How many leaders and media need to be informed before they apply pressure on those who are crushing science, the rule of law and the golden rule?
The featured image of this blog is not related to any event at CERN where those words were said, however, read the words spoken (and listen the audio) by CERN Director of Research.
Take the time to read the words spoken by S. Bertolucci, Director of Research at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research, and by those who deny TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE, and think about all the people who are needlessly dying now and in future generations, and all your wasted money, because people in key positions of responsibility have insulted human intelligence and deliberately ignored the evidence of scientific advantages which were invented and formally recognized valuable by their colleagues 22 years ago. An invention which would greatly benefit humanity has been proven feasible and functional in hardware and its concept shown to be understandable by high school students and laymen.
At this link you can read the answers from S. Bertolucci and C. Joram, Managing Director and Chief Engineer of the Axial-PET project when Crosetto asked them to explain how their approach would reduce cancer deaths and costs. The Axial-PET project has very high spatial resolution and low efficiency. CERN Director of Research, S. Bertolucci, first declared his incompetence in Medical Imaging, than he blamed Joram and than he blamed the doctors from Marseille who specified the characteristics of the Axial-PET. Joram instead answered that the Axial-PET is not a cancer project although Bertolucci’s committee assigned the first prize to the Axial-PET at the “Physics for Health” workshop at CERN in 2010 (thus, Bertolucci was assigning the prize to himself because he was the Managing Director of the Axial-PET).
See Pdf version at: http://blog.u2ec.org/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[a] 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[b] as a scientist to advance science for the benefit of humanity.
Crosetto has nothing personal[c] 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[d] 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[e], using the excuse that CERN does not hold those kinds of competitions, denying the evidence[f] of CERN’s activities in 2010. Since then, many failed attempts[g] 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.
See Pdf version at: http://blog.u2ec.org/doc2/810.pdf
Excerpt of the transcript from the meeting:
Crosetto: What is more important? To have 300 micron resolution although we know that we have this other error? Not only that, but we also have the collinearity error because they do not exit at 180 degrees, there is another error. Therefore, a collinearity error, an error of the journey of the positron…
Bertolucci: If he does that he fucks up.
Bertolucci: …but, what the fuck do you give to the cost? The day you make a cubic meter of this, they will give a fuck to the cost.
Bertolucci: …they are seeing a single photon, they are pixelized, am I right? And at a fuck low cost. You attach to it electronics with a very low noise of any type. You can buy it at the grocery store…
Bertolucci: …therefore, you do not have something that gets 300 micron, fuck, it is useful to me because it does…
Bertolucci: …then, if you place a person here and the crystal that far, you will see fuck.
Crosetto: Why are they funding him?
Bertolucci: They fund him because he is making a prototype. He gives a fuck to sell his object to Siemens. He is making a prototype because he wants to put together the best chain: this, this and this… Joram is an Electronic Engineer. What is his concern, if you will put here a crystal, a tube of mayonnaise, he gives a fuck, do you understand? He wants to get the best signal that should be useful to this thing; if later someone will give him the right crystal, he will say: Fuck, with this thing I will do…
Crosetto: In the end, what is the benefit to the patient? He does all these things, a picosecond resolution, a micron spatial resolution…
Bertolucci: We are doing another job. Our job is to develop leading technology not making PET.
Crosetto: To do what?
Bertolucci: To make particle physics.
Crosetto: Why did you present it to the workshop ‘Physics for Health’?
Bertolucci: We presented it to the workshop because then there is the person from the hospital of Marseille who says fuck: “because you can do this thing that I do not know how to do, will you do it for this thing?” We are not doctors, it will be absurd that we would have the arrogance to do the job of someone else, but what the fuck do I know of… I know fuck about this thing….
Crosetto: I think I understand that we are in agreement in our discussion that we should increase the efficiency, which is the ratio between the number of photons captured divided by the number of photons emitted because it provides two advantages: the advantage to reduce the radiation dose to the patient and early detection, this is one, and the second is the minimal cost for each photon captured. Are we in agreement on this? OK?
Vigna: This is a commercial problem that he might not be interested in.
Crosetto: He might not be interested, but it is in the interest of the patient.
Bertolucci: …to the patient the second in my opinion is of little interest
Bertolucci: …but, how much does it cost a dose of radiopharmaceutical? It costs fuck, no one gives a fuck how much it costs.
Bertolucci: I don’t know fuck how to treat a tumor.
Bertolucci: The CMS, when designing their enormous machinery, had to fuck for years with a prototype.
Bertolucci: …you do exactly as for other things, you go before a hospital and say “hey boys, look at this object here,” this is working in this way, what the fuck is the importance of…
Crosetto: for the patient, for the user, for the doctor, they would like to know which the best method is.
Bertolucci: …it does not exist, it does not exist, it does not exist.
Crosetto: …wait a moment. Joram comes and presents his approach…
Bertolucci: Joram gives a fuck about it; he does not want to give it to that hospital. Give a fuck to Joram. Joram is doing his own research line together with the experts… like these people here from Marseille.
Bertolucci: He said that explicitly?
Bertolucci: Joram knows fuck about medicine, what the fuck makes a difference, his fuck electronics…
Bertolucci: I am the one who gives him the money. Fuck if I give him the money to spend…, what the fuck to spend the money on? Joram said a fuck…
Bertolucci: he did not want to use this thing for that, no he gives a fuck for… for, for…
Crosetto: you are telling me that Joram is developing components that can be used in early diagnosis that can be used in particle physics. Then one must ask him before developing his component: “OK, you want to develop this component, in which way do you think it will be useful for early diagnosis” Are you asking him this?
