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

Dear President Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden, leaders, professionals, journalists and to the attention of anyone who has a role in serving science, the public interest, and who is dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity, 159,856,200 people have died from cancer since my invention which could have saved over 50% of their lives was crushed (11,835,200 were Americans). Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money has been wasted building less efficient and more costly projects knowing that my invention can provide staggering performance improvements at a fraction of the cost.

Taxpayers and humanity have been deprived for over a decade from the benefits of my inventions in advancing science and significantly reducing cancer deaths and costs.

 

When I called the Department of Energy to discuss scientific issues analytically, referring to calculations and scientific evidence, my call was rerouted to Security where I received amid intimidations, threats and false accusations.

 

These inconsistencies damaging the public are caused by a rigged anonymous peer-review system among a circle of friends of corrupt scientists with corrupt agents as the internal arm in the government agencies assigning taxpayer money to research projects in meetings behind closed doors.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dario Crosetto

President of The Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

 

Here are the Details:

On July 25, I called the Office of the Secretary of Energy enquiring whether they had received my email addressing scientific issues which would require a response containing analytical procedures, calculations and scientific evidence; instead, after keeping me on hold for 31 minutes, my call was rerouted to Security where I was told amid intimidations, threats and false accusations that: “Your emails have been rerouted to the security channel and you should not be having any communication with the Department of Energy, Office of Science, or any other affiliations of the Department of Energy.”

 

Beginning May 5, 2015, Jim Siegrist, Director of the Office of High Energy Physics (HEP) at the Department of Energy (DOE) who was my former supervisor when we both worked at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) and who knew about my 3D-Flow invention at the SSC which had been endorsed by many scientists (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83) and recognized and approved valuable by a major open, public scientific review held at FERMILAB in 1993 (see pp. 56-74), solicited me verbally and in writing on several occasions between May and December 2015 to formally submit a proposal of my inventions to Dr. Glen Crawford, Division Director of Research and Technology of the Office of HEP of DOE, and provide the ingredients for a compelling case for me to give a presentation at DOE.

 

When on September 10, 2015, I first provided the ingredients for a compelling case showing that hundreds of crates of electronics of the CMS Level-1 Trigger funded by DOE could be replaced with one crate of electronics of my new 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms) invention with a staggering performance improvement, their office of HEP claimed they did not receive my email, asking me to resend it multiple times. This appears to be a trick used to build a case that I was harassing them showing many copies of the same email in their inbox and to justify placing an internal order to divert all my incoming emails to Security. However, I have all recordings of our phone conversations where they asked me to resend my email, ultimately via U.S. Postal Service, and even apologizing that I had to go through so much trouble.

 

Following Siegrist’s insistence that I submit a formal proposal (his last request was via email on December 3rd, 2015), I worked hard to verify the feasibility of my inventions with current technology. For four months I discussed my invention with several reputable companies who prepared 59 quotes proving the feasibility. The result was an 8,192-channel Level-1 Trigger for LHC experiments in 9 electronics data processing 3D-Flow OPRA boards, housed in one crate, replacing at 1/1000 the cost the CMS Level-1 Trigger system made of 4,000 boards housed in hundreds of crates or the most recent SWATCH Level-1 Trigger made of 100 boards (two slides) presented on June 6, 2016, at the IEEE-RT2016 Conference (https://cds.cern.ch/record/2194548/files/CR2016_121.pdf). I then submitted a formal proposal of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention (see pp. 1-36, and  pp. 125-271) to DOE on December 22, 2015, whose review was assigned to Dr. Glen Crawford.

 

Although Dr. Crawford gives seminars around the Nation where he solicits applicants (in his slide 20) to send emails, to call, and to have one-on-one meetings with DOE Program Managers like him who assign research funds using taxpayer money (as well he is listed to be contacted at page 32 of the DOE solicitation DE-FOA-0001414), these past two years Dr. Crawford has not once answered any of my technical emails and phone calls even when his colleagues referred me to him as the person responsible in this field and copied him in their emails. He has never asked questions on what he does not understand or what he believes is not feasible in the 59 quotes from reputable companies; in fact it appears he did not even look at nor discuss the quotes. He certainly did not ask for details of the two quotes of the most important component costing over $2 million from multimillion dollars ASIC design houses and silicon foundries. He waited until I submitted my formal proposal and then gave the excuse that he cannot talk to any applicant while their proposal is under review. He selected anonymous reviewers who rejected the project even when it can be proven that the project is superior to all other projects. By selecting anonymous reviewers to reject a project without discussing analytically the scientific merits based on calculations and scientific evidence with the inventor and comparing it with other approaches/projects, he likely believes he cannot be held responsible when these deceitful practices come to light. In the meantime taxpayer money continues to be wasted.

