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

Your help is needed in forwarding this message and asking to address publicly these issues to Dr. Cherry Murray (camurray@seas.harvard.edu), U.S. DOE Director of the Office of Science, Dr. Francis Collins (Collinsf@od.nih.gov) Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Douglas Lowy (LowyD@mail.nih.gov) Director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other people among the recipient of this email who freely accepted positions of responsibility and promised to work to make a better world.

Your help is needed to forward this email because I could not send electronically with hyperlinks my Appeal (see Attachment) to the Freedom Information Act (FOIA) email address OHA.filings@hq.doe.gov as was requested by the Director of FOIA, Dr. Alexander Morris (see his attached letter), and I could not satisfy the request by the DOE Inspector General (IG) to talk and exchange emails with the DOE Office of Science for the same reason. Also, if I would send the email to Dr. Cherry Murray at her Harvard University email address she would delete it without reading it (see below).

 

Please ask Dr. Murray to provide a letter from her experts in the field describing other Level-1 Trigger approaches or systems providing analytical results similar or superior to my 3D-Flow system. I will compare analytical results of my 3D-Flow system with any system she provides in other letters similar to those I received from Joel Butler and Andy Lankford.  On behalf of taxpayers it is also legitimate and appropriate to ask the DOE Office of Science to provide a scientific-technical answer to my new 3D-Flow OPRA (2-page summary271-page details) rather than obstructing the request by blocking my email.

 

Please ask Dr. Collins and Dr. Lowy why they are funding for $15.5 million the Explorer project which does not have the capability of saving many lives, cannot become a commercially competitive product, and is less efficient and over ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS (3D-Complete Body screening) which is a cost-effective competitive product having effective early cancer detection capabilities to save millions of lives and reduce healthcare costs. Why did the author of the Explorer (Bill Moses) after  a meeting on October 30, 2016 at the IEEE-MIC Conference in Strasbourg in which he recognized my 3D-CBS approach intensifying computation at the front-end of PET as more cost-effective than their approach intensifying computation at the back-end, agree to participate at a meeting with NIH experts assigning taxpayer money to grants comparing performance of my 3D-CBS with their Explorer, but NIH did not organize this meeting. Instead NIH is approving modifications to the original design of the Explorer regardless of whether the authors are copying my inventions and regardless of whether my 3D-CBS invention can provide a paradigm change in molecular imaging offering a cost-effective early cancer detection only when all my inventions are implemented? Why NIH is not interested to discuss which ideas are just improving performance to serve pharmaceutical companies and those that are serving taxpayer, cancer patient and humanity in significantly reducing cancer deaths and costs?

 

Because of the obstructions I am facing to communicate on scientific issues with them, please provide the technical answers you receive from these decision makers handling taxpayer money to my address crosettodario@gmail.com, or ask them to organize a public scientific review comparing my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions to other approaches.

 

How can DOE implement rules if DOE officers are obstructing the implementation of their rules?

 

The obstructions started on August 4th, 2015, when I was requested by the Director of the DOE Office of HEP of the Office of Science, Dr. Jim Siegrist, to provide a compelling case describing the most important ingredient of the presentation of my invention to DOE. Siegrist had already approved my presentation to DOE over the phone and in an email on July 2015.

 

On September 14, 2015, I sent a very compelling case showing how my invention could replace hundreds of crates of electronics of the DOE funded CMS Level-1 Trigger (and also Atlas Trigger) at CERN with one crate providing a staggering performance improvement at a fraction of the cost. (Four months later, 59 quotes by reputable industries proved the feasibility of my 3D-Flow OPRA system at approximately 1/1000 the cost of DOE funded CMS Level-1 Trigger).

 

In addition, when the 3D-Flow OPRA is used in my 3D-CBS (3D-Complete Body screening) technology, analytical results based on calculations and scientific evidence prove that it can save millions of lives with a cost-effective early cancer detection because it is more efficient and over ten times less expensive than the Explorer project funded by NIH for $15.5 million which cannot save many lives and is increasing healthcare costs.

 

Starting September 14, 2015, DOE officers claimed they did not receive my document asking that I resend it. After claiming they had not received it a second time, I asked if the DOE IT technicians to look into it, but they would not let me talk to a DOE internet specialists to address the communication problem and continued to ask me to resend my document electronically from different accounts, which I did, as it would enable them to open the hyperlinks which would not be possible with a paper copy. Although I had confirmation that my document was received by the recipient at DOE (as documented in the attached file) they continued to ask that I resend it.

 

Now I realize that I was deceived by DOE recipients who did not want to get back to me as promised by Dr. Siegrist in his August 4, 2015 email, perhaps because my “compelling case” showed that their DOE Office was deceived by Wesley Smith and others over the past 20 years by wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a Level-1 Trigger that did not work and had to be replaced. Even more embarrassing, Smith and DOE were aware of the existence of my invention that was recognized valuable, superior in performance than Smith’s approach as it was approved by them in a major scientific review in 1993. Rather than taking the responsibility to addressing the issue scientifically, DOE officers used the excuse that I sent too many emails and ordered DOE Security (I was told this order came from Glenn Crawford, Director of DOE Research and Technology) to block my email addresses so they would avoid addressing scientific issues related to their job/responsibilities.