Bertolucci: He does not tell me that he wants it to be useful for early diagnosis, no, he is an Electronic Engineer, he knows fuck about early diagnosis; he tells me he wants to make an object that if I connect it, if I glued it to a crystal of, of… mayonnaise …
Bertolucci: I give a fuck, he could answer in that manner. His job is not to answer to the patient who wants something, that will be done by someone else.
Crosetto: …but then this patient must tell him: “Then I am not giving you the money”.
Bertolucci: He is not giving the money for what? But he is not giving the money for that…
Crosetto: Excuse me, if you said that he must develop components that can be useful to the patient…
Bertolucci: …for those who must develop the best diagnostic.
Crosetto: Exactly! I am just trying to make the connection, the link. And the connection is: “to serve the patient, he must improve the efficiency”.
Bertolucci: I understand to improve the efficiency. If we agree that he has to increase the efficiency of this piece and he does not care to increase the geometrical efficiency, because I am not giving him the money to do that, it’s a fuck job. It is sufficient to put a longer crystal and put a fuck processor of 2 square mm.
Before Mulone succumbed to cancer in 2013, Crosetto promised him that he would do all he could to receive scientific, pertinent answers from decision-makers in the field that address the issue of particle detection and all related technologies for early cancer diagnosis, which is providing the highest return in lives saved. However, Crosetto’s promise to Mulone to request scientific, pertinent answers from decision-makers is not one person’s responsibility, but requires the participation of the public and THE MEDIA to STAND UP for TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE, so that everyone will receive all the benefits from the advancement in science.
Crosetto has nothing personal against any scientists. He is available to discuss scientific issues in public with anyone, including Bertolucci, Ingrid-Maria Gregor, Adam Bernstein and Manjit Dosanijh, as long as they agree to comply with the code of ethics for a scientist. Manjit Dosanijh, the researcher at CERN in charge of medical applications, asked a pertinent question of the keynote speaker at the 2012 ICTR-PHE conference in Geneva, however, she dropped the dialogue that Crosetto initiated on CERN’s blog.
Crosetto is convinced that if there is a disagreement among two scientists, it is because one of the two is in disagreement with the understanding of the laws of nature. Both should cooperate and help each other discover what the conflict might be. Ultimately, their different viewpoints will be resolved by a scientific experiment upon which both should agree as science is never in dispute with the laws of nature.
There should not be a preconceived idea or a mental block toward anyone who presents scientific evidence, calculations, advantages from innovations, logical reasoning or experimental results.
In fact, Crosetto on pages 15, 24, 30 of the letter to the 2014 IEEE-NNS Chairmen, links awards with evidences. He points out that it was inappropriate to celebrate the success of LHC on October 21, 2008, after the meltdown of 50 magnets on September 19, 2008, while he suggested a celebration after September 30, 2009, when LHC surpassed with 1.18 TeV the power of the Tevatron Accelerator at FERMILab in the U.S. Thereafter, when the LHC team built the most powerful accelerator in the world, successfully running at 3.5 TeV, Crosetto wrote in the document that their leaders Lynn Evans, Stephen Myers, etc. should have been nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2010.
Instead, the Nobel prize was not assigned to the LHC team even though they had EVIDENCE of success. Paradoxically, the CMS and Atlas experiments, which DID NOT have evidence of having built a detector instrumentation with the capability to trap and accurately measure the characteristics of new particles to confirm or reject their existence, were mentioned in the Noble Prize award. When CMS and Atlas build detector instrumentations capable og demonstrating with EVIDENCE the existence or non-existence of any new particle theorized by the theorists (including the Higgs boson), or discover new particles because the detector instrumentations have the capability of trapping and accurately measuring them, they should be nominated for a Nobel Prize.
Celebrations and awards should be assigned when there is evidence; instead, it seems as if CERN management follows its own agenda regardless of evidence, assigning awards when there is no evidence and ignoring achievements when there is evidence.
The funding of the enormous cost of over $50 billion during the past 20 years of work by over 10,000 professionals for CERN’s largest, most expensive experiment in the history of the planet, and now the request for an additional $30 billion for the next 10 years, was largely possible because of the CREDIBILITY created by the MEDIA.
However, CREDIBILITY in science must be supported by scientific merits, competence, logical reasoning, calculations, and evidence which need to be discussed and compared openly with colleagues. TRANSPARENCY will ensure that scientists are complying with the ethics of science, and are honest in their pursuit of the scientific truth for the benefit of mankind. Credibility in science cannot be supported by biased advertisement from some people in the MEDIA who cover up the truth when there exist undeniable evidence to the contrary. All truthful information should be provided to the public.
Here is the truthful information that the public should know:
- The words in the transcript from the leader in command of CERN’s largest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet shows dishonesty.
- CERN claims to have found only 100 candidates of the Higgs boson they were seeking out of 100,000 produced by the LHC Accelerator, but still cannot make a strong statement to confirm or rule out the Higgs boson.
- CERN implicitly admitted to not having built detector instrumentation capable of accurately measuring the characteristics of the Higgs boson particle when they stated they would need to wait until after the LHC update in 2015-2016 when they can acquire additional data using the new object pattern recognition technique.
