the 2014 conference is aiming to. At minute 84:49 of the movie, in order to convince the audience that the detector instrumentations made accurate measurements, is stating that both, CMS and Atlas experiments had a sigma of 5 without realizing that by saying so it also lowers their credibility in their measurement of the value of the sigma. Sigma is a value of uncertainty [[6]] in statistical measurements; a range in error of 5 sigma is equivalent to the probability of an error over several millions. Unfortunately, CERN used the same argument in September of 2011 in claiming that the neutrino travelled faster than speed of light, claiming in that case a sigma even higher of 6.1. It turned out that neutrino is not faster than the speed of light, therefore it is not new that CERN makes mistakes even in measuring sigma. Its credibility is even lower when one analyzes the research approach (and his language) of the CERN Scientific Director Sergio Bertolucci in a 90 minutes meeting with Crosetto on January 12, 2011. His research approach is not focus in identifying the best idea/solution/invention/project that is providing the most cost-effective result, but rather using the latest most advanced, bleeding edge components and technology, and hoping that by putting those together, by magic, they will solve a specific problem. (You can hear his theory from his words also translated at this link).
    6. Funding science that is consistent with ethical scientists. How many additional billion dollars and decades will take before scientists and government agencies, philanthropists and all who give them money will understand that they should ask a scientist to be consistent with the ethic of science and of a scientist and ask leaders like the Chairman of the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference Ingrid-Maria Gregor, either to provide answers pertinent and competent with the scientific issue, or to find someone competent, or to resign and leave her position to other scientists who are willing to implement scientific procedures to make scientific truth prevail for the benefit of mankind. Analyzing the communication between Ingrid and Crosetto, it is clear that Crosetto provides pertinent answers to address scientific issues leading to build an instrument that would allow to understand the laws of nature, while Ingrid’s answers are political and not related to the scientific subject at hand. In her last e-mail she is listing that the problems that need to be solved in the upgrades of LHC experiments is to improve the electronics to cope with and increased luminosity and for solving the problem of detecting the pileup events. Crosetto in the previous e-mail sent her his 1999, 45-page peer-reviewed article and documentation related to his 1992 invention that solves at low cost exactly those two problems by providing the capability to execute complex real-time algorithms being able to accurately measure all characteristics of the signals received from the detector instrumentation, detect the change of slope of the signal in order to resolve the pileup problem. However, Ingrid does provide scientific information on how she solves the two problems she listed and does not address and/or object to Crosetto’s solution. She refuses to have a workshop where her solution (if any), Crosetto’s solution and others from other scientists and students can be compared and through a public debate to hear who has stronger scientific evidences to obtain the most cost-effective results. In a few words, we have experimented a failure for 20 years in spending $50 billion and getting to the point that we need to replace the Trigger because open, public, scientific procedures where everyone explains and support his/her claim before construction and Ingrid wants to continue to go on in the dark, not comparing with other solutions how she intents to solve the high luminosity and pileup problem. This is not permitting the advancement in science for the benefit of mankind.
    7. Besides the fact that one experiment, CMS measuring the energy 125.3 GeV of the Higgs boson invalidates the 126.5 GeV measured by the Atlas experiment, and viceversa, also the physicists, leaders in both experiments, and other theoretical and experimental physicists make contradictory statements, clearly admitting that additional detailed measurements are needed to be able to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson. All these facts and statements make one thing very, very clear: After spending over $50 billion and 20 years of work building a detector instrumentation that does not have the capability to trap, capture and measure new particles (including the Higgs boson), evidences show that for 22 years a solution to build a detector instrumentation with the above capabilities was invented. Why the same physicists are instead telling the public they discovered the Higgs boson? To be honest, the only thing that has shown working is the LHC Collider accelerator at 3.5 GeV. So, perhaps they deserve the Nobel Prize, and no reference should be made to a detector instrumentation that need to rebuild the key section of the Trigger because it cannot provide detailed measurements. Here are some contradicting statements from the same physicists who are member of the teams claiming the discovery of the Higgs boson and from others who try to explain the results. Within the brackets [text] are reported the comments and questions of research scientist Dario Crosetto on behalf of taxpayers. At minute 2:25 of the movie, Kaplan states: “after many, many years of waiting and theorizing about how matter got created and about what the big theory of nature is… all those theories are finally going to be tested and we are going to know something, and we don’t know what is going it’s going  to be  now, but we will know and it’s going to change everything. If LHC sees the particles, we are on the right track and if it doesn’t, not only we have missed something but we may not ever know how to proceed. ”  At minute 89:22 of the movie, Dimopoulos states: “It doesn’t refer to symmetry (115 GeV), it doesn’t refer to multiverse (140 GeV), but is right in the middle (about 126 GeV). The data is puzzling enough that it hasn’t excluded any of the theories that I was involved with, but hasn’t confirmed it either, but until we don’t look at the detail properties of the Higgs…, we will not be able to make a stronger statement.”  Etc. more contradictions will be posted…

About our heroes, the brilliant scientists, starring:

Theoretical particle physicists:Savas Dimopoulos, Stanford University, worked at CERN from 1994 to 1997;Nima Arkani-Hamed, faculty member at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton;David Kaplan, working at Johns Hopkins University.

Experimental particle physicists:Fabiola Gianotti, at CERN, former spokesperson of the ATLAS experimentat -LHC-CERN;Monica Dunford, working at CERN; Martin Aleksa, working at the Atlas Liquid Argon Calorimeter at CERN; and

Engineer, LHC Collider Accelerator specialist:Mike Lamont, head of the LHC Machine Operation at CERN.