 

Then on May 16, 2016, I was shocked to be told by the executive officer of the office of Director of Science, Dr. Cherry Murray, that I was not being cooperative in providing information to HEP Office of Science. This is false. I have never received any requests from Dr. Crawford or any other DOE department – therefore, I could not have been uncooperative.

 

Realizing that I was trapped in a rigged review, I immediately requested my proposal for funding be withdrawn so I could have a dialogue to clarify these false accusations and to answer any questions or concerns regarding its feasibility and to explain the quotes, if necessary involving the professionals from the reputable companies who made the quotes.

 

It is not possible to evaluate the scientific merit of a project without understanding the invention and without looking at the quotes and discussing what reviewers did not understand to be feasible. Therefore, I specified that it would be logical to explain my invention, discuss the quotes and then resubmit my proposal.

 

This withdrawal triggered a series of events which reveal how corruption is alive and well as taxpayer money is assigned to a circle of friends, or is the internal arm in the government of a circle of friends of scientists, and how innovations are crushed which deny advancements in science and benefits to taxpayers from receiving a fair chance.

 

More evidence that Dr. Crawford does not intend to give a fair chance to science and taxpayers is the fact that he is also obstructing the implementation of an instrument that would be able to verify experimentally which project is more cost-effective. In my 413-page proposal #0000222704 submitted to DOE, there is a description of an LHC TER/DSU unit (see pp. 149-179) costing $50,000 which generates recorded signals from LHC allowing different Level-1 Trigger projects (with 4,000 boards, 100 boards, or 9 boards) to be tested on a test bench. This would be equivalent to everyone having an LHC apparatus costing $50 billion in their lab generating the same signals at the same speed to test their equipment. This experimental test would eliminate any doubt as to which Level-1 Trigger system performs best and at a lower cost.

 

Because of the complexity and importance of the Level-1 Trigger unit, also called “The Trap” by newspapers to find the needle in a haystack (an object that can be the “Higgs boson-like particle” in physics applications, the “tumor marker” in Medical imaging, etc.) from radiation data arriving at ultra-high speed which cannot be saved on hard drives because in one day they would fill all hard drives of the planet, Dr. Crawford and government agents responsible for using taxpayer money to maximize results should immediately fund the TER/DSU unit, which provides the functionality of the LHC apparatus at 1/1,000,000 of its cost, helping them do their job in measuring experimentally the performance of different Level-1 Trigger systems.  Such a TER/DSU instrument will also be a deterrent against physicists requesting funding for their Level-1 Trigger project that has not been thought thoroughly analytically, and its performance not checked with calculations.  The experimental judgement of their project will not arrive 20 years later after the completion of the LHC machine when their career has been completed and no one can compare the efficacy of their trigger project with others because only one could be installed on a specific detector at LHC. The TER/DSU instrument would also have prevented physicists from building the 4,000 electronic data processing boards which had to be discarded, because it would have been able to test its efficacy after building just a few electronic boards and not all 4000.

 

Dr. Crawford wrote me an eight-line email dated May 19, 2016, that reveals some of this corruption in assigning taxpayer money to research projects, contradicting himself and essentially incriminating himself. What he states at the beginning of a sentence in his email is the opposite of what he states at the end of the same sentence and in following sentences, where he refers to non-existent DOE rules to deny implementing a scientific procedure based on analytical thinking, calculations and scientific evidence. (See pages 2 to 6 of the document at this link, more facts related to Dr. Crawford’s email: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5b0FydURNeHRfSlE/view?usp=sharing).

 

################# Dr. Crawford’s 8-line email ####################

We will honor your request to withdraw application #0000222704 as a matter of professional courtesy. The withdrawal will be made effective upon the completion of the technical merit review you consented to by submitting the application. We plan to take no action on this application: it will neither be declined nor recommended for award.