- They implicitly admit the failure in building such detector instrumentations by stating that the “Decision Unit”, the Level-1 Trigger, responsible for selecting one out of 100,000 events at a rate of about 1 billion per second, containing the particle with the characteristic they are seeking needed to be replaced,.
- It is inconsistent to claim that they need a more powerful 6.5 TeV LHC accelerator producing more Higgs boson- like particles compared to the current 3.5 TeV because it will create more confusion, more noise, in identifying the new particle they are seeking. Fixing the Level-1 Trigger will have a much better chance to find most of the 100,000 candidates of Higgs boson events produced by the current LHC Accelerator at 3,5 TeV and hopefully also in an environment at 6.5 TeV, albeit more confused.
So far, taxpayers (and their political representatives in different countries), philanthropists, donors, and government agencies of different countries have given their TRUST to spend over $50 billion + $30 billion. However, to be fair to taxpayers and all people, the MEDIA needs to insist on TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE and report all words stated directly by the leader of the most prestigious research organization in the world: CERN. And report the words and actions of other scientists that will reveal they are intentionally deceiving the public instead of providing the truth to advance science.
The following facts described in this document should stand out.
- The least important thing among the three: Bertolucci’s inappropriate language.
- THE MOST IMPORTANT REVELATIONS: flawed approaches and refusal to use transparency.
- Bertolucci’s theory to identify and use leading-edge components and technology instead of focusing on finding the most cost-effective way to solve a problem using the most appropriate component. This flawed approach will lead to the waste of an additional $30 billion and ten years of work from over 10,000 professionals.
- Ingrid-Maria Gregor, Adam Bernstein and their colleagues and those appointed by Bertolucci ARE REFUSING to provide supporting scientific evidence that their FPGA solution for the upgrade of the Level-1 Trigger is more efficient and economical than solutions that could be presented by other authors at the 2014 IEEE-NSS workshop, including Crosetto’s. In fact, they deny transparency in comparing different solutions and deny the possibility for other authors of different projects to question Ingrid and Adam and each other in a face-to-face public discussion on November 9, 2014, at the IEEE-NSS workshop in Seattle (WA). This lack of transparency will lead to the waste of an additional $30 billion and ten years of work from over 10,000 professionals.
- The most shocking revelation: Bertolucci’s Dishonesty. Bertolucci’s own words prove he is deceiving the public, funding agencies, philanthropists, etc.
Although Bertolucci’s language, repeating “fuck” 33 times, is not appropriate for a person in his position,
THE MOST IMPORTANT REVELATION is Bertolucci’s theory: the belief that his role as leader of the most important research institution in the world is to identify and use leading-edge components and technology instead of focusing on finding the most cost-effective way to solve a problem using the most appropriate component. (Bertolucci’s theory about the role of CERN is stated several times during the meeting: see notes 17, 18, 19, 20). This belief is not only limiting, but using the latest components in a disconnected manner without regard for synergy has already proven to provide poor results. Instead, it is more important to focus on the task at hand with inventions using the best synergy among components.
For example, Bertolucci’s theory has been proven wrong experimentally when used in the “small scale” million-dollar CERN-Axial-PET project, which uses the most advanced leading edge technology in a way that is detrimental to improving the efficiency and lowering the cost, providing an overall technology and device which is less efficient and more costly than current PET. (See comparison of the CERN-Axial-PET with other projects in the public forum of the Leonardo da Vinci competition and at the bottom right of the poster provided to Bertolucci).
Similarly, Bertolucci’s theory, together with several others at CERN, has shown to be wrong when used on the “larger scale” 50 billion-dollar LHC project, when its Level-1 Triggers, built over the past 20 years, have not been able to satisfy the requirements of experimental physicists in executing programmable object pattern recognition algorithms that can accurately identify and measure all characteristics of the particle they are seeking. In fact, their claim to have found only about 100 Higgs types out of the estimated 100,000 produced proves this. It wouldn’t make sense now to increase the production of Higgs types with a more powerful LHC Collider Accelerator with 6.5 TeV instead of the current 3.5 TeV if their Level-1 Trigger cannot identify most of the 100,000 already produced; this would only increase the noise and confusion among particles to be identified. Therefore, CERN, although they have not made a statement admitting to mistakes, have implicitly admitted they have them when stating that the Level-1 Trigger needs to be replaced.
Crosetto instead demonstrated the opposite with his invention, which uses clever synergy among economical components and designed and proved in hardware the feasibility and functionality of his Level-1 Trigger that satisfies all requirements of experimental physicists in executing programmable object pattern recognition algorithms. His invention made obsolete the use of fast and expensive GaAs, ECL, CMOS nanometer technology, etc. It proves that Bertolucci’s theory of paying more attention to leading-edge components, ignoring inventions in the synergy which use more economical components, is wrong. Beginning in 2000, Crosetto decided to switch full-time to Medical Imaging Applications, where his invention could have already had a huge impact by significantly reducing the number of premature cancer deaths and costs using his 3D-CBS technology which enables an effective early detection (see video describing the technology for effective early cancer detection). It is hundreds of times more efficient than the current 5,000 PET, which are not suitable for early detection because of their low efficiency, high radiation dose, and high examination cost.
His invention was recognized valuable by a major international scientific review held at FERMILab in December 1993, it was presented at conferences, published in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals, proven feasible and functional in hardware. Although it was at first adopted by thousands of scientists in experiments, for political reasons and “lack of transparency”, it was later crushed by decision-makers who chose to fund less efficient solutions based on the “threshold technique”.