 

On May 19, 2016, Glen Crawford wrote an 8-line email, which is self-incriminating, revealing abuse of power, showing he is not complying with his job duties, reporting contradictory statements, inventing and/or referring to non-existent DOE rules, stating in one line that he will honor my request to withdraw (resubmit) my proposal without evaluating it but in the following line stating that my proposal is not “sound” and not “feasible” and then that I cannot discuss it analytically with any DOE officers or resubmit it in the future.

 

Now the obstructions continue as I have not been provided with the material I requested from FOIA (the documents I received on September 30, 2016, are a small fraction of the emails and official communication I had with DOE. e.g. none of the existing documentation related to items (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of my request to FOIA detailed in the INDEX at the last page of Dr. Morris’s letter were provided).  And I am blocked from sending the attached file of the Appeal electronically to DOE which contain hyperlinks and from discussing scientific analytical matter with the DOE Office of Science as was requested over the phone by the DOE Inspector General on December 29, 2016.

 

My proposal/invention is “sound” (meaning that it provides valuable analytical results) as it was approved and endorsed by experts in the field in over 50 letters and passed a major public scientific review held at Fermilab in 1993. The Fermilab review proved it to be “sound” and it has been proven feasible by two prototype data processing boards with 68 x 3D-Flow processors each implemented in FPGA and by 59 quotes from reputable industries. My 3D-Flow OPRA is still very competitive with current Level-1 Trigger designs because besides replacing hundreds of crates of Smith’s CMS Level-1 Trigger, it can also replace the new 100 data processing boards SWATCH CMS level-1 Trigger installed on February 26, 2016 with 8 x 3D-Flow data processing boards offering a staggering performance improvement at a fraction of the cost.

 

Two prominent scientists expert in the field who endorsed my invention in 1993-1995 are Joel Butler who is now the spokesman of CMS experiment at CERN and Andy Lankford who is with Atlas experiment at CERN and responsible with EPAC to plan the future 20 year strategy of High Energy Physics in the U.S. I last talked with Lankford in 2011 when he helped to define the rules of the Leonardo da Vinci competition (which I won) for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis. So far Lankford has not answered my emails; however, his competence in writing the charges (as he did for the review of my invention in 1993) to the reviewers of my new 3D-Flow OPRA invention would be very important.

 

Recently I had a few short phone conversations and email exchanges with Joel Butler who endorsed my basic 3D-Flow invention in a letter he wrote in 1995 stating: “About one year ago, FERMILAB conducted a review of the proposal by Dario Crosetto… The review committee consisted of five electronics experts and three physicists… This review committee found the design to be promising for its potential application in ‘HEP triggering’ and possibly elsewhere, and to be a technically sound and feasible approach… the 3D-Flow project is the only detailed study demonstrating the feasibility of executing several level-1 trigger algorithms of different experiments”

 

Butler’s letter denotes a very good understanding of the advantages of my invention, of the analytical results proven by its formal, scientific public review that he was part of as he specifies in his letter. However, now on December 11, 2016 he does not refer to science and states: “The fact that no one has responded may mean that they feel that you are not really offering anything new.” This statement is easily refuted by analytical calculations and scientific evidence about the superiority and cost-effectiveness of my 3D-Flow invention compared to other approaches that he and many other scientists endorsed in the past and have been proven “sound”, “feasible” and also “functional” in hardware after their endorsement. While it is also proven that those people holding positions of responsibilities such as Wesley Smith and others who did not respond with analytical calculation and scientific arguments, failing to comply with their job description, drove into the wrong direction hundreds of scientists and wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in building a CMS Level-1 Trigger (and other Triggers) that was trashed on February 26, 2016 because it did not have the capability to filter the background radiation noise and identify a particle satisfying the characteristics defined by experimental physicists.

 

I can imagine Butler’s difficulties to admit a mistake from his colleagues that could affect CERN’s public trust, popularity and funding opportunities; however, I told him that as CERN survived the gaffe/mistake by Antonio Ereditato in 2011 claiming to have measured with six sigma accuracy that neutrino was travelling faster than the speed of light, it can also survive a mistake by Wesley Smith and others who did not respond to my legitimate questions, emails, articles, claims supported by calculations and scientific evidence, did not comply with the duties of the position they were holding and wasted the time of their colleagues and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

 

What is important for CERN and science to survive and continue to have the public trust is to let the scientific truth and science advance, not suppress it as it has been done with my inventions for the past two decades after officially recognizing the validity and superiority of my 3D-Flow invention by experts from academia, industry and research centers in a formal, official scientific review held at FERMILAB in 1993.

