The Future is in Our Hands
Blog
Information, Awareness, Prevention / United to End Cancer

Montess_School_Photo_Students_BottelingI have waited over one month from my email dated March 4, 2016 before providing additional material and I would humbly and respectfully suggest that everyone continue to explain to their children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces etc., from 12 to 18  years of age what the #CancerMoonShotForOurChildren is, his/her work commitment, how this program differs from the many other campaigns launched   in the past that did not reach their goal   (we have now 8.2 million cancer deaths per year, 7 million of which are premature, projected to increase if we cannot present an effective solution)

Dear President Barack Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden, Dr. Jim Siegrist, Dr. Patricia Dehmer, Dr. Cherry Murray, Dr. Ernest Moniz, Dr. Anne Lubenow, Dr. Douglas Lowy, Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Greg Simon, members of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force and all experts in particle physics, medical imaging and administrators from the thirteen Government Agencies involved in the Cancer Moonshot project,

I have waited over one month from my email dated March 4, 2016 before providing additional material and I would humbly and respectfully suggest that everyone continue to explain to their children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces etc., from 12 to 18  years of age what the #CancerMoonShotForOurChildren is, his/her work commitment, how this program differs from the many other campaigns launched   in the past that did not reach their goal   (we have now 8.2 million cancer deaths per year, 7 million of which are premature, projected to increase if we cannot present an effective solution). I  trust that this time we will be able to provide the world and our children with a list of projects (whether it be a new drug, a vaccine, genomics,  immunotherapy, a medical imaging device, etc.) which can answer the following questions:

  1. How much is the expected reduction in cancer deaths (6 years and 10 years from funding) your project/approach can provide when measured on a sample population?
  2. How much will your project cost to develop?
  3. When can the first results be expected?
  4. How much are the operating costs?
  5. Is there a link to support the analytical and scientific evidence of your claims?

Other projects when analyzed analytically and scientifically cannot compete with the 3D-CBS invention which can provide solid analytical and scientific evidence that with $20 Million NRE it can save over 13 million lives in 30 years. Here are the 3D-CBS  answers to the above questions:

  1. Estimate of 33% cancer death reduction in 6 years from funding and 50% in 10 years.
  2. $20 Million to develop (compared to billions of dollars for drug development),
  3. First results expected three years from funding,
  4. Operating costs estimated at $400 per exam.
  5. Yes, there is a link and to supporting analytical and scientific evidence in a 271-page document describing the basic components of the invention, whose feasibility is supported by 59 quotes from several reputable companies.

In the following paragraphs you will find explanations of the main concepts of my inventions for applications in Physics as described in the 1999 article for scientists “ System Design and Verification Process for LHC Programmable Trigger Electronics ”, for applications in Medical Imaging as described in the 2000 technical scientific book for scientists “ 400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening”, ISBN 0-9702897-0-7, and explained to Middle and High School students and laymen in the book “ Understanding a new idea for a Cancer Screening device” ISBN 0-9702897-1-5, which I wrote with teachers and students of the St. Alcuin Montessori School after four weeks of practical exercises with the students which demonstrated my innovative concept using analogies of bottling water, throwing a ball in a sand tray, conveyor belt etc.).

In order to serve our children, loved ones and future generations by understanding innovations that can fight the fast moving cancer taking one life every  four seconds, I respectfully request you share with your children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, the explanation of the concept on my invention  implemented with analogies in practical exercises and described in the book written with the teachers and students of the St. Alcuin Montessori School in  Dallas in the year 2000. Also, please share any questions you or your children, grandchildren…, might have on the analytical thinking and process described  in the book “Understanding a new idea for a Cancer Screening device” and verified experimentally with a practical exercise.

My 3D-CBS invention provides an effective early cancer  detection because it is hundreds of times more efficient than the over 6,000 PET devices currently in use; it has been proven feasible and functional in  hardware and just needs the NRE (Non-Recurring Engineer) funding of its basic 3D-Flow OPRA processor and electronic board, as described in the 271-page  proposal which is supported by 59 quotes to get the 3D-Flow OPRA processor cost down to $1/processor with large quantities (see 
pp 5, 24, 27, 34, 83, 93, 96, 144, 145, 202, 203, 234, 255 of the 271-page proposal  
). The official 413-page submission dated December 22, 2015, of the proposal to fund the basic 3D-FLOW OPRA processor and electronic boards is available at  Gov-tracking GRANT12058981 or DOE tracking 0000222704, from DUNS:009603738, to DE-FOA-0001414, CFD:81.049.