Now 20 years later, after wasting billions of dollars, decision-makers have recognized Crosetto’s approach of providing an instrumentation with the capability to execute a “programmable object pattern recognition algorithm” by proposing this approach for the 10-year $30 billion upgrade of the LHC experiments in order to confirm the Higgs type particle they claim to have found but have not been able to accurately measure.
However, once again, they are making the same mistake by deciding to implement it using FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) while their leaders prohibit “transparency” by denying a public workshop at the most important scientific conference in the world. This would deny senior scientists, young scientists, and PhD students, after a 5 to 15-minute presentation of their ideas different from the FPGA implementation, to question each other for two and a half hours, where each author must provide scientific evidence on the efficiency and economics of his approach to be compared with others.
A response like Bertolucci’s which violates not only the ethics of a scientist but also damages humanity by supporting theories that turn out to be wrong and waste billions of dollars, should be “transparent” to the public who funds their research.
A practical way to implement “transparency” in science for the benefit of humanity is to: a) support Crosetto’s request for a public workshop by the title: “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?” to be held November 9, 2014, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in Seattle, and b) request that Ingrid-Maria Gregor, Adam Bernstein and their colleagues provide supporting scientific evidence that their FPGA solution is more efficient and more economical than Crosetto’s solution, and those presented by other authors who can ask each other questions. See the pdf version at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/809.pdf of Ingrid’s and Adam’s denial for transparency.
The most shocking revelation is the proof of Bertolucci’s dishonesty in deceiving the public. The disclosure that he assigned the first prize at the workshop “Physics for Health” to himself (to his Axial-PET project) is from his own words during the meeting, saying twice29,34 that he was giving orders and funding Christian Joram who was the chief of the CERN-Axial-PET project.
Facts clearly prove that Bertolucci intentionally wanted to deceive philanthropists, donors, funding agencies and associations like Madame Curie, by assigning First Prize to his own project, without following a public scientific procedure that would identify projects with the highest scientific merit.
This was intended to deceive them, as it did, into give money to his project for cancer research, although he himself stated not to know f**** what is best for cancer diagnosis, that it was a project for particle physics, and even his Axial-PET project leader stated it was not for cancer research (see interview26 to Christian Joram).
On February 2-4, 2010, a delegation from “The Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths” went to CERN to present an article of 15 co-authors and about 1,000 cosigners at the CERN workshop, “Physics for Health”. After the workshop, on February 4, 2010, they met with CERN Management (CERN Director General and Director of Research) and Dr. Danilo Verra hand delivered over 7,000 signatures on a petition requesting a review of Crosetto’s technology. After the meeting, in the presence of Dr. Danilo Verra, Crosetto, who was not aware at the time that Bertolucci was funding and directing the development of the Axial-PET project, asked him why they assigned the First Prize to the Axial-PET project; he answered: “because it is cute!” Should CERN hold “beauty contests” or contests for scientific merit?
This is further proof of his dishonesty and noncompliance with the code of ethics for a scientist
 Joram is an Electronic Engineer and Head of the CERN-Axial-PET Project, but he takes orders and receives funds from Bertolucci, the Managing Director of the Axial-PET project, as disclosed later in the conversation in Bertolucci’s own words.
 Oxygen-15 is a Radioisotope with a half-life of two minutes and the positron travels an average of 4.5 mm before encountering an electron. The two annihilate, generating two 511 keV photons travelling almost in opposite directions, with an error called the “collinearity error”. Other radioisotopes travel different distances. For example: 13.8 mm for the Rubidium-82; 1.4 mm for the fluorine-18, that is associated with glucose to form the FDG –Fluoro Deoxy-glucose, the most common tracer used in PET examinations. The task of the detector of a PET device is to capture the two photons and calculate their origin, which indicates the location in the patient’s body of the abnormal biological process. It should be clear that the total error in locating the tumor is given by the sum of the errors generated by the positron travelling a distance before encountering an electron (4.5 mm) plus the collinearity error (~1 mm) and the error from the PET device(~1 to 2 mm).
 PET (Positron Emission Tomography) technology invented over 60 years ago should provide the doctor with essential information about minimum abnormal biological processes in different organs of the body with greater accuracy than other techniques (CT, MRI, Ultrasound, X-Ray, etc.) that do not have the same sensitivity and versatility as PET. In addition to the important information of the abnormal biological process in the body’s organs, PET provides information on the location of the tumor. However, because of unavoidable nuclear phenomenon errors totaling 3 mm to 15 mm caused by the distance travelled by the positron and the collinearity error, it would not make sense to significantly increase the cost of PET by making it possible to measure accurately to within 300 microns to the detriment of the sensitivity in detecting abnormal biological processes; in the case of Oxygen-15, obtaining 5.8 mm spatial resolution instead of 6.5 mm. Other modalities, such as CT, MRI, Ultrasound and X-Ray, can do a better job of measuring spatial resolution, while Positron Emission Technology is best at measuring abnormalities in biological processes. Therefore, researchers designing new PET should focus on increasing the efficiency (number of valid photons captured divided by number of photons emitted by the radiotracer in the patient’s body) rather than achieving a 300 micron spatial resolution and capturing only one pair of photons for every 10,000 emitted.