No matter how a “tiny brain” we might have, we could be honest when confronted with the above evidence known for 22 years that a more powerful and less expensive solution to detect new particles was invented. It was described in one page recognized valuable from top scientists, and proven to be feasible and functional in hardware.

 

About the movie Director Mark Levinson: Theoretical particle physicist, University of California, Berkeley. If on one hand the scientific community did not have a detector instrumentation with the capability to unequivocally confirm the existence of the Higgs boson with more money needing to be spent to replace the electronics that cannot accurately measure all parameters of the unknown particle, instead Levinson can claim success in being able to deceive the world (perhaps unaware that he was deceiving the public because did not know that more accurate measurements on new particles were possible for 22 years). He was able to advertise so well  convincing major media about results that are inconsistent with the laws of nature and that did not comply with the ethic of science and of a scientist in obtaining those. See a long list of journalists from top newspapers and magazine that were convinced by Levinson’s film: Washington Post, The New York Times, Boston Globe, Philadelphia enquirer, Arizona Republic, NPR, San Francisco Chronicle, Toronto Star, , etc. See reviews [1] at: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/particle_fever/reviews/#. It will be a fair service to the public now that this document is providing more in depth information that Levinson will consider to correct the message he delivered in this film with another film or a revised version of his documentary.

 

Citizens of the world including philanthropists, politicians who handle taxpayers’ money to serve mankind, and journalists who serve the public by providing up-to-date information in their best interest, ALL TRUST the words repeated several times in this movie that scientists are honestly pursuing the understanding of the laws of nature by complying with ethical science and do not have a different agenda. It is time for all honest scientists to speak-up in defense of ethical science because in the end, everyone will get hurt when we unveil cases like this where a solution was available for 22 years to build a detector instrumentation that would have allowed advancement in science and provide many benefits to humanity in several application fields instead of wasting billions of dollars and valuable time. Just think about the embarrassment of all taxpayers, funding agencies, philanthropists, journalists who have trusted leaders in science and now facts prove they have been deceived.  Now these dishonest scientists ask for more money to fix the flaws in the detector instrumentation that could not accurately measure all characteristics of the new particles (among which there could be the Higgs boson) to restart data taking in 2015 and then ask for another $50 billion to build an accelerator at CERN with a size of 100 Km perimeter, similar to the 84 km SSC that was supposed to be built in Texas in 1993. In light of the facts and many other hidden mistakes that could surface with a deeper investigation, would a taxpayer, philanthropist, or funding agency be willing to give any money to these scientists without a guarantee that they adhere to the ethics of science and of scientists? Because the future of the advancement in science and benefits to humanity depend upon the honesty of scientists in complying with ethical science, everyone should support transparency in implementing public scientific procedures before any further funding. Your support to the two workshops proposed at the largest scientific conference in the field expecting an attendance of 2,500 scientists to be held in November, 2014 in Seattle, Washington can protect your interest in not wasting money and in getting a return. The titles of these two workshops on November 9th, 2014 are: (a) from 8:00 to 12:30: “How does your project/idea/invention compare to other projects in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?” (see more details at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=138)  and (b) from 13:30 to 18:00: “How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compare to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost?” (see more details at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=140). The implementation should fully comply with the ethics of science, reserving (a) 90 minutes of presentations (each 10 to 15 minutes) from senior scientists who have projects of high impact, supported by solid scientific evidence, and projects that received conspicuous funding that need to justify their spending to the public by releasing their results, (b) 60 minutes of presentations (5 minutes each) by young scientists and PhD students, and (c) two hours dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system accessible free to any individual. The entire event should be broadcast live so that everyone can see who elects to be honest when confronted with irrefutable evidence that they are not following the ethics of science and are pursuing other agendas. The solution of the biggest calamities and problems facing humanity depend upon the honesty of those who delve deeply into the subject, understand the inconsistencies, and propose the best, most cost-effective solutions and test them experimentally. To avoid supporting dishonest scientists in the future, it is necessary to request the two public workshops listed above before giving any money to fix the mistakes of the flawed detectors instrumentation by 2015. Before building a new 100 km accelerator costing another $50 billion or more, or building medical imaging instrumentation which is using the same approach of not asking those who receive the money what they will give in return in terms of reduction of cancer deaths and cost, it is urgent everyone support these two workshops. Calling for transparency, honesty and responsibility will stop the significant rise in the cost of cancer treatments, which has risen to 100 times what it was 50 years ago, with only a 5% reduction in cancer death. We need to solve the cancer problem not postpone it.

 

 

[1] List of journalists from top newspapers and magazines that were convinced by Levinson’s film: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/particle_fever/reviews/#.

Frank Swietek 
One Guy’s Opinion

Informative and exciting…an educational film that’s uplifting in the best sense.

Full Review  | Original Score: B+

http://www.oneguysopinion.com/Review.php?ID=3986

May 17, 2014

Peter Canavese 
Groucho Reviews

Even a science dunce will walk away with a basic understanding of the project and a strong impression of the community around this important research…a film about the idealistic pursuit of knowledge…

Full Review  | Original Score: 3.5/4

http://grouchoreviews.com/reviews/4670

 

April 25, 2014

Ron Wilkinson 
It’s Just Movies

Trouble in Boson City but the spunky brainiacs of the Hadron Collider right the ship and identify the illusive link to the beginning of the universe.

