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

See the PDF version at: goo.gl/XnF3JR.

Following is provided the material for other newspapers and investigative journalists to help them to inform the public and open an investigation about hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars and millions of lives needlessly lost and how we continue to lose them because the scientific community denies a public forum to Crosetto as they denied to Semmelweis to answer non-scientific objections of their opponents. (The titles in the pages below are from J.C. Johnson).

Residents Seek Answers On Life-Saving Cancer Technology

Local Scientist Defends Cancer Detecting Invention

See articles published on February 26, 2017 at: goo.gl/5FxwNQ and on April 2, 2017 at: goo.gl/0dKlhw, online on 2/18/17

Weekly series “Innovation Wednesdays”:

Week 1: http://www.focusdailynews.com/2017/04/06/residents-seek-answers-life-saving-cancer-technology/

Week 2: http://www.focusdailynews.com/2017/04/12/mis-application-of-taxpayer-money-in-science-wednesday-april-12/

BY JOSHUA C. JOHNSON

Focus Daily News

 

DESOTO— Time is of the essence. A total of 1,688,780 new cancer cases and 600,920 deaths from cancer are projected to occur in the US in 2017.

The projection from the American Cancer Society is not encouraging news to those suffering from this debilitating disease. But what if the tide of cancers in both women and men could be stemmed by at least 50 percent?

With early detection it could.

Locally, Scientist Dario Crosetto has developed a new approach to early cancer detection. His 3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) technology is hundreds of times more efficient at identifying cancerous cells than anything currently on the market.

In February 2017, a Focus Daily News feature compared Crosetto’s invention to the ground-breaking approach of 1850s German physician Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. Since then, DeSoto residents have responded with great interest in Crosetto’s device. Moreover, they want to know why this product isn’t on the market?

Semmelweis’ simple theory of doctor’s washing their hands before childbirth, has since saved millions of lives. Now catching cancer during the early stages could save just as many.

Since 1950, early detection has been a proven method in battling cancer. It was during this time that the Pap test was developed, and as a result a 70% decline in cervical cancer. Additionally, colon cancer if caught early has a 91% survival rate, versus a 11% rate if caught too late.

Recently, DeSoto residents Diana D’Amari and Darrel Johnson were afforded the rare opportunity to sit down with the acclaimed scientist. Like many Americans, D’Amari and Johnson are concerned about how their tax-dollars should be spent, and to maximize its use to advance science and reduce cancer deaths.

…Follows eight Q&A between DeSoto residents D’Amari and Johnson and scientist Dario Crosetto

Conclusions by Joshua C. Johnson:   Public Debate Needed

As in the case of Semmelweis, it is clear that the key for accelerating the benefits of Crosetto’s invention to humanity is a public forum, wherein Crosetto can present his inventions and address non-scientific objections of his opponents beginning with the European Laboratory for Particle Physics (also known as CERN).

Over the years CERN officials have identified Joel Butler, Andrew Lankford and Nadia Pastrone as experts in the field. Furthermore, in correspondence dating back to the 1990s, each of these experts have commented on the viability of Crosetto’s design. It appears that action could be taken by them to organize such a review at CERN.

Following Joshua C. Johnson’s articles on the paper copy of the FDN (Focus Daily News) on February 26, 2017, DeSoto residents have responded with great interest asking questions why this product isn’t on the marker.

 

Crosetto provided the answers to Diana D’Amari and Darrel Johnson’s questions and together they decided to make them available to Joshua C. Jonson at FDN and to other newspapers and investigative journalists who care to inform the public about the suppression of Crosetto’s inventions that can advance science and save hundreds of millions of dollars in the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet at CERN, Geneva and effectively reduce over 50% the mortality rate and the costs of the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer.

 

Joshua Johnson started a Weekly series “Innovation Wednesday” to present to his readers a few questions and answers every week with editor’s notes, titles and figures that he asked to Crosetto to facilitate the understanding of the missed opportunity.

 

As in the case of Semmelweis, for accelerating the benefits of Crosetto’s inventions to humanity it would be a great service to the public if other newspapers and investigative journalists would reveal the truth about facts proving that this suppression is still ongoing and is preventing taxpayers from receiving the benefits from innovations.

 

A similar initiative has been started by the Italian newspaper “CORRIERE di SALUZZO” whose director Mario Banchio published the first article comparing Crosetto’s situation to Semmelweis suppression for 40 years of his discovery.

See article 1/19/2017: http://www.corrieredisaluzzo.it/cgi-bin/archivio/news/La-battaglia-di-Crosetto.asp.

 

On April 13, 2017, the CORRIERE di SALUZZO announced in the paper copy of the newspaper that D’Amari and Johnson’s questions and Crosetto’s answers would be published online in the following weeks in the series “LOTTA AL CANCRO”.

 

Week 1: http://www.corrieredisaluzzo.it/cgi-bin/archivio/news/Crosetto-la-diagnosi-precoce-e-vincente.asp

 

Other articles in Italian:

Piazza Grande on February 7, 2017  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5SlVxQkJGbVplT2s/view?usp=sharing

Affari Italiani: http://www.affaritaliani.it/medicina/dario-crosetto-inventore-della-tecnologia-3d-cbs-diagnosi-precoce-del-cancro161214.html

 

In English on The Dallas Morning News, July 12, 2013

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas/2013/07/12/desoto-inventor-crosetto-eyes-early-cancer-detection-technology

 

Rather than actions suppressing innovations, the correct way to address inconsistencies in science, implemented by influential scientists handling taxpayers and donation money, is firstly that particle physics experts Andrew Lankford, Joel Butler and Nadia Pastrone, appointed by CERN Director General to organize a scientific discussion/review of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA invention at CERN, should take action swiftly.