 Bertolucci admits that the entire direction of research of the Axial-PET which focuses on improving spatial resolution at a high cost to the detriment of efficiency is a mistake. Practically, he realizes that there is no future in CERN Axial-PET technology for whole-body examination with very a low radiation dose to the patient and to detect very small cancer activity in early detection and very small changes of activity in cancer patients during treatment. Bertolucci, after Crosetto’s explanation of the role of PET, summarizes this with his statement regarding Christian Joram, “he fucks up”.
 Bertolucci tries to justify the higher cost of the Axial-PET prototype by claiming that the cost of the component will be less when produced in large volume. However, this rule applies for all products, and therefore all PET projects. If the price of a component goes down for one application it goes down for the competitor’s. The cost of every component counts, none of them will have zero cost, and one must account for the total cost of the device, including manpower, to assemble 500,000 crystals as the EXPLORER design requires.
 The word “pixelized” is to express the location of each signal received from the PET detector. One should imagine unrolling the ring of the current PET detector with a FOV (Field Of View) of 16 cm (or to unroll the barrel of the 3D-CBS with a FOV of 140 cm). You will get an “x”, “y” matrix of many signals coupled to an area of the detector (sensors such as SiPM, PMT or APD). You can compare each signal like a pixel in a photo.
 The object referred to is any device made using leading technology that would be useful to the customer (hospital, doctor…). Ultimately, one must make the link (the connection) between the leading technology and its usefulness to the customer; in this case reducing cancer deaths and cost.
 La Tour is a clinic within walking distance off CERN. However, this statement shows the inconsistency of the work at CERN on the Axial-PET. If Bertolucci believes that they would be right to throw Joram down the staircase if he proposed his Axial-PET to La Tour clinic, what are the advantages and the use of the Axial-PET if he anticipates that customers would reject it?
 The “best chain” should be useful to improve results in saving lives and reducing cost which can be improved by increasing the PET sensitivity and reducing the cost per each valid signal captured. Instead, if the Axial-PET is measuring spatial resolution (that has an error of 4.5 mm that cannot be eliminated or reduced due to a natural phenomenon) to the detriment of sensitivity, with a higher cost per valid signal captured than the current PET, the result is a regression not an improvement.
 Bertolucci defines the role of CERN, as not analyzing the requirements to improve PET to save lives and reduce costs, or to analyze the requirements of building a detector instrumentation for experimental physicists that would give them the possibility to implement their dreamed real-time object pattern recognition algorithm that will nail-down any particle theorized by theoretical physicists and provide the proof of their existence or non-existence. He claims that the role of CERN is to develop leading-edge technology without taking into consideration whether it will be useful to achieve the objective, to solve a problem.
 Bertolucci defines the “job” of CERN: “to develop leading technology”. However, when Crosetto tries to analyze with Bertolucci the requirements needed to solve a problem and derive from them the technology to solve a specific problem, for example an algorithm for real-time object pattern recognition, Bertolucci states there are people much more adept at solving these problems than CERN, like the young boys who developed software for the movie Avatar, or processors from Intel or other technological industries. So, Bertolucci’s answers are inconsistent, because in explaining the role of CERN, he does not want to discuss the task, the problem to be solved, the goal to be reached, and justifies Joram making a component that can be attached to a “tube of mayonnaise”. However, when Crosetto attempts to discuss the issue in depth, Bertolucci refers to companies that would do a much better job than CERN. He does not call for transparency to discuss any problem in public in order to optimize results.
 Bertolucci further defines the role of CERN: “to make particle physics”. Yet Crosetto has asked him on several occasions without success to provide names of scientists who are expert at detecting new particles so he might discuss with them the best approaches and the best tools for experimental physicists to discover new particles and reduce the cost of HEP experiments: Bertolucci promised to provide names but never follows up, and 4 years later, Crosetto is still waiting. Crosetto has also asked him to organize a meeting among all these scientists, in particular those expert in the Level-1 Trigger but, likewise, he is still waiting.
 Bertolucci defines the role of CERN scientists, saying that they “are not doctors”. Of course not! Most doctors are not familiar with how PET works, how the technological aspects which provides different images differ from MRI, CT, Ultrasound, or X-Ray, which are instead the specific field of expertise in detectors to CERN scientists. A physicist knows how to detect a photon, how to get a signal from a changing magnetic field. When a physicist receives a request from a doctor on how to better see the anatomy, measure dimensions of an organ, how to better distinguish the density of hard and soft tissue, the physicist would recommend using an X-Ray-Ray or a CT scan because the physicist knows how the device works, how photons are absorbed more from dense tissue and less from soft tissue. If the doctor is interested in receiving information on minimum abnormal metabolism, the physicists, who understand how Positron Emission Technology works, will advise to use a PET device with high sensitivity. If the doctor asks for a PET with increased spatial resolution, the physicists would explain that he should improve X-Ray, CT, MRI, etc. because PET has an intrinsic error of 3 to 15 mm, depending upon the radioisotope used. It is the physicist who knows the details of PET technology who should be telling the doctor how to improve “the sensitivity” (the efficiency in capturing more accurately more signals), it should not be the doctor who dictates how an instrument can be improved. The doctor would limit his request to either improving the sensitivity in receiving information on the minimal abnormality in a biological process or in spatial resolution, and then the physicist should suggest the right instrument that improves those parameters.
 Bertolucci’s statement that “no one gives a fuck how much it [the radioisotope] costs” is not realistic because it would increase the examination cost and a lower dose would be safer for the patient in addition to lowering the cost.