 

What is important is to open an investigation into all these mistakes and have the people responsible for wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and crushing innovations such as Wesley Smith and others resign, as Antonio Ereditato and Dario Autiero had to after proving their mistakes that their measurements showing the neutrino is faster than the speed of light were flawed.

 

The public trust is gained from transparency and scientific integrity and not by suppressing innovations, wiping clear official documents from DOE records that even FOIA cannot find, and preventing me from sending an appeal electronically with hyperlinks, and from discussing scientific issues with DOE Office of Science as requested by the DOE Inspector General.

 

I have communicated all this to Joel Butler, who has acknowledged receiving and reading my emails; however, so he stated in his last email dated December 11, 2016 that he does not want to respond and apparently has given up the scientific procedure he expressed in his letter and that he followed twenty years ago where scientists have the duty to respond analytically based on calculations and scientific evidence comparing the performance of the Level-1 Trigger System at his CMS experiment and the 3D-Flow OPRA system.

 

In the event of disagreements in the analytical study and calculations, scientific integrity would require judgement be left to experimental results and Joel Butler or any scientist should agree to build my ER/DSU event recorder costing only $50,000 which is a very small fraction of the $50 billion investment of the LHC apparatus and play back those events to his CMS Level-1 Trigger system and to my 3D-Flow OPRA to check which system is capturing more sought particles at a lower cost. I still hope to receive an email from Joel Butler where he is available to discuss issues based on calculations and scientific evidence as we did in the past.

 

This document also serves the investigative journalist (and any investigative journalists) who wrote to me that a condition for his agency to open an investigation on this case was to receive a letter of endorsement or statements in an interview with prominent scientists such as Joel Butler, Andy Lankford, Barry Barish, Ralph James, etc., confirming my claims. I replied that the authenticity of my claims is proven by facts, and documents and it is detrimental to taxpayers to put in place this condition which I do not have control over. However, now that this document informs the investigative journalists of the answer from Joel Butler, about the no answer from Andy Lankford and others and the compelling, authentic information I am providing which shows inconsistencies in following scientific procedures, wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and depriving humanity of the benefits of my inventions, I hope these will be sufficient elements to open an investigation and tell the truth.

 

I also mentioned in my communication with Joel Butler that I understand that although he is the spokesman of the CMS experiment and has a lot of experience in the field, he cannot answer all questions as Newton, Einstein, Stephen Hawking, etc. would have answered, who have stood behind every word, every calculation, scientific observation and evidence they wrote in their articles/books and were ready to modify a statement in the event they or anyone else prove it incorrect.

 

Because today’s experiments consist of thousands of circuits, software programs, mechanical assemblies, etc., and articles of large experiments such as CMS are signed by 2,000, 3,000 or more authors where no one knows all details of all components, it is reasonable to have a scientific public review of a breakthrough invention like mine which not only improves efficiency by 5%, 10%, ..20%, but is revolutionary, a paradigm change offering a staggering higher performance at a much lower cost, replacing hundreds of crates of electronics with a single crate. In a public scientific review, similar to the one held for my 3D-Flow basic invention at FERMILAB in 1993, different experts can question the details of my approach/solution which can be compared with the current approach known by one of the hundreds of scientists present in the auditorium as was done at FERMILAB when I presented my basic 3D-Flow invention before hundreds of scientists.

 

Because the benefits of my inventions in several fields such as saving lives with an effective 3D-CBS early cancer detection device based on the 3D-Flow system is referring to particle detection, it is essential to address this issue with NIH and NCI funding agencies but also with DOE funding advancement in particle detection.

 

A further proof that my 3D-CBS approach is valuable is that the authors of the Explorer have copied ideas that several of them obstructed this past decade. However, a public scientific review will shorten the time to understand all my innovations and will accelerate the benefits to taxpayers, cancer patients and humanity.

 

In summary, to help eliminate obstructions and suppressions of the benefits from innovations to humanity, please forward this message to anyone who cares to make a better world for all of us, based on the “rule of laws”, the “laws of nature” (science) and the “golden rule”, in particular to investigative journalists. Because I do not receive technical-scientific answers and cannot communicate with decision makers and professionals handling taxpayer money for serving the taxpayer, please contact the following to provide their technical-scientific answers at crosettodario@gmail.com:

 

–          Please send this email to the Freedom of information Appeal at: OHA.filings@hq.doe.gov

 

–          Ask decision makers to remove obstructions to analytical discussions based on calculations and scientific evidence by contacting Dr. Murray (camurray@seas.harvard.edu), Dr. Collins (Collinsf@od.nih.gov) Dr. Lowy (LowyD@mail.nih.gov), …

 

–          Ask Dr. Joel Butler (joel.butler@cern.ch), Dr. Andy Lankford (ajlankfo@uci.edu), … to provide scientific-technical answers in the specific field of the 3D-Flow and on the Level-1 Trigger for High Energy Physics experiments