Full Review  | Original Score: 7/10

http://itsjustmovies.com/review-particle-fever/
April 15, 2014

Sherilyn Connelly http://www.sfweekly.com/2014-03-12/film/particle-fever-film-review/
SF Weekly

The fact that Mark Levinson’s engrossing Particle Fever was edited by the great Walter Murch gives it a better pedigree than most documentaries.

Full Review 

April 8, 2014

Robert Horton 
Seattle Weekly

[The film] serves as a needed reminder of the excitement of science, a practice that need not be left exclusively to nerds.

Full Review 

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/robert-horton/

April 8, 2014

Al Alexander 
The Patriot Ledger

A subatomic thriller that not only captures one of mankind’s most significant breakthroughs, it makes physics and physicists look hip.

Full Review  | Original Score: A-

http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20140320/ENTERTAINMENT/140329274/12353/ENTERTAINMENT

March 21, 2014

Brian Orndorf 
Blu-ray.com

Its eventual slide into statistics comes to test patience, yet Levinson doesn’t lose the essential theme of the movie.

Full Review  | Original Score: B-

http://www.blu-ray.com/Particle-Fever/313252/?show=preview

March 21, 2014

Kelly Vance 
East Bay Express

Brilliant new documentary about the largest scientific experiment in history.

Full Review 

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/particle-fever/Content?oid=3861761

March 21, 2014

Tirdad Derakhshani 
Philadelphia Inquirer

Top Critic

Particle Fever explores with awe-inspiring precision, and in remarkably accessible language, how 10,000 scientists and engineers from around the world built what in effect is the ultimate test tube for particle physics.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/4

http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/movies/20140321__Particle_Fever___An_inspiring_look_at_the_question_of_where_everything_came_from.html

March 21, 2014

Matt Prigge 
Metro

We see science, and scientists – excitable, anxious, adorably nerdy scientists – freaking out as they’re about to fire up the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), one of the largest machines ever built by man.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

http://www.metro.us/newyork/entertainment/movies-entertainment/2014/03/20/review-particle-fever-another-reminder-science-totally-awesome/

March 20, 2014

Peter Keough 
Boston Globe

Top Critic

The enthusiasm, idealism, and cheerful brilliance of the six subjects convey the thrill, if not the full significance, of this scientific breakthrough.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2014/03/20/movie-review-looking-for-god-particle-documentary-particle-fever/zi3m8zv3cT8HckdvF304VL/story.html

March 20, 2014

Michael O’Sullivan 
Washington Post

Top Critic

It plays out with all the suspense of a thriller.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/particle-fever-movie-review-a-true-scientific-search/2014/03/19/fc9bf708-aaeb-11e3-98f6-8e3c562f9996_story.html

March 20, 2014

Colin Covert 
Minneapolis Star Tribune

Top Critic

Levinson makes the story accessible and entertaining for mainstream viewers.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/251266441.html

March 20, 2014

Chris Hewitt (St. Paul) 
St. Paul Pioneer Press

There are a few entertaining developments in the film, but much of it is dull.

Full Review  | Original Score: 2/4

www.twincities.com/movies/ci_25378533/movie-review-if-colliders-matter-particle-fever-is

March 20, 2014

Barbara VanDenburgh 
Arizona Republic

Top Critic

Even the most math-averse viewer will be on pins and needs to know the results.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/movies/2014/03/20/science-doc-particle-fever-captivates/6621211/

March 20, 2014

Brent Simon 
Paste Magazine

A fascinating nonfiction celebration of human curiosity and endeavor, Particle Fever gives viewers a shotgun-seat to history that plays out on a very relatable plane.

Full Review  | Original Score: 7.5/10

www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/03/particle-fever.html

March 13, 2014

Ben Sachs 
Chicago Reader

Top Critic

The filmmakers find room for some witty philosophical bull sessions and affectionate portraits of some of the physicists; this is an agreeable light entertainment on a complex subject.

Full Review 

www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/particle-fever/Film?oid=12725431

March 13, 2014

Dann Gire 
Daily Herald (IL)

The narrative builds momentum as Particle Fever whisks us from 2008 through 2012 when the scientific world anxiously waits for the results of the experiment.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20140313/entlife/303139999/

March 13, 2014

Walter V. Addiego 
San Francisco Chronicle

Top Critic

Even if you can’t explain the Standard Model or define “supersymmetry,” you’ll walk away with a conviction that you’ve vicariously participated in a historic event.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Particle-Fever-review-Documentary-on-Higgs-5314481.php

March 13, 2014

Andrew O’Hehir 
Salon.com

Top Critic

The bracing scientific rigor and intellectual derring-do presented in “Particle Fever” are most welcome.

Full Review 

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Particle-Fever-review-Documentary-on-Higgs-5314481.php

Trey Graham 
NPR

Top Critic

All you really need to know about Particle Fever is that it includes footage of physicists rapping. About physics. Wearing giant Einstein masks.

Full Review 

www.npr.org/2014/03/07/286240920/particle-fever-thrills-chills-and-high-subatomic-drama?ft=1&f=1045

March 7, 2014

Peter Rainer 
Christian Science Monitor

Top Critic

The film allows for our awe. It also demonstrates that science is the most human of activities, with all that that implies.