 Bertolucci declares his incompetence in the medical field, in medical imaging… “but what the fuck do I know of… I know fuck about this thing…” it is puzzling why he was on the committee to assign the First Prize at the workshop “Physics for Health” and why he has spent millions of taxpayer’s dollars developing an application he does not know how to improve to alleviate suffering.
 It seems Bertolucci bypasses or acts as if “scientific procedures” do not exist, and the way to convince physicians and hospitals, etc. is just to show the final product. However, prior to building a product, when it is still in the “idea” phase, and there are perhaps 1000 or more similar projects with the same goal, such to save lives, the decision to fund one project over another should be based on calculations, logical reasoning and scientific evidence, etc. In order to avoid underserving projects from being funded because decision-makers have their own agenda, often benefitting from choosing one project over another, this important stage calls for TRANSPARENCY in an open, public discussion among scientists who can respect the ethics of science and who recognize the evidence of indisputable calculations and logical reasoning which would determine whether one project is superior than another project under consideration. For a scientist to go to a hospital and say “hey boys, look at this object here” he must already have the funds to build the prototype, often costing millions of dollars. Venture capitalists, philanthropists, taxpayers, lawyers, physicists, doctors, biologists, and administrative personnel of funding agencies, will trust the ethics and competence of the authors of projects or reviewers who can support their claims, and who ask questions to other authors. Every author or reviewer should be grateful to anyone, even the public via the internet, who can demonstrate an error that would save time and money if corrected. Funding should only be assigned to those authors who provide scientifically sound answers and show they can achieve the greatest advantages and benefits at the lowest cost.
 Bertolucci’s insistence that the best project does not exist reveals that he does not follow scientific methods or criteria to evaluate projects, and reinforces his belief that scientific procedures are not necessary when assigning prizes and grants, but based on their credibility. In fact Bertolucci received money for the Axial-PET project from the Association Madame Curie because he deceived them on credibility, not because he followed a scientific procedure demonstrating that the Axial-PET was superior to other projects. Until leaders holding positions of responsibility implement public scientific procedures to make the scientific truth prevail for the benefit of humanity that are TRANSPARENT to the public, billions of dollars will continue to be wasted on cancer research. To avoid future waste of taxpayer money it is necessary to realize before the start of a new project whether it can produce results. This can be achieved if the following simple question were to be asked before approving a project and before assigning funding: “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?” This is the exact question proposed for the public workshop on November 9, 2014, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference that was rejected by Ingrid and Adam. It is still hoped that the other proposed question: ”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?” will not be rejected by Georges and Katia”. These same two questions will solve both problems by identifying the projects having the greatest efficiency at the lowest cost.
 Because Joram receives money from taxpayers to buy components for the project he is developing, and because taxpayers pay his salary, it is legitimate to ask for transparency regarding the objective he has for the project he is developing. He told Crosetto clearly that it is not a cancer research project; however, the Association Madame Curie and others were fooled into believing it was because he won the prize, so he should clearly explain his objective.
 Interview with Christian Joram where you can hear him state that the Axial-PET is NOT a cancer research project. Yet the next day the Axial-Pet received the first prize from CERN for the best cancer research project and the Association Madame Curie assigned it funding. Comparison: Axial-PET to 3D-CBS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqWZ8G0gzbI
 Bertolucci’s face turns gray when he hears that Joran had made the statement that it was not useful for cancer and asks for confirmation. Bertolucci had awarded the Axial-PET project the First Prize at the “Physics for Health” workshop under the pretense that it was a cancer project.
 After being informed of Joram’s statement, Bertolucci appears to become angry with Joram.
 Here Bertolucci discloses that he owns and is funding the Axial-PET project; therefore, when he led the committee to assign the First Prize at the workshop “Physics for Health” on February 2-4, 2010, he was essentially assigning the prize to himself.
 If Joram did not intend to use his project for cancer research, how did he intend to use it? If he intended to use it for some type of detector in High Energy Physics, then CERN should not be asking for funding from agencies who fund cancer.
 According to Bertolucci, Joram “knows fuck about early diagnosis”. How then can the cancer problem ever be solved if people who receive money for cancer projects “knows fuck about early diagnosis”? Bertolucci says that Joram is just developing a component for doctors in Marseille; however, do the doctors know how Positron Emission Technology works, what it is measuring, etc.? It would be Joram’s duty to explain that the technology is designed to measure an activity, a parameter changing in time, like a water meter, an electrical meter, an anemometer, etc. He should explain the 3 mm to 15 mm error that cannot be eliminated in measuring spatial resolution. He should explain how CT, MRI, X-Ray and Ultrasound instrumentations are more suitable for measuring dimensions. It is the ethical responsibility of an engineer to explain to a doctor how an instrument works, telling them that it makes no sense to increase spatial resolution from 6.5 mm to 5.8 mm to the detriment of sensitivity and lower the radiation to the patient which are the most important parameters to improve a PET device.