 

–          Ask Dr. Michael Laurer (Michael.Lauer@nih.gov), Director of Extramural research at NIH questions related to the 3D-CBS, the Explorer and the most cost-effective approach with highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs

 

–          Ask Barry Barish (barish@ligo.caltech.edu), Ralph James (ralph.james@srnl.doe.gov) and other scientists who care to support scientific integrity to support the request for a public scientific review of my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions and compare them to other current approaches.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dario Crosetto

  1. After the copy of one of several retuned emails from Dr. Murray, I am sending a document that is summarizing this issue and is providing examples of inconsistencies detrimental to taxpayers, cancer patients and humanity

 

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 8:10 AM To: ‘camurray@seas.harvard.edu’ <camurray@seas.harvard.edu> Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net>; ‘unitedtoendcancer2@gmail.com’ <unitedtoendcancer2@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Vice President Joe Biden: Real quick, Dario. Real quick, Joe RE: FOR A WORLD OF REASON&SCIENCE RE: Innovations saving lives and taxpayer money are suppressed and its inventor is threatened to involve security

 

Dear Dr. Murray,

 

I see that you deleted this message without reading that it contains proofs of feasibility from 59 quotes from reputable industries that my invention can be built in one crate of electronics providing a staggering performance improvements and replacing at 1/1000 the cost, hundreds of crates of electronics of the CMS Level-1 Trigger containing 4,000 data processing boards and my inventions provide great benefits to humanity when used in many other applications.

 

Would you please provide a reason why you delete my message without reading it, so that I could pass it on to the public?

 

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

 

Dario Crosetto

_____________________________________________ From: Murray, Cherry [mailto:camurray@seas.harvard.edu] Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 11:20 PM To: United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org> Subject: Not read: RE: Joe Biden: Read quick, Dario. RE: Read quick, Joe. RE: FOR A WORLD OF REASON&SCIENCE RE: Innovations saving lives and taxpayer money are suppressed and its inventor is threatened to involve security

 

 

Your message    To: Murray, Cherry    Subject: RE: Joe Biden: Read quick, Dario. RE: Read quick,   Joe. RE: FOR A WORLD OF REASON&SCIENCE RE: Innovations saving lives     and taxpayer money are suppressed and its inventor is   threatened to involve security    Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 5:53:09 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)  was deleted without being read on Sunday, November 27, 2016 12:19:31 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

 

 

Text of a previous message summarizing this issue.

 

An invention constituting an important scientific advance for the detection and prevention of various cancers and other pathologies has been hampered if not compromised by the attitudes and obstructions of certain scientific, economic and political circles

 

  1. SUMMARY

 

1)      The author of this invention is Dario Crosetto, a 65-year-old research scientist who worked from 1975-88 on Gargamelle and Delphi experiments at CERN designing instrumentation and Level-2 Triggers from the University of Turin, Italy. He was employed by CERN as “Paid Scientific Associated” from 1988-89 where he was charged to design instrumentation for the Q-measurement project for the CERN SPS Accelerator and the FDPP Parallel-Processing project for the CERN Data Handling Division. In 1991 he joined the Superconducting Super Collider project in Texas, where he was charged to design the Level-1 Trigger for the GEM experiment. Since 1994 he has held the position of CEO of 3D-Computing, Inc. and since 2008 as President of Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths.

 

2)      Crosetto’s research lead him to medical imaging where he focused on significantly reducing cancer deaths and costs and to develop a medical imaging device the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) with the following major features/characteristics (see details 2000, 2015):

  1. Increase in sensitivity by staggering amounts to detect minimum anomalies of biological processes with extreme precision providing essential information to patients and physicians that can help with the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of patients. These features make it particularly useful for diagnosing cancer and many other diseases at an early curable stage.
  2. Reduction in the radiation dose to one hundredth the current amount
  3. Reduction in the examination cost, making it accessible to a large population, thus having the potential to save many lives.

 

3)   Dario Crosetto worked on leading edge physics experiments at the world’s largest laboratories (CERN in Geneva, Superconducting Super Collider -SSC- Texas, FERMILAB and Brookhaven National Laboratory -BNL-). He won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for his invention for early cancer detection, was awarded one million dollars in government grants (Department Of Energy and Department Of Defense), and received $10,000 for the best Business Plan reviewed by Venture Capitalists in a start-up competition.

 

4)   His inventions could create powerful, low-cost instruments for advancing science, discovering new subatomic particles and saving many lives with an effective early detection of cancer and many other diseases at a curable stage. They were recognized valuable since the mid-90’s in formal, public scientific reviews, presented at scientific conferences, published in peer-review scientific journals, and the concept of his basic invention was proven feasible and functional in hardware.