Full Review  | Original Score: A-

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies/2014/0307/Particle-Fever-a-terrific-documentary-demonstrates-that-science-is-the-most-human-of-activities

March 7, 2014

Katherine Monk 
Canada.com

Levinson’s film seems to capture the instability of just about everything, from a large hadron collider, to a helium pipe, to the Higgs boson, to people in general.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

http://o.canada.com/entertainment/movies/movie-review-particle-fever-explores-emotional-side-of-higgs-quest-with-video

March 7, 2014

MaryAnn Johanson 
Flick Filosopher

A funny, exhilarating, suspenseful documentary about the Large Hadron Collider, and how physics is more akin to philosophy and art than you may have imagined.

Full Review 

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2014/03/particle-fever-review-asking-really-big-questions-smallest-possible-things.html

March 7, 2014

Liam Lacey 
Globe and Mail

Top Critic

Set in crummy offices and towering facilities worthy of a Bond movie, the documentary is edited with the momentum of a thriller by the great Walter Murch (Apocalypse Now), as we follow six scientists.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/4

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/film-reviews/particle-fever-unexpectedly-gripping-doc-about-advanced-physics-is-both-mind-bending-and-deeply-human/article17344316/

March 7, 2014

Kenneth Turan 
Los Angeles Times

Top Critic

Watching a film won’t make you smarter, but if there ever was one that could, it would be “Particle Fever,” a movie so mind-bending you can almost feel your brain cells growing as you’re watching it.

Full Review 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-particle-fever-review-20140307-story.html#axzz2vDXLviEI

March 6, 2014

Bruce Demara 
Toronto Star

Top Critic

As fictional Vulcan Spock might have pronounced: “Fascinating.”

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2014/03/06/reel_life_bettie_page_jerusalem_and_the_lhc.html

March 6, 2014

Jordan Hoffman 
New York Daily News

Top Critic

Talk about a smash hit.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/movie-reviews-particle-fever-bethlehem-haunt-article-1.1712948

March 6, 2014

Josh Modell 
AV Club

A compelling, if sometimes difficult to follow, story.

Full Review  | Original Score: B+

http://www.avclub.com/review/new-documentary-particle-fever-breaks-down-god-par-201844

March 6, 2014

Wes Greene 
Slant Magazine

The film may not put itself above the uninitiated, but director Mark Levinson oftentimes appears almost too eager to present his material with affectation.

Full Review  | Original Score: 2.5/4

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/particle-fever

March 5, 2014

Christy Lemire 
RogerEbert.com

Top Critic

A movie that’s not just accessible but fun, with a surprisingly emotional payoff at the end.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/particle-fever-2014

March 5, 2014

Joshua Rothkopf 
Time Out New York

Top Critic

Particle Fever is that rare, exhilarating science doc that’s neither dumbed down nor drabbed up.

Full Review  | Original Score: 5/5

http://www.timeout.com/us/film/particle-fever

March 4, 2014

A.O. Scott 
New York Times

Top Critic

The experience of watching the film can be vertiginous: You toggle between the tiny and the infinite, between eternity and the real time of the recent past.

Full Review 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/movies/particle-fever-tells-of-search-for-the-higgs-boson.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

March 4, 2014

Alan Scherstuhl 
Village Voice

Top Critic

A dazzling, dizzying documentary about nothing less than whether we exist in a coherent universe of ordered, even beautiful laws …

Full Review 

http://www.villagevoice.com/2014-03-05/film/particle-fever-documentary/

March 4, 2014

Louis Proyect 
rec.arts.movies.reviews

Totally thrilling documentary about a topic that might have been distinctly unthrilling. Great work from its physicist producer and director.

Full Review 

http://louisproyect.org/2014/03/04/particle-fever-the-iran-job/

March 4, 2014

Scott Tobias 
The Dissolve

The film does everything it can to build a bridge between physics nerds and their wedgie-giving counterparts [...] making Particle Fever the crowd-pleaser it is [...]

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

http://thedissolve.com/reviews/610-particle-fever/

March 4, 2014

David Gritten 
Daily Telegraph

Where it excels is in depicting the various personalities involved.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10123379/Particle-Fever-Sheffield-DocFest-review.html

March 3, 2014

Ronnie Scheib 
Variety

Top Critic

A documentary about science for professionals and laypeople alike, Particle Fever celebrates an event of earth-shattering importance, though what far-ranging transformations it heralds remain unknown

Full Review 

http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/particle-fever-review-1200709798/

March 3, 2014

Todd McCarthy 
Hollywood Reporter

Top Critic

A timely and fascinating look at physicists’ search for the Higgs boson.

Full Review 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/particle-fever-film-review-646439

 

 

[2] The $50 Billion cost of CERN Large Hadron Collider accelerator plus the detector instrumentations and the salary of the scientists and engineers that took 20 years to be built, which has shown not having the capability to unequivocally trap, capture and measure the characteristics of new particles (including for the Higgs boson) is calculated as follows: $1 billion per year is the cost to operate CERN, which gives a total of $20 Billion, $10 billion is the cost of LHC accelerator; 10,000 scientists and engineers who are not CERN employees who are paid by home Universities in the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc., on a budget charged to taxpayers of the local country are costing an average of $100,000 per year per person, totaling to about $20 Billion. This is totaling about $50 Billion.

 

 

[3]Proposal for a workshop for establishing a link between research projects and benefits to humanity

How does your project/idea/invention compares in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?