All current and future funding opportunities will be published on our website and the Government-wide portal at www.Grants.gov. In the interest of fair competition, we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications: our processes are described in each Funding Opportunity Announcement.

The work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible, as required by 10 CFR 605.10. Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review.

Sincerely

Glen Crawford

**************************************

Glen Crawford glen.crawford@science.doe.gov

Director, Research and Technology Division

Office of High Energy Physics

Phone 301 903 4829

################### end Dr. Crawford email ##########################

 

This is Dr. Crawford’s technique to bypass any accountability and any DOE rule, to fund the projects he likes, crush innovations and waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

 

However, in this case my action to withdraw my proposal disrupted Dr. Crawford’s plan and he was pushed to take other actions, incriminating himself because he provided the path of abuse of power, inventing and/or referring to non-existent DOE rules, demonstrating that if an innovation conflicts with his own plans or those of his circle of friends, it can never be funded at DOE.

 

This is because if an applicant like myself asks to withdraw an application in order to discuss the invention analytically, based on calculations and scientific evidence before resubmitting it, he does not stop the review process immediately as I was told by DOE would happen, instead:

 

  • He states on line 3 We plan to take no action on this application: it will neither be declined nor recommended for award”; however, on line 7 of his email he states: “The work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible” which is an evaluation based on personal opinion as he took no interest in understanding its feasibility with calculations or asking questions of myself or the top professionals who wrote the quotes. On line 3 he states: “The withdrawal will be made effective upon the completion of the technical merit review”, therefore he provides an evaluation on May 19, on line 7 of a review that was not completed. In fact, after completion of the review of my proposal on May 31, I receive the message that my proposal was withdrawn. One contradiction after another. Likewise, he states on line 1: “We will honor your request to withdraw application #0000222704” continuing on the same line: “The withdrawal will be made effective upon the completion…” practically completing the review and not executing the withdrawal immediately on May 17 as I was told by other DOE officers.
  • He then prohibits any future analytical discussion of the project with the applicant in his statement on line 5: “we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications” although he continues to advertise during seminars (in his slide 20) delivered to the Nation and in the instruction to submit the application for a grant, to sign up for a one-on-one meeting, write emails and call DOE Program Managers like him (as well he is listed to be contacted at page 32 of the DOE solicitation DE-FOA-0001414).
  • He prohibits any resubmission of my application that was never evaluated because it was withdrawn cutting out the invention from any further submission forever without any analytical discussion, without working through calculations, scientific evidence and comparison with other projects with his statement on line 8: “Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review.

 

When I first submitted on June 20, 2016 an official request (http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1745) to explain Dr. Crawford’s email and other inconsistences to the office of the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, on July 8, 2016, they assigned it case No. EXEC2016003098 specifying that I should contact Dr. Jim Siegrist by phone and/or by email, providing both.

 

However, facing irrefutable evidence of corruption at DOE in assigning taxpayer money to research projects, the Director of the Office of DOE-HEP, Jim Siegrist, called on the Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, to speak up with the statement: “I am not authorized to speak for the Secretary’s Office”.

 

So the ball bounced back to the Office of the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Moniz.  Certain offices at the DOE had inexplicably been having difficulty receiving my emails, but the Office of the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Moniz, was not having any problems until I tried again on Thursday, July 21, and was told to call back on Monday, July 25.  It was on that day that I was placed on hold for 31 minutes and then my call was rerouted to DOE Security receiving amid intimidations, threats and false accusations.

 

I take the side of science, taxpayers and cancer patients, and on their behalf I bring to your attention and to the attention of anyone who has a role in serving science, the public interest, and who is dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity as stated on the IEEE website, that my request to address analytically scientific issues, based on calculations and scientific evidence is legitimate and should be addressed by professionals such as the 400,000 IEEE world’s largest technical professional organization, experts in particle physics at CERN, experts in particle physics at the DOE, experts in saving lives with Medical Imaging and reducing healthcare costs at NIH handling taxpayer and donation money, and not by any Security Organization.

 

The damage to society by this cover up is much greater than the hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted for the Level-1 Triggers at High Energy Physics experiments because it has deprived and continues to deprive Americans and humanity from the benefits derived from my invention when used in different applications.