Because in the U.S. one person is dying needlessly every minute from cancer (one every 4 seconds in the world) and my breakthrough invention has been recognized valuable by a major international scientific review in 1993 (pp. 56-74), acclaimed and endorsed by top experts ( pp. 50-55 & 75-83), received awards and passed subsequent  scientific reviews (pp. 84-101), proven to be feasible and  functional in hardware ( pp. 92 & 102-117 & 142-146 & 154 & 202-203),  proven to replace many crates of electronics with a single crate at a fraction of the cost ( pp. 19-24 & 125-135), proven to be scientifically  advantageous and beneficial in many applications ( pp. 1-2 & 24-29), I respectfully request Jim Siegrist,  Director of the Office of High Energy Physics of the Department of Energy (DOE) who invited me to submit a formal application for a grant and who promised  on several occasions (orally in more than three hours of phone conversations beginning May 5, 2015, pp.118-125, and in writing via email) that I could give a  presentation of my invention to the experts in particle physics at his office assigning taxpayer money to fund research projects, to keep his promise and  organize such a presentation at DOE.

For the same reason, I respectfully request Glen Crawford, Division Director of Research and Technology at DOE who promised through his assistant Ms.  Janice Hannan to discuss orally the technical details of my invention after he received my first document which I sent him on September 10, 2015, to keep  his promise and set up this meeting.

For the same reason, I respectfully request a meeting with Helmut Marsiske, Director of Research Technology, Detector R&D at DOE, responsible for  assigning funds for Detector Research and Development in High Energy Physics, to address the technical aspects of my invention/project. He told me in a  phone conversation and in several emails that my project falls into his field of expertise and responsibilities and that the abstract was certainly of  interest to the DOE, that I just needed to substantiate in the narrative what I had written in the abstract. But then he stated several times that he had  only read the abstract of my document, that he was not going to read the entire document, and that he was not available to listen to a presentation of my  project nor to find the time to learn the details of my project/invention.

For the same reason, I respectfully request Anne Lubenow, Deputy Executive Officer of the National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) keep the promise she last  made in her emails dated January 8 and January 15, 2016, and organize a meeting with her experts. I first met Ms. Lubenow at the National Cancer Institute  in Bethesda, Maryland on December 12, 2014, when she promised to organize a meeting with her experts to determine the best strategy to significantly reduce  cancer deaths and cost, and with her experts in medical imaging, but to date she has not held such a meeting.

For the same reason, I respectfully request Vice President Joe Biden to remove the hurdles that for seven months have been an impediment for me to provide  the quote of the NRE for the fabrication of the 3D-Flow OPRA ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) because the manufacturer is requiring  government reviewers to sign an NDA with restrictive terms with Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths as we signed with them to protect  their intellectual property. Or, if this is not possible, to please ask government reviewers to provide a list of specific questions about information  government agencies need to know to evaluate the feasibility of an ASIC costing over $2 million.

For the same reason (to avoid the continued loss from cancer of someone in the U.S. every minute and one every 4 seconds in the world), I  respectfully request Vice-President Joe Biden, head of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force to clear out all bureaucratic hurdles that have been an impediment to  discussing ANALYTICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY the 271 pages of my invention/project (plus 155-page document  with 59 quotes from reputable companies confirming feasibility) with DOE and NIH experts in particle detection and medical imaging responsible for spending  taxpayer money to advance science, significantly reduce cancer deaths and significantly reduce health care costs   by requesting his Cancer Moonshot Task Force to urgently organize an open, public scientific review of my 3D-CBS invention/project, based on the  3D-Flow OPRA that has the capability to extract all valuable information from radiation and provide a cost-effective, lifesaving early cancer  detection,   in a similar manner as the Director of the SSC/FERMILAB in 1993 who requested a major scientific review of my previous 3D-Flow invention, appointing world  experts from academia, industry and research centers to be member of the review panel (See pp. 56-74).