Sunday, November 9th, 2014, 8:00- 12:30

Location: TBD

Chairs: Umberto Bellotti, BELLUM Labs.

Dario Crosetto, Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

Flavio Marchetto, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare – Torino – Italy

Two decades ago, the technological advantages of Crosetto’s invention of the 3D-Flow system in the advancement of science and in the discovery of new particles were recognized at a major international scientific review requested by the director of the Supercollider and held at the Fermi National Laboratory.

Today the sentence Crosetto used to conceive his invention in 1992 is still relevant to young scientists and PhD students who want to address and find the best synergy between detector and electronics for creating a powerful instrument in High Energy Physics with the capability to trap (capture the good signals, process and measure all characteristics of the particle that one would like to find) any new particle that is expected to have some characteristics complying with a specific real-time algorithm designed by a physicist.

Here is that sentence: “Design a system (electronics + detector) that is breaking the speed-barrier of the input data rate and algorithm execution time, with the capability to capture as many good event as possible, executing a specific real-time algorithm that could be changed at a later date after first data taking, with the capability to efficiently exchange data with neighboring channels with no boundaries, to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets and at the lowest cost per valid event captured compared to current systems.”

The 3D-Flow system architecture and its related innovations in the detector assembly, segmentation and coupling of the detector will cause a paradigm shift in the instrumentation of particle physics (particle tracking, calorimetry, imaging detectors, Trackers, Time-of-Flight), medical imaging (CT, PET, SPECT), space research, molecular physics, and true 3D imaging.

The reason for this workshop is to understand why after 20 years of work and billions of dollars spent the result is having built instrumentations which, measuring the same physical quantities (e.g. energy of the Higgs boson) related to a given phenomenon in nature, yet provide two different values, and in another experiment measure the speed of particles (e.g. neutrino speed) with an apparatus setup that from its conception can provide only inconclusive results because it is open to too many uncontrollable errors.

The need for this workshop is to ask every researcher to establish a link between their proposed research and the ultimate objective to build instrumentation capable of discovering new particles and reduce the cost of High Energy Physics experiments, when compared with others projects, and to point out advantages and weaknesses. It is necessary to stimulate out-of-the-box thinking to fully understand the synergies of Crosetto’s inventions in the field of detector, detector segmentation and assembly, electronics, algorithm development, the coupling of the electronics with the detector etc., as compared with other systems.

The scope of this workshop is to summarize the state-of-the-art of the technological developments in the various fields of application for particle detection, to analyze the limits of current systems which led to inconclusive results and to the need to replace the current first-level triggers and other components. Crosetto will make a short presentation of his inventions that would have saved money and increased the efficiency of the experiments. Leaders from major HEP experiments, such as CMS, Atlas, LHCb and Alice, as well as the physicists who approved measuring neutrino’s speed with the OPERA experiment, young scientists and PhD students will be invited to analyze the limits of current HEP experiments and how they are overcome by the current upgrades and to compare their approach with respect to the synergy of Crosetto’s inventions and with respect to other projects presented. This last phase will take place during the round table discussion.

The benefits from this workshop are to reduce the upgrade costs of HEP experiments at LHC and all future experiments, to increase their power and efficiency in discovering new particles, and to start a paradigm change that will save money and open the door to greater advancement in science. The dialogue in this workshop with leaders who are designing and building upgrades of current experiments and new experiments is key to understanding all advantages and benefits from inventions which have been available for 20 years, instead of building upgrades only to find out years from now that they could have been done at a much lower cost and with better performance.

It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual. We encourage young researchers to present and discuss their work. The entire event will be broadcast worldwide by professionals in communication.

If you want to contribute to this workshop, please send your abstract through the conference website before June 15th. A preliminary program will be available in the conference booklet.

 

 

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:47 PM
To: ‘Georges El Fakhri, PhD, DABR’; ‘katia.parodi@lmu.de’
Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net;

Subject: Submission of a half-day MIC workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seattle (WA), Nov. 8 to Nov. 15, 2014

Dear Georges and Katia,

According to your instructions on how to prepare a proposal for a workshop, we drafted the following proposal that I am sending you a few days before the deadline of Sunday, May 11, 2014 because Katia mentioned on the phone that you would have the meeting on Monday, May 12 to evaluate these proposals and if we need to change format/length, etc. there would still be the time.

We have paid attention to Katia’s advice that the workshop topics  should not be the same as in the regular conference, and that they should require discussion of new ideas for advancement of future science.

In the proposed workshop the topic: a) links each project to the ultimate objective (e.g. of reduction of cancer deaths and cost) which is not listed in any regular topic of the conference, b) asks researchers to make an estimate of the percentage in reduction of cancer deaths and cost they expect to attain with their research, either stand alone or when combined with existing components or current research, is not in the regular topic, c) is not limited to a single modality, but rather open to all modalities PET/CT, PET/MRI, PET/Ultrasound, TOF-PET and any other modality a proposer can demonstrate would achieve a significant reduction of cancer deaths and cost, d) seeks to identify a standard measurement of the efficacy of a proposed solution which is not in the standard topics. The fact that there are many protocols for trials of new drugs and new imaging devices but during the past 50 years premature cancer deaths did not drop significantly demonstrates the need for the novel approach proposed in this workshop.