 Bertolucci says that Joram should develop components for “those who must develop the best diagnostic…”. However, if he means doctors who want the best signals to detect a mutation of normal cells into cancerous cells, then the biologist should tell the doctor that these signals come from the consumption of abnormal nutrient intake (from 5 to 70 times that of normal cells), and the physicist should tell the doctor that he can tag the molecules of the nutrient with a radioisotope and track the molecules by detecting as many pairs of photons as possible emitted by the annihilation of the positron with an electron. Thus, the physicist can tell the doctor that the best diagnosis using PET is possible through improved sensitivity and not spatial resolution; while spatial resolution could be improved in other imaging modalities such as CT, X-Ray, etc. This collaboration valuing the knowledge of professionals in different disciplines is what helps advance science, not a doctor who does not understand how PET works giving Joram orders to develop a parameter in PET.
 For more than a decade, Crosetto has written about the need for establishing a connection (a link) between the final objective and the technology that needs to be improved to discover new particles and to reduce cancer deaths and cost. However, the most efficient way to accelerate the benefit of innovations to patients and humanity is with a DIALOGUE and will make people like Bertolucci eat their own words. The most important issue at hand, that has $30 billion and 10 years of future work on the upgrade of the LHC projects at stake, is to ask Ingrid-Maria Gregor and Adam Bernstein to be transparent in discussing scientific issues, to inform everyone why they think their new Level-1 Trigger with FPGA is better than other approaches, and to be open to supporting their claim in a public workshop proposed for November 9, 2014, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, which would compare their proposed solution with those from senior scientists, young scientists, PhD students and Crosetto’s approach.
 Bertolucci affirms again that the Axial-PET project is his project, therefore he assigned a prize to himself.
 Editorial staff of the newspaper “Magaze”: “From Texas, the promise of the research scientist, Dario Crosetto to the deceased friend, Lillo Mulone”. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MHFnbTRBbGo3RWc/edit?usp=sharing
 SEER – Surveillance Epidemiology End Results: Experimental data from several official sources agree the earlier cancer is detected, the greater the survival rate (in most cases 90% to 98%). https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5N2ZBN0RxZXFDU00/edit?usp=sharing
 Crosetto has nothing personal against any scientist. He is available for a public discussion with any of them who agree to comply with the code of a scientist. Crosetto is convinced that if there is a disagreement among two scientists, it is because one of the two is in disagreement with the understanding of the laws of nature. Both should cooperate and help each other discover what the conflict might be. Ultimately, their different viewpoints will be resolved by a scientific experiment upon which both should agree as science is never in dispute with the laws of nature..
 The organizers of the recent ICTR-PHE conference in Geneva (February 27 to March 2) invited one of the best experts in the field, Soren Bentzen to speak (see https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1428092), but when the Chairman of the conference, Manjit Dosanijh, asked him the question: “if there would be one thing that could move this field forward, what do you think it would be?” the speaker Bentzen answered: “I do not know”!
 See the discussion Crosetto initiated on CERN’s blog on the subject raised by the Chairman of the conference, Manjit Dosanijh, when she asked a question to the keynote speaker at the 2012 ICTR-PHE conference: https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1428092/comments
 The cost of $50 billion spent on the LHC project during the past 20 years is calculated as follows: (a) $10 billion – the cost of building the LHC Accelerator; (b) $20.4 billion – the cost of 8,500 employees working on the LHC projects who are paid by home universities, research institutes, and agencies, etc., of different countries at $120,000 average per year, (b) $16 billion – CERN’s annual operating cost of approximately $0.8 billion per year (see CERN annual report); (c) $3.6 billion – the estimated cost to build the detector instrumentations. This is a conservative cost, which is most likely to be on the order of $60 billion when considering that LHC work was very active from 1990 as reported in the 3,000 pages (three volumes) of the Proceedings of the “Large Hadron Collider Workshop” held in Aachen, Germany on October 4-9, 1990 and the fact that several CERN documents state that there were over 10,000 professionals working on the LHC, rather than the 8,500 estimated in the $50 billion total cost. (For more details, see page 5, section 1.3.1 of the document in pdf version at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/809.pdf).
 The additional cost of $30 billion for the next 10 years is calculated as follows: (a) $18 billion – the cost of 12,080 employees working on the LHC projects who are paid by home universities, research institutes, and agencies, etc., of different countries at $150,000 average per year, (b) $10 billion – CERN’s annual operating cost of approximately $1 billion per year; (c) $2 billion – the estimated cost to upgrade the detector instrumentations
 Many scientists (including those from the experiment claiming the discovery, e.g. Sridhara Dasu) admit in technical documents that current detector instrumentations (CMS and Atlas) fail to provide detailed measurements and need to acquire more data in 2015-2016. S. Dasu: seminar on January 9, 2013, http://www.hep.wisc.edu/~dasu/public/Dasu-H2Tau-Seminar.pdf Also, theoretical physicist, Savas Dimopoulos, states that he is waiting for more detailed measurements in order to make a stronger statement regarding the identity of the new boson.
 The Technical Report for the Level-1 Trigger upgrade on page 13, first paragraph of section 2.2.1, clearly states that the “trigger threshold” technique used in the current detector cannot provide those detailed measurements and it is therefore necessary to replace the Level-1 Trigger with the capability to execute “object identification algorithms“. Clearly all of this (and many other technical arguments and documents) prove that CMS and Atlas detector instrumentations have been a failure as they have been unable to perform accurate measurements.