In this email I will report the Table of Content of the Book  for laymen: “Understanding a new idea for a Cancer Screening device” ISBN 0-9702897-1-5 published in the year 2000 and will address directly the  most important analytical thinking that is leading to the solution of the problem by providing a powerful technique for early cancer detection (Please see  also the Chapter: “Introduction” in my email sent on March 4, 2016). Later I will go back to previous chapters in the book that will provide more  background information about the cancer problem.

Here is the Table of Content:

1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………..1

1.1 Who is the authority in science? …………………………………………….1

1.2 Common reactions to a revolutionary idea ……………………………………..1

1.3 Example of other revolutionary ideas slow to be recognized………………………1

1.4 Do the statistics call for development of a machine for annual whole-body check-up?..4

….WILL ERRONEOUS READINGS (FALSE POSITIVE) LEAD TO OVERCROWDING IN OUR HOSPITALS?……6

….WILL THE COST OF THE NEW MACHINE BE MULTIPLIED AS IT MULTIPLIES THE FOV?………….6

….HOW MUCH IS AN ANNUAL WHOLE-BODY CHECKUP ON CROSETTO’S MACHINE ESTIMATED TO COST?….7

1.5 Scope of the book…………………………………………………………..7

2 CANCER …………………………………………………………………….10

2.1 What is Cancer? …………………………………………………………..10

2.1.1 Different kinds of cancer…………………………………………………10

2.1.2 Loss of normal cell growth control…………………………………………12

2.1.3 Malignant versus benign tumors…………………………………………….15

2.1.4 Invasion of cancer cells and metastasis…………………………………….16

2.1.5 Cancer is potentially dangerous if it growths out of control and if it spreads to other parts of the body…16

3 HOW CANCER COULD AFFECT YOU ………………………………………………….17

3.1 Where most common cancers occur (site in the body)…………………………….18

3.2 How deaths caused by cancer have changed over time…………………………….19

3.3 What Causes Cancer?………………………………………………………..21

4 CURING CANCER: THERE IS HOPE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CANCER…………………………23

4.1 Types of cancer screening available today…………………………………….23

4.2 How cancer detection has changed over time …………………………………..25

4.3 Current procedures for follow-up and their approximate costs……………………28

4.4 The cost of cancer to health care establishment……………………………….29

4.5 Improving the quality of life and reducing cost with a comprehensive cancer screening machine..29

4.6 How we track the path sugar takes as it travels through the body to the cells using Positron Emission Tomography…30

5 THE INVENTIONS: A QUALITATIVE BREAKTHROUGH IN

..MEDICAL IMAGING THAT ALLOWS AN ANNUAL WHOLE-BODY CHECKUP…………………………31

5.1 Main areas of improvement afforded by the invention……………………………32

5.1.1 Speed: being able to sustain a high rate of input data……………………….33

5.1.2 Accuracy: accurate pattern recognition and energy calculation with no boundary limitation….33

5.1.3 Coincidence detection: 120 million versus 26 thousand trillion comparisons per second…..33

5.2 How do you protect the investment in new ideas?……………………………….34

5.3 How do you verify that an idea is new?……………………………………….34

5.4 Is the new idea useful? ……………………………………………………35

6 TRANSLATING THE MAIN CONCEPTS OF THE INVENTIONS INTO SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED

..BY THE MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS OF ST ALCUIN MONTESSORI SCHOOL……………………..36

6.1.1 Solution No. 1…………………………………………………………..37

6.1.2 Solution No. 2…………………………………………………………..39

6.1.3 Solution No. 3 ………………………………………………………….46

6.1.4 Solution No. 4 ………………………………………………………….51

6.2 Case study project N0. 2: Accuracy: eliminating the boundary limitation between detector elements…67

6.2.1 Computer team……………………………………………………………75

6.3 Case study project No. 3: Coincidence detection……………………………….77

6.3.1 Distinguishing between good events and bad events……………………………78

6.3.2 How can we lower the probability of recording bad events? ……………………80

6.3.3 ST ALCUIN PIZZA SCANDAL…………………………………………………..81

Here is some background information including a description of the problem and the approach students used that allowed them to understand the concept of the invention and solve it with a simple experiment.