 

5)   The claim of saving many lives is proven from experimental data collected by several agencies in the world, including U.S. NIH Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER), which shows that the survival rate of lung cancer when detected at an early stage is 49.5% compared to 2.8% when detected at a late stage and for prostate cancer, the survival rate when detected early is 100% compared to 31% when detected at a late stage. Crosetto’s inventions proven functional in Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) and feasible by the technology detailed in the 59 quotes from reputable industries, proves that items a), b) and c) of point 2 are achievable, which enable an effective early cancer detection, which saves lives.

 

6)   However, his inventions progressively encountered obstacles which have impeded for two decades the transfer of their benefits to the public health and the advancement of science.  Certain scientific, economic and political circles deny funding the implementation of Crosetto’s inventions by seeming to use non-scientific, untrue statements or by ignoring his proven inventions. At the same time, while Crosetto’s research is patented, some economic interests seem to take ownership of them, but at a pace and in procedures that suit them far better to maximize their profit.

 

7)   Dario Crosetto speaks today to various European and U.S. bodies, asking them for their support: his main objective is to obtain an in-depth, fair and unfettered public scientific debate and review with his peers. Because the key features of Crosetto’s inventions are related to the detection of particles that are common to the application of medical imaging in extracting all valuable information from the radiation from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured, it is essential to conduct this review at CERN in Geneva where there are the top world experts in particle detection. This will bring benefits not only to applications in physics and medical imaging but to many other fields which can benefit from Crosetto’s invention which breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications.

 

8)   All this deserves an in-depth journalistic investigation. Dario Crosetto is ready to meet any journalist who would like to explore this matter further. In the documentation below, he provides a great deal of detailed information with all the necessary links.

 

Contact Information for Dario Crosetto:

President of Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

900 Hideaway Pl.

DeSoto, TX 75115

Email: crosettodario@gmail.com

Phone: +1-972-223-2904


 

  1. DEVELOPMENTS

 

1)      In summary, Crosetto’s research led him to medical imaging where he focused on significantly reducing cancer deaths and costs and to develop a medical imaging device, the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) with the following major features/characteristics (see details 2000, 2015):

 

  1. Increase in sensitivity by staggering amounts to detect minimum anomalies of biological processes with extreme precision providing essential information to patients and physicians that can help with the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of patients. These features make it particularly useful for diagnosing cancer and many other diseases at an early curable stage.
  2. Reduction in the radiation dose to one hundredth the current amount
  3. Reduction the examination cost making it accessible to a large population, thus having the potential to save many lives.

 

Dario Crosetto  worked on leading edge physics experiments at the world’s largest laboratories (CERN in Geneva, Superconducting Super Collider -SSC- Texas, FERMILAB and Brookhaven National Laboratory -BNL-),won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for his invention for early cancer detection, was awarded one million dollars in government grants (Department Of Energy and Department Of Defense), and received $10,000 for the best Business Plan reviewed by Venture Capitalists in a start-up competition.

 

His inventions could create powerful, low-cost instruments for advancing science, discovering new subatomic particles and saving many lives with an effective early detection of cancer and many other diseases at a curable stage. They were recognized valuable since the mid-90’s in formal, public scientific reviews, presented at scientific conferences, published in peer-review scientific journals, and the concept of his basic invention was proven feasible and functional in hardware.

 

Recently, Crosetto provided the blueprint of his basic 1993 and 2000 inventions augmented by additional inventions in 2015, that when applied to two specific fields: Physics with his 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms) and early cancer detection with his 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) have been proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to provide the following advantages/benefits.

 

–  In the field of Physics: In discovering new subatomic particles in High Energy Physics experiments, Crosetto’s new 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithms) can replace the Level-1 Trigger electronics at CERN’s Atlas and CMS experiments made of hundreds of crates housing 4,000 electronic data processing boards costing over $100 million (confined in a room 2,200 cm x 1,600 cm as reported in two slides and the first page of the paper) with one crate housing 9 data processing boards (described in 2 pages summary, detailed in 271 pages) having a staggering performance improvement costing only $100,000 for each duplicate system that can be used for Atlas, CMS and other experiments. Current Atlas and CMS Level-1 Triggers presented at the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference are more expensive than Crosetto’s 3D-Flow system and do not have the capability to perform object pattern recognition on all data arriving at 0.65 TB/sec data rate and reduce the data rate based on their energy. An analogy, is throwing away the baby with the dirty water because the decision is based on the weight. Crosetto’s 3D-Flow system has instead the capability of analyzing objects at twice the rate of 1.3 TB/sec from all incoming data, and able to distinguish the shape of an object, like the baby analogy even if its weight matches the dirty water.

 

The proof that Atlas and CMS Level-1 Triggers do not work (See more details here):

  1. a) when the Higgs-like boson was announced on July 4, 2012, only 40 events were found out of 100,000 generated by the LHC machine,
  2. b) those 40 Higgs-like boson events were not found by the merit of the Level-1 Trigger but by analyzing trillions of events recorded casually,
  3. c) the scientists who built the 4,000 electronic data processing boards realized their electronics were not working and replaced them with another system having fewer numbers of data processing boards but still without the capability to perform object pattern recognition on all data, and therefore rejecting the majority of them based on their energy.