Our workshop will allow the discussion to span across all modalities, techniques, linking a technique with the ultimate goal of reducing cancer deaths, and is not available in the regular topics.  Also, within a modality, there is no link in the regular topic with the ultimate goal. For example, now people are trying to improve TOF-PET from 600 picosecond (corresponding to 18 mm resolution) to 200 picosecond (corresponding to 6 mm resolution). Is there an estimate of saving more lives and reducing cost using a PET with 200 picosecond resolution?  If so, how is the estimate calculated? The expectations we have in reducing cancer deaths with the trend of technological improvements should be clear as we plan now for the future.

We believe the benefits of the dialogue from the proposed workshop would be substantial for the scientific community as well as for humanity.

Because an open public DIALOGUE is key to bring maximum benefits to humanity from innovations that are providing advancement in science and in significantly reducing cancer deaths through an effective early detection, the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths will cover the cost of the broadcasting and of the interactive discussion via internet EVO system of the event.

We hope to receive your approval,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto, Umberto Bellotti, Joseph Dent and Ruben Sonnino

 

How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compares to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost?

 

Sunday, November 9th, 2014, 13:30- 18:00

Location: TBD

Chairs: Umberto Bellotti, BELLUM Labs.

Dario Crosetto, Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

Joseph Dent, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Ruben Sonnino, Retired executive of ST-Microelectronics. Active member of ST-Foundation, responsible for North, Central and South America

 

Fourteen years ago the technological innovations of the Crosetto 3D-CBS technology which enabled effective early cancer detection by improving the efficiency of PET by 400 folds, were presented in twoarticles and a book distributed free to the leaders in the field at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon, France.

 

Today the challenge Crosetto set for himself in the year 2000 is still relevant to young scientists and PhD students who want to find the best synergy between detector, geometry and electronics, for the purpose of creating a cost-effective instrument with the highest efficiency of early cancer detection, while minimizing both the radiation dose to the patient and the examination cost.

 

Here is that sentence: “Design a cost-effective system (electronics + detector) with a long Field-Of-View that captures as many 511keV pairs of photons as possible from positron-electron annihilation and accurately measures each photon’s arrival time, energy, and  the x, y, z  coordinates of its impact point in the crystal. Moreover it must have the capability to efficiently exchange data with neighboring channels without boundaries, and to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets at the lowest cost per valid pair of 511 keV photons captured compared to current systems.”

 

The 3D-CBS technology with its innovations in electronics, detector assembly and coupling of the detector with the electronics will cause a paradigm shift in the Medical Imaging, enabling effective early cancer detection (CT, PET, SPECT), molecular physics, and true whole-body, 3D imaging.

 

The reason for this workshop is to understand why, after more than a decade, an invention like 3D-CBS technology, which could have already saved many lives and reduced health care costs through the early detection of cancer, has not been funded.   Information provided by 3D-CBS innovative technology can also be useful in investigating many other anomalies in a patient’s body (diabetes, Alzheimer’s, heart and vascular diseases, etc.), improve the treatment of patients, and open the door to the discovery of new biomarkers through its increased sensitivity. Infact, Crosetto has been prevented from presenting his invention at several IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences. At the same time, some of the Chairmen and reviewers who rejected  3D-CBS and prevented its presentation received funding for less efficient projects, and are now building a similar device, although much more expensive.

 

The need for this workshop is to develop a metric to establish a link between proposed research and the ultimate objective to reduce cancer deaths and cost, when compared with other projects, and to point out advantages and weaknesses. Participants are encouraged to estimate and propose a plan to measure the percentage of reduction in cancer deaths they expect to attain from their research stand-alone, or when combined with other existing components or with other research currently being developed. One example is testing on a sample population taken from a group aged 55-74 that has had a constant cancer death rate for the past 20 years. A difference or no difference in cancer death reduction will determine the success or failure of the proposed research.

 

The scope of this workshop is to summarize the state-of-the-art technological developments in the various fields of application for Medical Imaging and recognize those that have greater potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. The limits of current systems should be analyzed. Crosetto will make a short presentation of his inventions that would have saved many lives and reduced health care cost. Leaders from leading universities and research centers in the field, including those who presented the Explorer at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, will be invited to present their projects comparing them with others. Senior scientists, young scientists and PhD students will be invited to analyze the limits of current PET and to compare their approach for medical imaging systems in PET/CT, PET/MRI, PET/ultrasound, TOF-PET and any Imaging system (e.g. measuring fluorescence, tissue conductivity, etc.) that has potential to significantly reduce global cancer deaths and cost. This last phase will take place during the round table discussion.

 

The benefits from this workshop will lead to the identification and funding of the best solutions with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. This can be achieved through a public dialogue that is following scientific procedures where everyone is given the opportunity to present their contribution to the advancement of science in the field. In this way, reliable information can be placed on Wikipedia and no relevant contribution to the history of PET and Medical Imaging will be left out. Scientists have a great responsibility to provide ethical and professional information so that the possibility to solve the cancer problem increases.

 

It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual. We encourage young researchers to present and discuss their work. The entire event will be broadcast worldwide by professionals in communication.

 

If you want to contribute to this workshop, please send your abstract through the conference website before June 15th. A preliminary program will be available in the conference booklet.

 

[4] LHC the world lagest accelerator http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091130114546.htm

[[5]] D. Crosetto provided the schematics proving that his electronics built in 2003 was hundreds of times more accurate than CERN-OPERA electronics built in 2008 and advertized on CERN Bulletin as with “outstanding accuracy”. http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/700.pdf

[[6]] Sigma, misura di incertezza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty

 

2014-05-09 – Proposed Workshop: “How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compares to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost?”