To determine which method/project (a cure at late detection, immunotherapy, screening device, lifestyle change, etc.) will have the biggest impact on reducing the current 8.2 million cancer deaths per year,  after a discussion with the students it became obvious to them that it is essential to ask the persons responsible for the projects to estimate the reduction in cancer deaths they expect to attain  and how they plan to measure the reduction on a sample population to record the difference (or no difference) in the number of cancer deaths.

There have been a number of “wars on cancer” declared over the past century, but over 70 years of experimental data show that although progress has been made (e.g. in leukemia, immunotherapy ), we do not have a cure for late detection of cancer (at best, life is  prolonged on average 4 months). However, the cure (or treatment) when cancer is detected at an   early stage exists, is effective, and can save over 50% of lives  . Without early detection to eradicate the disease with surgery and/or radiation therapy before it spreads through the body with metastasis, the disease will remain unconquered. What is needed and is missing is an effective tool to detect cancer early.

Early detection requires detecting the earliest signals showing the mutation of normal cells into cancerous cells and the best techniques to detect these early signals are based on radiation.

Crosetto has invented a technique, the 3D-Flow OPRA (Object  Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms), which extracts all valuable information from radiation. His invention benefits many applications because has the  capability to analyze ALL data arriving at ultra-high speed from sensors or thousands of camera at over 20TB/sec without missing any object that was  provided as reference. This technique solves the problem that thousands of scientists from prestigious world laboratories in particle physics have sought  for 25 years (pp. 125-129).

Multi-billion-dollar experiments in particle physics and lower cost medical imaging devices based on radiation have the same problem to efficiently  identify the “pearl” information (new particles in physics experiments and the tumor markers related to the mutation of normal cells into cancerous cells  in medical imaging) from the billions of useless data information.

Crosetto’s inventions provide benefits to physics experiments saving taxpayers money by replacing many crates of electronics with a single crate at a  fraction of the cost, providing at the same time a more powerful tool to experimenters to confirm or rule out the theory of a new particle with precise  measurements instead of leaving uncertainties as there are now ( pp. 19-24 & 125-135), and   provides benefits in Medical imaging reducing healthcare costs and saving lives by reducing the amount of radiation to the patient to 1/100 the current  dose, reducing the examination cost and most importantly enabling an effective early detection of cancer which is what saves lives   (pp. 5, 24-27, 93, 145, 202, 203, 234, 255).

When radiation is generated, all data cannot be stored because in physics experiments the data will fill all hard drives on the planet in one day and in  medical imaging the cost would be exorbitant.

To put the problem in a simpler way with an analogy understandable to middle school students at the Montessori school in Dallas, Texas in the year 2000 ( bottling water), high school students in San Antonio, Texas in  2009 (data in envelopes), or to laymen at a fair in a small town square in Italy in 2012 (bottling water),   it is like being tasked with receiving an envelope every 6 seconds which contains data requiring 30 seconds to analyze whether it contains “pearl” data
or not
.

When students were first asked how this could be achieved most answered:  « It is impossible: either we trash four envelopes out of 5, or we spend only 6 seconds on each envelope with the risk in both cases to miss the  “pearl” ».

There were some other suggestions including placing the envelopes (or bottles) on a conveyor-belt. We addressed with practical  examples all suggested solutions to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each system.

This evening please ask your children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces etc., how they might solve the envelope problem (analyzing every envelope for 30  seconds when they arrive every 6 seconds). Please share their thoughts, and in my next email I will continue the description of our work with the Montessori Middle School students as reported in our book “Understanding a new idea for a Cancer Screening device”.

Dear President Barack Obama, thank you for launching the National Cancer Moonshot Task Force project. Please, besides asking your daughters Malia Ann and Sasha if they have suggestions on how to analyze data for 30 seconds contained in envelopes arriving every 6 seconds without missing any envelope,  could you ask them if they consider it essential for anyone who wants to implement a program/project to end cancer to be asked for an estimate of the percentage of the reduction of cancer deaths they expect to attain, the cost to develop their project, where the link can be found supporting their claims, and for those candidates claiming highest potential to reduce cancer deaths, if your daughters believe the candidates should be able to question each other in a public debate in a style similar to the presidential debate before giving them taxpayer money?