 

There is a scientific way to resolve disagreements

  1. a) to discuss analytically in a scientific forum at CERN the different systems based on calculations and
  2. b) to build a unit ER/DSU costing $50,000 that is recording data from the LHC apparatus and replay the data to the Level-1 Trigger built by Atlas, CMS and Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA systems (See details of the ER/DSU unit from page 149 to 170 of the proposal). If this ER/DSU unit would have been built before 2012 it would have proven to the CMS and Atlas scientists that their Level-1 Trigger was not working and saved years of work and millions of dollars because theirs could not recognize even a fraction of the 100,000 Higgs-like boson events produced by the LHC.

Testing the new CMS and Atlas systems presented at the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference rejecting most of the data based on a combination of thresholds on the energy will prove that it could not find even 50% of the Higgs-like boson events known and stored in the ER/DSU memory, while the 3D-Flow OPRA has the capability to recognize all (the majority) of Higgs-like boson because it performs an object pattern recognition on all of them.

 

–  In the field of cancer: Crosetto’s 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) based on the 3D-Flow OPRA is making a paradigm change in molecular imaging providing the first tool for an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases at a curable stage to save lives. The 3D-CBS also provides a very powerful tool for research at a lower cost with respect to the Explorer project. The Explorer is limited in efficiency and performance because it does not have the capability to process 40,000 TB data per day at the front end and is instead performing the analysis of only 40 TB data per day at the back-end. The 3D-CBS has the capability to process over 40,000 TB data per day and is over ten times less expensive than the Explorer.

 

2) However, his inventions have progressively encountered obstacles which have impeded for two decades the transfer of their benefits to public health.

 

After the initial support of Crosetto’s inventions with DOE and DOD grants, his support faded, funding agencies and companies, instead of respecting the official recognitions of his inventions started copying them despite the fact they were protected by patents.

 

An analysis of facts and documents during the past two decades will reveal important reasons unfair to taxpayers and the public, that has stopped and is stopping the development of Crosetto’s inventions because of the economic and power interests of a few.

 

We assume that several obstacles could explain the suppression, boycotting and lack of funding for Crosetto’s medical imaging inventions which increase the efficiency, reduce the radiation and reduce the examination cost.

 

Just to list a few:

 

  1. a) the amortization of the investment companies manufacturing PET (PET/CT, PET/MRI, etc.) have made on their devices before making a big change from 16 cm detector length (FOV) to 150 cm,

 

  1. b) it is more profitable for manufacturing companies to increase the efficiency of the device gradually by increasing the FOV from 16 cm to 25 cm to 40 cm…, and asking the hospitals to update their device every 2 years with $2 million revenue for many years, than increase the FOV to 150 cm without small increments,

 

  1. c) the monopoly of a few companies (three) sharing the PET (PET/CT) over $1 billion market per year, and

 

  1. d) many other reasons that will emerge from the investigation for example that it is more profitable for pharmaceutical companies to sell chemotherapy drugs for cancer detected at a late stage when the patient is less likely to survive than selling the drugs when cancer is detected at an early curable stage, eliminating the need to continue the drugs for the rest of their lives as patients with heart disease must.

 

In the field of research to advance science, e.g. to discover new subatomic particles, we assume that several obstacles could explain the suppression, boycotting and lack of funding for Crosetto’s inventions because of the power of colleagues who allocate billions of dollars assigned from public funding agencies such as the European Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Institutes of Health, governments of different countries, private cancer organizations or other organizations using donation money to fund research and humanitarian causes. All these organizations and philanthropists refer and trust the evaluation of scientists expert in the field who are supposed to give them the best advice to achieve their scientific results and/or humanitarian goals.

 

Influential scientists want to control the billions of dollars of taxpayer money by distributing the money among their circle of friends with no accountability in complying with the ethics of a scientist, without following scientific public procedures based on analytical discussions supported by calculations and scientific evidence to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge.

 

They avoid accountability, and approve their articles and fund their projects using anonymous reviewers who make non-scientific and/or untrue statements.

 

However, because they are anonymous their scientific integrity and credibility is not at risk and does not suffer. Furthermore, no one at a higher lever who appointed the anonymous reviewers or who should guarantee a scientific procedure claim to be responsible to overturn a rejection of an article or fund a project even if the anonymous reviewer makes a non-scientific statement such as the earth is at the center of the universe, or makes an untrue statement that can be proven wrong.