May 9th, 2014

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:47 PM
To: ‘Georges El Fakhri, PhD, DABR’; ‘katia.parodi@lmu.de’
Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net;

Subject: Submission of a half-day MIC workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seattle (WA), Nov. 8 to Nov. 15, 2014

Dear Georges and Katia,

According to your instructions on how to prepare a proposal for a workshop, we drafted the following proposal that I am sending you a few days before the deadline of Sunday May 11, 2014 because Katia mentioned on the phone that you would have the meeting on Monday May 12 to evaluate these proposals and if we need to change format/length, etc. there would still be the time.

We have paid attention to Katia’s advice that the workshop topics  should not be the same as in the regular conference, and that they should require discussion of new ideas for advancement of future science.

In the proposed workshop the topic: a) links each project to the ultimate objective (e.g. of reduction of cancer deaths and cost) which is not listed in any regular topic of the conference, b) asks researchers to make an estimate of the percentage in reduction of cancer deaths and cost they expect to attain with their research, either stand alone or when combined with existing components or current research, is not in the regular topic, c) is not limited to a single modality, but rather open to all modalities PET/CT, PET/MRI, PET/Ultrasound, TOF-PET and any other modality a proposer can demonstrate would achieve a significant reduction of cancer death and cost, d) seeks to identify a standard measurement of the efficacy of a proposed solution which is not in the standard topics. The fact that there are many protocols for trials of new drugs and new imaging devices but during the past 50 years premature cancer deaths did not drop significantly demonstrates the need for the novel approach proposed in this workshop.

Our workshop will allow the discussion to span across all modalities, techniques, linking a technique with the ultimate goal of reducing cancer deaths, and is not available in the regular topics.  Also, within a modality, there is no link in the regular topic with the ultimate goal. For example, now people are trying to improve TOF-PET from 600 picosecond (corresponding to 18 mm resolution) to 200 picosecond (corresponding to 6 mm resolution). Is there an estimate of saving more lives and reducing cost using a PET with 200 picosecond resolution?  If so, how is the estimate calculated? The expectations we have in reducing cancer deaths with the trend of technological improvements should be clear as we plan now for the future.

We believe the benefits of the dialogue from the proposed workshop would be substantial for the scientific community as well as for humanity.

Because an open public DIALOGUE is key to bring maximum benefits to humanity from innovations that are providing advancement in science and in significantly reducing cancer deaths through an effective early detection, Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths will cover the cost of the broadcasting and of the interactive discussion via internet EVO system of the event.

We hope to receive your approval,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto, Umberto Bellotti, Joseph Dent and Ruben Sonnino

 

PROPOSED WORKSHOP

How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compares to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost?

Sunday, November 9th, 2014, 13:30- 18:00

Location: TBD

Chairs: Umberto Bellotti, BELLUM Labs.

Dario Crosetto, Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

Joseph Dent, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Ruben Sonnino, Retired executive of ST-Microelectronics. Active member of ST-Foundation, responsible for North, Central and South America

Fourteen years ago the technological innovations of the Crosetto 3D-CBS technology which enabled effective early cancer detection by improving the efficiency of PET by 400 folds, were presented in twoarticles and a book distributed free to the leaders in the field at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon, France.

Today the challenge Crosetto set for himself in the year 2000 is still relevant to young scientists and PhD students who want to find the best synergy between detector, geometry and electronics, for the purpose of creating a cost-effective instrument with the highest efficiency of early cancer detection, while minimizing both the radiation dose to the patient and the examination cost.

Here is that sentence: “Design a cost-effective system (electronics + detector) with a long Field-Of-View that captures as many 511keV pairs of photons as possible from positron-electron annihilation and accurately measures each photon’s arrival time, energy, and  the x, y, z  coordinates of its impact point in the crystal. Moreover it must have the capability to efficiently exchange data with neighboring channels without boundaries, and to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets at the lowest cost per valid pair of 511 keV photons captured compared to current systems.”

The 3D-CBS technology with its innovations in electronics, detector assembly and coupling of the detector with the electronics will cause a paradigm shift in the Medical Imaging, enabling effective early cancer detection (CT, PET, SPECT), molecular physics, and true whole-body, 3D imaging.

The reason for this workshop is to understand why, after more than a decade, an invention like 3D-CBS technology, which could have already saved many lives and reduced health care costs through the early detection of cancer, has not been funded.   Information provided by 3D-CBS innovative technology can also be useful in investigating many other anomalies in a patient’s body (diabetes, Alzheimer’s, heart and vascular diseases, etc.), improve the treatment of patients, and open the door to the discovery of new biomarkers through its increased sensitivity. In fact Crosetto has been prevented from presenting his invention at several IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences. At the same time, some of the Chairmen and reviewers who rejected  3D-CBS and prevented its presentation received funding for less efficient projects, and are now building a similar device, although much more expensive.

 The need for this workshop is to develop a metric to establish a link between proposed research and the ultimate objective to reduce cancer deaths and cost, when compared with others projects, and to point out advantages and weaknesses. Participants are encouraged to estimate and propose a plan to measure the percentage of reduction in cancer deaths they expect to attain from their research stand-alone, or when combined with other existing components or with other research currently being developed. One example is testing on a sample population taken from a group aged 55-74 that has had a constant cancer death rate for the past 20 years. A difference or no difference in cancer death reduction will determine the success or failure of the proposed research.