 The front page of the CMS Technical Designed Report for the Level-1 Trigger Upgrade, published on August 1, 2013, ISBN 978-92-9083-390-1 CERN-LHCC-2013-011, states: “To meet these requirements the electronics for the calorimeter, muon and global trigger systems will be replaced. The upgraded trigger system is planned to be available for CMS data taking from the start of the 2016 LHC run.” https://cds.cern.ch/record/1556311/files/CMS-TDR-012.pdf
 Leaders of the main experiments at CERN stated at the 2013 IEEE-NSS conference that the Level-1 trigger (or Level-0 as referred to by some) will be replaced as reported in their slides presented at the conference. For example, during the NSS-N5-4 presentation at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, Atlas L1 Trigger states in slide 16: “no change to the detector is needed. Full replacement of front-end and back-end electronics” was needed instead.
 See the pdf version at: http://links.u2ec.com/doc2/809.pdf of Crosetto’s response to the Chairman of the 2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference and to those who care to advance science for the benefit of humanity. This document demonstrates that only TRANSPARENCY in science can generate a paradigm shift in the scientific culture away from actions that are detrimental to the advancement of science and which lose public trust, and towards those scientists who comply with the ethics of science through hard work and honesty. See also updates at the blog: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=150.
 Proposal for a workshop titled: “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?” submitted on May 4, 2014 to the 2014 IEEE-NSS Conference https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5Z0p5Ni1xWEhmaUU/edit?usp=sharing
 The CERN-Axial-PET project is making use of leading-edge components and technology in a detrimental way causing a decrease in PET efficiency because it is not taking into account the considerable volume of material that is not sensitive. This material (cable, connectors, gaps between crystals) does not capture photons and the cost is exorbitant, while higher efficiency performance could be achieved using less expensive components.
 Comparison in efficiency and cost per photon captured of the 3D-CBS project to CERN’s Axial-PET project. The comparison was provided by Crosetto to the Leonardo da Vinci review panel at the University of Pavia and to the world publicly via the internet. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5aklmMHZ0MGgwT0k/edit?usp=sharing
 D. Crosetto, and F. Guy: “HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CANCER AND REDUCE ITS ECONOMICAL BURDEN: Fund Only Research Projects with Real Potential to Reduce Premature Cancer Deaths.” Poster presented at the Conference “The Contribution of Italian Researchers in the World.” Italian Consulate, Houston, Texas, December 2010. See at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5WjZrN2FvUzEtbTA/edit?usp=sharing
 One page description of one of the basic elements of Crosetto’s invention that breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5UlpTLXhQQjFrZDg/edit?usp=sharing
 Recognition of the value of Crosetto’s basic invention in this field that he presented in 1992 within 35 days at three international conferences in Europe, Annecy and the U.S. Corpus Christi, TX, Orlando, FL, and published in the prestigious scientific journals: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and IEEE-NSS-MIC. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NFN3ZFFyWmU1cUU/edit?usp=sharing
 Article presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Seoul, South Korea, October 27, November 2, 2013. Conference Record, R05-52. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YXU0MW1QM1IzUW8/edit?usp=sharing
 Schematics and PBC layout detail (see at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5Wl82SG0xSC1hakU/edit?usp=sharing) of the “3D-Flow DAQ IBM PC board for Photon Detection in PET and PET/CT” that I designed in December 2002, built and tested in March 2003 and presented at the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Portland (OR) in October 2003. The modular board allows the building of a system that would guarantee a difference of less than 40 picoseconds between any two clock signals among hundreds of thousands of channels. See Conference Record. M3-130. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5eVRubUdMRmZxYkk/edit?usp=sharing
 D. Crosetto: “400+ time improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower cost cancer screening.” Technical-scientific book presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Sympos. and Medical Imaging Conf., Lyon, France, 2000: ISBN 0-9702897-0-7. 2000. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5WVFVWnJteENqMWc/edit?usp=sharing
 Video explaining Crosetto’s invention for High Energy Physics and Medical Imaging applications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwMnHRuWo4o&feature=channel&list=UL
 D. Crosetto: “The 3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) Features and Implementation” IEEE-NSS-MIC-2003. Conference Record. M7-129. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RDQ2UURPeHBIYnc/edit?usp=sharing
 Report by the review panel about the formal review of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow parallel processing system held on December 14, 1993 at FERMI National Laboratory https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YUdqVll4ZkVkWTA/edit?usp=sharing
 D. Crosetto: LHCb base-line level-0 trigger 3D-Flow implementation. Nuclear Instr. and Methods in Physics Research, Sec. A, vol. 436 (1999) pp. 341-385. Part 1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NlVSWHhoTl9jZXc/edit?usp=sharing Part 2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5ZG82dWRlUVVPWXc/edit?usp=sharing
 Bertolucci was also head of the Committee who assigned the First Prize at the workshop “Physics for Health.”
 M. Banchio, M. Bently, L. Colombo, D. Crosetto, F. Gaspari, F. Guy, S. Ratti, P. Saunier, V. Sereno, R. Sonnino, D. Verra, V. Vigna, A. Werbrouck, J. Zagami, A. Zonta, and about 1,000 cosigners: “Progress in the domain of physics applications in life science with an invention for substantial reduction of premature cancer death: the need for a paradigm change in oncology research”. Abstract ID 78 and poster presented at the “Physics for Health in Europe. February 2-3, 2010, CERN, Switzerland.[a] Original audio of the excerpt of the meeting: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MVczRjVWV19kR0k/edit?usp=sharing [b] Code of ethics for scientist http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2007/09/13/a-code-of-ethics-for-scientist/ [c] 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. [d] 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 [e] 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 [f] 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 [g] 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
This post is also available in: Italian