 

The claim of saving many lives is proven from experimental data collected by several agencies in the world, including U.S. NIH Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER), which shows that the survival rate of lung cancer when detected at an early stage is 49.5% compared to 2.8% when detected at a late stage and for prostate cancer, the survival rate when detected early is 100% compared to 31% when detected at a late stage. Crosetto’s inventions proven functional in Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) and feasible by the technology in the 59 quotes from reputable industries, proves that items a), b) and c) of point 2, are achievable, which enable an effective early cancer detection, which saves lives. Proof that the 3D-CBS invention capable of delivering at once the three features a) a staggering increase in sensitivity, b) a 100 times reduction in the radiation, c) a reduction in the examination cost, can save many lives is much stronger than the opinions of any prominent scientists because it relies on experimental data collected by SEER and several agencies in the world proving that early detection save lives, and it relies on calculations, data sheets, technologies, that exist and are verifiable. The benefits of increasing sensitivity, focusing on the improvement of the electronics, etc. are now accepted by several people who before were focused on improving crystals, spatial resolution, etc., including the authors of the Explorer project; however, because technology, data sheets and calculations are verifiable it can also strongly refute anyone who would claim the contrary that the 3D-CBS which maximizes these three features cannot provide a staggering increase in saving lives and reducing healthcare costs. The most skeptical people can be convinced by a test on a sample population; however, funding is urgently needed to build the 3D-CBS before additional lives are lost needlessly.

 

When Crosetto invented the 3D-CBS in the year 2000 he believed he would be failing in his duty as a scientist if he did not inform the scientific community and those in power in the field about his invention that would benefit humanity. Therefore, he presented two articles and a technical-scientific book entitled:”400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” 200 copies of which he distributed free of charge to the leaders in the field at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference.

 

In an ideal, civilized world governed by the “rule of law” and where scientists with ethics and professional integrity state what they understand to be the “laws of nature” and support ideas/projects/inventions with “highest scientific merits” the following logical steps should bring benefits to humanity: This ideal, civilized world existed to some extend in 1993 when Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention was formally, publicly, officially recognized by academia, industries and research centers in a major public scientific review at FERMILAB and was funded immediately with $150,000 to save his idea in documents and in 1995 with $1 million in grants to prove it feasible. However, the scientific world changed after 1995 when billions of dollars of taxpayer money went into large physics experiments such as LHC and scientific merits faced the power of money, like in the billion dollars healthcare business, rather than a rigorous analytical public scientific review based on calculation, data sheets of different technologies and scientific evidence.

 

To bring the benefits to humanity from inventions, Crosetto or any inventor need first the approval of the influential players in the field who should recommend government funding agencies to fund prototypes of projects with higher scientific merits and higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs. Before disclosing an invention to anyone, Crosetto or any inventor should have protected his invention with patents. The logical path of Crosetto’s invention after protecting his idea with patents as he did and submitting it to influential players in the field who should provide government funding to build the prototype, would be to attract industries to mass produce a device that would benefit a large number of the population. Therefore, Crosetto started with the step of asking Terry Jones (who is now one of the authors of the Explorer project), a prominent leader in the field if he could review his technical-scientific book.

 

Jones appointed Steve DeRenzo as the technical expert in the field to review Crosetto’s book. Crosetto has known DeRenzo since 1992 when he was working at the Superconducting Super Collider and realized he had difficulties addressing scientific arguments about one of his articles with him and his colleague, Bill Moses (who is now one of the authors of the Explorer project) who were both working at Lawrence Berkley Laboratory and were both influential in the field.

 

Despite the very favorable reviews of Crosetto’s book on Amazon.com, the reviews by influential scientists were negative. DeRenzo stated in his review of Crosetto’s book: We do not view the electronics as a problem, either in terms of performance or cost”.

In fact, because Crosetto’s invention did not follow the main stream direction in research of improving crystals, PET spatial resolution, to the detriment of sensitivity, his more than a dozen proposals, over a period of ten years to the National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation were all rejected,  and Crosetto had to use his own money to build two modular electronic boards to prove the feasibility and functionality of his invention.

 

It took 15 years from when Crosetto wrote his book and 19 years from his first rejection for funding by NIH, for those in power in the field such as Bill Moses to reverse their position on Crosetto’s direction of research that they have obstructed for years.  Read Moses’ 2015 press release: «We’re developing the electronic interface between the detectors and the computer algorithm—and the electronics for this scanner is an order of magnitude more complicated than what’s been done before,” says Moses».

 

However, 160 million people have died from cancer since Crosetto first claimed that to improve PET medical imaging efficiency it is necessary to improve the electronics and not the crystals. Many of these people could have been saved if funding agencies had requested a public review of Crosetto’s invention similar to the major scientific review of his basic 3D-Flow invention held at FERMILAB in 1993.

 

If the peer review system of articles, NIH and other funding agencies continues to assign taxpayer money in closed door meetings among a circle of friends, how many more deaths and years will it take before an analytical and scientific discussion of Crosetto’s invention is accepted instead of funding the Explorer which is less efficient and over ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS? Instead, in 2016 NIH continues to refuse to set a meeting with Crosetto that has been promised for two years to discuss scientific issues analytically, based on calculations, data sheets of technologies, quotes from industries, scientific evidence of advantages in saving lives and reducing healthcare costs and his papers continue to be rejected with non-scientific, untrue statements.