The scope of this workshop is to summarize the state-of-the-art technological developments in the various fields of application for Medical Imaging and recognize those that have greater potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. The limits of current systems should be analyzed. Crosetto will make a short presentation of his inventions that would have saved many lives and reduced health care cost. Leaders from leading universities and research centers in the field, including those who presented the Explorer at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, will be invited to present their projects comparing them with others. Senior scientists, young scientists and PhD students will be invited to analyze the limits of current PET and to compare their approach for medical imaging systems in PET/CT, PET/MRI, PET/ultrasound, TOF-PET and any Imaging system (e.g. measuring fluorescence, tissue conductivity, etc.) that has potential to significantly reduce global cancer deaths and cost. This last phase will take place during the round table discussion.

 The benefits from this workshop will lead to the identification and funding of the best solutions with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. This can be achieved through a public dialogue that is following scientific procedures where everyone is given the opportunity to present their contribution to the advancement of science in the field. In this way, reliable information can be placed on Wikipedia and no relevant contribution to the history of PET and Medical Imaging will be left out. Scientists have a great responsibility to provide ethical and professional information so that the possibility to solve the cancer problem increases.

It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual. We encourage young researchers to present and discuss their work. The entire event will be broadcast worldwide by professionals in communication.

If you want to contribute to this workshop, please send your abstract through the conference website before June 15th. A preliminary program will be available in the conference booklet.

2014-05-04 – Proposed Workshop “How does your project/idea/invention compares in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?”

May 4th, 2014

How does your project/idea/invention compares in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?

Sunday, November 9th, 2014, 8:00- 12:30

Location: TBD

Chairs: Umberto Bellotti, BELLUM Labs.

Dario Crosetto, Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

Flavio Marchetto, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare – Torino – Italy

Two decades ago, the technological advantages of Crosetto’s invention of the 3D-Flow system in the advancement of science and in the discovery of new particles were recognized at a major international scientific review requested by the director of the Supercollider and held at the Fermi National Laboratory.

Today the sentence Crosetto used to conceive his invention in 1992 is still relevant to young scientists and PhD students who want to address and find the best synergy between detector and electronics for creating a powerful instrument in High Energy Physics with the capability to trap (capture the good signals, process and measure all characteristics of the particle that one would like to find) any new particle that is expected to have some characteristics complying with a specific real-time algorithm designed by a physicist.

Here is that sentence: “Design a system (electronics + detector) that is breaking the speed-barrier of the input data rate and algorithm execution time, with the capability to capture as many good event as possible, executing a specific real-time algorithm that could be changed at a later date after first data taking, with the capability to efficiently exchange data with neighboring channels with no boundaries, to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets and at the lowest cost per valid event captured compared to current systems.”

The 3D-Flow system architecture and its related innovations in the detector assembly, segmentation and coupling of the detector will cause a paradigm shift in the instrumentation of particle physics (particle tracking, calorimetry, imaging detectors, Trackers, Time-of-Flight), medical imaging (CT, PET, SPECT), space research, molecular physics, and true 3D imaging.

The reason for this workshop is to understand why after 20 years of work and billions of dollars spent the result is having built instrumentations which, measuring the same physical quantities (e.g. energy of the Higgs boson) related to a given phenomenon in nature, yet provide two different values, and in another experiment measure the speed of particles (e.g. neutrino speed) with an apparatus setup that from its conception can provide only inconclusive results because it is open to too many uncontrollable errors.

The need for this workshop is to ask every researcher to establish a link between their proposed research and the ultimate objective to build instrumentation capable of discovering new particles and reduce the cost of High Energy Physics experiments, when compared with others projects, and to point out advantages and weaknesses. It is necessary to stimulate out-of-the-box thinking to fully understand the synergies of Crosetto’s inventions in the field of detector, detector segmentation and assembly, electronics, algorithm development, the coupling of the electronics with the detector etc., as compared with other systems.

The scope of this workshop is to summarize the state-of-the-art of the technological developments in the various fields of application for particle detection, to analyze the limits of current systems which led to inconclusive results and to the need to replace the current first-level triggers and other components. Crosetto will make a short presentation of his inventions that would have saved money and increased the efficiency of the experiments. Leaders from major HEP experiments, such as CMS, Atlas, LHCb and Alice, as well as the physicists who approved measuring neutrino’s speed with OPERA experiment, young scientists and PhD students will be invited to analyze the limits of current HEP experiments and how they are overcome by the current upgrades, and to compare their approach with respect to the synergy of Crosetto’s inventions and with respect to other projects presented. This last phase will take place during the round table discussion.

The benefits from this workshop are to reduce the upgrade costs of HEP experiments at LHC and all future experiments, to increase their power and efficiency in discovering new particles, and to start a paradigm change that will save money and open the door to greater advancement in science. The dialogue in this workshop with leaders who are designing and building upgrades of current experiments and new experiments is key to understanding all advantages and benefits from inventions which have been available for 20 years, instead of building upgrades only to find out years from now that they could have been done at a much lower cost and with better performance.

It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual. We encourage young researchers to present and discuss their work. The entire event will be broadcast worldwide by professionals in communication.

If you want to contribute to this workshop, please send your abstract through the conference website before June 15th. A preliminary program will be available in the conference booklet.

2014-01-22 – 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

 

2014-01-15 – 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

2014-01-12 – 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

2014-01-05 – 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.

2013-12-24 – 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”