 

My 3D-Flow OPRA invention is a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: finding and accurately measure all characteristics of new subatomic particles like the Higgs boson-like particle, saving lives through an effective early cancer detection, security (fighting terrorism)…

 

The most urgent and important benefit of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention is when used in applications for medical imaging devices such as the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) which has the potential to save millions of lives with an effective early cancer detection and reduce healthcare costs.

 

My 3D-CBS invention is hundreds of times more efficient than the over 6,000 existing PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices, thus enabling effective early detection, requiring less than 1/50 the radiation, at lower examination cost, potentially saving millions of lives, reducing healthcare costs with a single four-minute examination, covering all organs of the body; therefore, individual screenings on specific parts of the body like mammograms, PAP-tests, colonoscopies and PSAs will not be necessary.

 

Based on its increased efficiency, the estimated cancer death reduction achievable with my 3D-CBS is 33% in 6 years from funding and 50% in 10 years.

 

Claims of the feasibility or unfeasibility of an invention by reviewers assigning taxpayer and donation money to research projects should be resolved with scientific, analytical discussions based on calculations and scientific evidence with the inventors, and eventually with the engineers who provide the quotes.

Dr. Crawford’s claim “is not technically sound” and cost-effectiveness of one project vs. another should be resolved with a scientific, analytical discussion among inventors/authors of different projects where they can question each other on calculations and scientific evidence.

 

It is a crime to continue to waste hundreds of millions of dollars and lose millions of lives that could be saved because those responsible for handling tax payer money play favoritism, crushing breakthrough technology by denying funding in order to promote themselves and their friends.

 

My basic 3D-Flow invention was publicly reviewed at FERMILAB in 1993, recognized feasible and approved by a panel of experts. Among the experts was Eng. Silvio Turrini from one of the major computer industries, DIGITAL Equipment Corporation, co-inventor in 1993 of the first 300MHz 115W 32b Bipolar ECL Microprocessor with On-Chip Caches. My recent 3D-Flow OPRA invention was proven feasible by top engineers who wrote 59 quotes. To avoid wasting additional millions of dollars on less efficient and more expensive projects and to avoid losing millions of lives that could be saved by my 3D-CBS cost-effective technology for early cancer detection, I am formally, urgently and strongly requesting President Obama to involve the 13 Government Agencies he presented at the first meeting of the “Cancer Moonshot” task force on February 1, 2016 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/02/01/first-meeting-cancer-moonshot-task-force), in particular DOE and NIH, to organize a public scientific review of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention. This public scientific review should be similar to the one held at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993, with professionals from large industries such as Intel, Apple, IBM, etc. similar to Silvio Turrini from DIGITAL in 1993.

 

We cannot leave things at this junction where Dr. Crawford insinuates that numerous professionals are incompetent and their statements are incorrect, but it should be given a chance to the scientific truth to emerge in a public review similar to the 1993 FERMILAB review.

 

It makes no sense that all professionals who endorsed the validity of my inventions and who stated it was sound and feasible, such as Turrini, all members of the FERMILAB review panel in 1993, the co-inventor of the pocket calculator, Jerry Merryman (in 2003, 2005, 2008), and many other professionals, including those who wrote the 59 quotes proving feasibility to build my 3D-Flow OPRA, count for nothing against the anonymous reviewers’ evaluation that: “The work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible,” without technical justification. It makes no sense that taxpayers and cancer patients have their money wasted and are deprived of the benefits of my inventions. The scientific truth can never emerge under the current anonymous peer-review system.

 

In the interest of the public, I invite journalists to disseminate this letter and support the request for a public scientific review on this issue to render justice to competent professionals, taxpayers and cancer patients and remove corruption that is detrimental to all of us.

 

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
October 2020
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
September 28, 2020 September 29, 2020 September 30, 2020 October 1, 2020 October 2, 2020 October 3, 2020 October 4, 2020
October 5, 2020 October 6, 2020 October 7, 2020 October 8, 2020 October 9, 2020 October 10, 2020 October 11, 2020
October 12, 2020 October 13, 2020 October 14, 2020 October 15, 2020 October 16, 2020 October 17, 2020 October 18, 2020
October 19, 2020 October 20, 2020 October 21, 2020 October 22, 2020 October 23, 2020 October 24, 2020 October 25, 2020
October 26, 2020 October 27, 2020 October 28, 2020 October 29, 2020 October 30, 2020 October 31, 2020 November 1, 2020