 

Facts will prove that government agencies do not ask questions over what they do not understand in a proposal or a quote from an industry in a formal request for funding; they deny the dialogue from the PI who could explain to reviewers the existence of technology that they might be unaware of; and at least one has deleted official records of submissions for a request for funding and all emails exchanged in this matter including a self-incriminating email.

 

This is what happened recently with Glen Crawford, Director of Research and Technology at the U.S. Department of Energy, who never responded for two years to emails related to his job description, even when his supervisor told him to communicate with Crosetto. Crawford then wrote a self-incriminating email to Crosetto, but all official records of Crosetto’s proposal, including Crawford’s self-incriminating email and other emails between Crosetto and Crawford’s supervisor, Jim Siegrist, were wiped clean from the DOE record as reported by FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) after Crosetto requested a copy of all records related to his case to DOE.

 

Crosetto is doing all he can to reduce the waste of taxpayer and donation money on less efficient, more expensive technology knowing of the existence for two decades of more efficient and less expensive technology; however, he cannot do it alone.

 

On November 3 and 4, 2016, he distributed 650 copies of his papers/inventions to the participants of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Strasbourg, France. He attended the presentations of the CMS and Atlas competing projects and asked the presenters questions which confirmed that their systems do not perform object pattern recognition on all data but reject most of them based on a threshold of the weight. At the same conference, he explained his system to several leaders in the field, including two General Chairmen of previous IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences. He explained his 3D-Flow OPRA for 20 minutes in a meeting with the former CERN Director of research who did not refute any part of his presentation, but stated that this project should be presented at CMS, Atlas, etc. The former CERN Director of Research was surprised that the project was rejected at the conference. Crosetto spent 100 minutes with the current President of IEEE, John Verboncoeur, and the newly elected President, Stefan Ritt, who will take charge next year. Neither refuted any part of Crosetto’s project. They presented a deal to Crosetto for him to postpone the review of his papers content with a special attention from the President for one more year. Crosetto already explained in a previous message that this deal was not acceptable because the President could not guarantee a fair review, and so it would continue to be subjected to the power of anonymous reviewers, and would delay for one more year the benefits of his inventions to humanity.  Meanwhile 7.5 million people will die from cancer while many could be saved (statistics form SEER prove over 50%) with an effective early detection.

 

Crosetto also informed the European Commission, Members of the European Parliament, etc. on several occasions about inconsistencies in science that need to be addressed, in particular about the rigged peer-review system.

 

On June 4, 2015, a member of the European Parliament, Hon. Alessia Mosca, submitted an interrogation to the European Commission with a request for a written answer. The response did not address the specific question of the interrogation.

 

On June 23, 2016, Crosetto, together with Judge Antonino Abrami and inventor, Fabrizio Tamburini met Hon. Giovanni La Via, President of the Commission for Environment, Health and Food Safety requesting an audition for their inventions at the European Parliament, which is now being evaluated.

 

On November 8, 2016, Crosetto was received by the President of the Socialists & Democrats, Hon. Gianni Pittella in his office at the European Parliament in Brussels for 25 minutes.  He listened with interest to his story, took Crosetto’s handout that was distributed in 650 copies the prior week to the scientists at the conference, and asked what he could do to help. Crosetto explained that the first important issue is to discuss publicly in a scientific review at CERN his invention in a review similar to the one held at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993. Hon. Pittella mentioned that he had planned a visit to the Director of CERN, Fabiola Gianotti, in the near future, then called his assistant, wrote a note and promised that he would ask her to conduct this scientific review.

 

During the same visit at the European Parliament, Crosetto visited the office of Hon. Alessia Mosca and Hon. Giovanni La Via informing their assistants about the conference the week before and leaving a copy of the six-page handout. Dr. La Via’s assistant, Dr. Dario Siggia invited Crosetto to submit preliminary documentation for the request of an audition within a week, which was provided on November 14, 2016, and asked for guidance to fulfill all requirements.

 

Because the key features of Crosetto’s inventions are related to detection of particles that are common to the application in medical imaging in extracting all valuable information from the radiation from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured, it is essential to conduct this review at CERN in Geneva where there are the top world experts in particle detection. This will bring benefits not only to applications in physics and medical imaging, but to many other fields which can benefit from Crosetto’s invention which breaks the speed barrier in real-time application.

 

It is extremely important and urgent that investigative journalists and agencies collect all material Crosetto has accumulated during these two decades and inform the public so that they can strongly support the request for transparency in science that will swiftly bring to humanity the benefits of Crosetto’s innovations.

 

All this material is available upon request to reveal the truth to create a better world:

Dario Crosetto, 900 Hideaway Pl.  DeSoto, TX 75115. crosettodario@gmail.com Tel. 1-972-223-2904

 

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