Or put in a simpler way, to determine which method/project (a cure at late detection, immunotherapy, screening device, lifestyle change, etc.) will have  the biggest impact on reducing the current 8.2 million cancer deaths per year, how would a 12-18 years old answer this question: “Is there a higher chance to reduce the 8.2 million deaths per year by spending billions of dollars developing new drugs for late detection  taking an average of ten years to develop, and because of cancer resistance to the drug after a few months and the fact there are thousands of types of  cancers with a new drug targeting just a few types, the death rate is only reduced an average of 1% or less, OR spending $20 million to develop three units of the  3D-CBS invention targeted to early detection effective on most types of cancer using the 3D-Flow OPRA breakthrough technology , taking 2 years to develop, which is hundreds of time more efficient than current Medical Imaging devices, and when tested on 30,000 people per year is estimated to reduce cancer death by 33% in 6 years and over 50% in 10 years?

Respectfully yours,

Dario Crosetto

President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

900 Hideaway Pl.

DeSoto, TX 75115

Email: UnitedToEndCancer3@gmail.com


This message was sent from: to:

From:
United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org]

Sent:
Sunday, April 17, 2016 8:31 PM

To:
‘Barack Obama’ <democraticparty@democrats.org>; ‘president@whitehouse.gov’ <president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@barackobama.com’
<info@barackobama.com>; ‘vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘sc.science@science.doe.gov’
<sc.science@science.doe.gov>; ‘camurray@seas.harvard.edu’ <camurray@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov’
<patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov>; ‘The White House’ <reply-ff3317757467-15_HTML-20605917-6229366-14560@mail.whitehouse.gov>;
‘info@mail.whitehouse.gov’ <info@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘vice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>;
‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘helmut.marsiske@science.doe.gov’ <helmut.marsiske@science.doe.gov>;
‘Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov’ <Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov>; ‘janice.hannan@science.doe.gov’ <janice.hannan@science.doe.gov>;
‘Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov’ <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>; ‘kim.laing@science.doe.gov’ <kim.laing@science.doe.gov>;
‘Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov’ <Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov>; ‘Lubenow, Anne (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov>; ‘Wooldridge, Shannon
(NIH/OD) [E]’ <shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov>; ‘Johnson, Maureen (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov>; ‘Lowy, Douglas (NIH/NCI) [E]’
<LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Pettigrew, Roderic (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <rpettig@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Mamaghani, Shadi (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’
<shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov>; ‘Izzard, Tom (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <izzardt@mail.nih.gov>; ‘NIBIB Info’ <info@nibib.nih.gov>; ‘Cooper, Christine
(NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <cooperca2@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘grantsinfo@nih.gov’; ‘donna@brazileassociates.com’
<donna@brazileassociates.com>; ‘chris@brazileassociates.com’ <chris@brazileassociates.com>

Cc:
‘crosetto@att.net’ <crosetto@att.net>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@u2ec.org>; ‘unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com’
<unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net>

Subject:
RE: #CancerMoonShotForOurChildren. Serving the community: What is needed to make early cancer detection effective to save over 50% of cancer deaths. Part 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Site Overview
Please visit our
Site Overview for help in navigating the site.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Upcoming Events
May 2019
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
April 29, 2019 April 30, 2019 May 1, 2019 May 2, 2019 May 3, 2019 May 4, 2019 May 5, 2019
May 6, 2019 May 7, 2019 May 8, 2019 May 9, 2019 May 10, 2019 May 11, 2019 May 12, 2019
May 13, 2019 May 14, 2019 May 15, 2019 May 16, 2019 May 17, 2019 May 18, 2019 May 19, 2019
May 20, 2019 May 21, 2019 May 22, 2019 May 23, 2019 May 24, 2019 May 25, 2019 May 26, 2019
May 27, 2019 May 28, 2019 May 29, 2019 May 30, 2019 May 31, 2019 June 1, 2019 June 2, 2019
Recent Comments