 

This is because 59 quotes from reputable industries prove the feasibility of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA invention replacing 4,000 electronic boards of CERN-CMS experiments (and boards of several other experiments at CERN) with 9 x 3D-Flow OPRA boards that would provide a staggering performance improvement at one thousandth the cost of the CMS system. As well as following a similar review of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention that should be organized by funding agencies such as NIH, NCI, etc., in lieu of funding the $15.5 million Explorer project which is less efficient, cannot save many lives and is over ten times more expensive than Crosetto’s 3D-CBS.

 

Following is provided the material for other newspapers and investigative journalists to help them to inform the public and open an investigation about hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars and millions of lives needlessly lost and how we continue to lose them because the scientific community denies a public forum to Crosetto as they denied to Semmelweis to answer non-scientific objections of their opponents. (The titles in the pages below are from J.C. Johnson)

 

Please Sign the Petition: goo.gl/dzmYCz

DeSoto Residents Engage Local Scientist

 

Go to Crosetto’s answers by clicking on the question:

 

  1. It is inconceivable that in 2017, the scientific community is making the same error they made in 1847. Could you please tell us about this modern day suppression that is happening right now wasting so much money and causing the loss of so many lives?

 

  1. As simple as possible — describe your invention and why should we discuss it with experts in particle physics in order to save lives?

 

III.                Could you please explain your innovative concept in very simple terms, understandable to investigative journalists to justify them opening an investigation into the benefits lost during the past 25 years?

 

  1. Before addressing the lifesaving application of your invention, you mentioned that it can save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Well…, not wasting our money also matters to us, therefore please explain how?

 

  1. This is shocking! $0.4 million instead of $600 million is an enormous savings. Why is so much taxpayer money wasted?

 

  1. Why wouldn’t the experts want to prove which system is the most efficient based on the test described in a controlled environment that will show the one that will detect more sought particles?

 

VII.              We are wondering why investigative journalists and agencies are not revealing this waste of money because influential scientists to not want to be accountable to experimental results from a test of their system in a controlled environment of a laboratory. Now please tell us how your invention in particle physics can provide technological advantages in the field of Medical Imaging and the benefits of saving lives with an effective early cancer detection.

 

VIII.             What is the difference between the other approaches and your invention in filtering the desired sought after particle or tumor marker signals with respect to the other systems?

 

  1. Why is it so important to evaluate by more than just weight?

 

  1. Is weight and shape the only difference between these two approaches? If not, what other differences set it apart?

 

  1. What is the Department of Energy doing with the 400 pages you gave them?

 

XII.              Is your invention just a theoretical concept or how can you prove it works?

 

XIII.            Mr. Crosetto, we are outraged to know that they would destroy this incredible, valuable information. Why exactly did funding stop 18 years ago since your project seemed to be accepted by your peers? Why would the DOE destroy your proposal after they had requested you to submit one in 2015?

 

XIV.            How long do you estimate it would take to build and test your 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS?

 

  1. In what way are your inventions being suppressed? By whom, and why?

 

XVI.            Can you give us the names of other experts on the issue that could comment on your technology?

Go to full question for decision makers by clicking on the item below:

 

  1. URGENT ACTIONS AND QUESTIONS FOR THE THREE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD APPOINTED BY CERN DIRECTOR GENERAL TO ORGANIZE A DISCUSSION/REVIEW:

 

  1. IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION/REVIEW:

 

  1. “SHAPE” vs. “WEIGHT”:

 

  1. COMPARING EFFICIENCY IN THE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT OF A LAB BEFORE INSTALLING A DEVICE IN THE FIELD.

 

  1. HELP FROM INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS IS NECESSARY TO ANALYZE THE OBSTACLES TO TRANSPARENCY AND FUND PROJECTS WITH HIGHEST SCIENTIFIC MERIT.

 

  1. HELP FROM INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS IS NECESSARY TO STOP THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY FROM SUPPRESSING INNOVATIVE IDEAS.

 

  1. HELP FROM INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS IS NEEDED TO REMOVE ROADBLOCKS, CLARIFY INCONSISTENCIES AND VIOLATIONS TO LAWS AND RULES BY EMPLOYEES OF SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS AND GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCIES.

 

  1. Journalists working in the public interest should request the DOE allow Crosetto to give the presentation they had promised where he can answer the questions from his opponents including Glen Crawford and Wesley Smith, who after wasting over $50 million on the CMS L-1 Trigger which was trashed on February 26, 2016, continues to receive funds from DOE (e.g. $4.2 million in 2016) for projects that waste taxpayer money.

 

  1. An investigation should be opened into the destroying of official documents by DOE officers and their blockage of the correspondence with Crosetto on scientific issues advancing science and saving taxpayer money.

 

  1. An investigation should be opened into the DOE Inspector General who for more than nine months did not address the inconsistencies actuated by DOE employees regarding science and violations of DOE rules and regulations that are damaging taxpayers.

 

  1. Following Crosetto’s Appeal regarding the disappearence of official documents which was upheld after Crosetto submitted evidence to the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals, now journalists working in the public interest should follow up to make sure the documents are reinstated and the benefits to taxpayer are guaranteed.

 

  1. Journalists working in the public interest should request NIH and NCI organize a meeting between Crosetto the author of the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) project, and the authors of the Explorer project that is less efficient, cannot save many lives and is ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS.

 

  1. Journalists working in the public interest should ask when Crosetto’s 271-page 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS lifesaving and money-saving proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1), as well as the 59 quotes from industries written in 155 pages, will be examined by the experts appointed by Mr. Joe Biden, head of the Cancer Moonshot project who received $1.8 billion to eradicate cancer and when Crosetto will be given the opportunity to answer face-to-face any objections from opponents.

 

  1. Journalists working in the public interest should ask when Crosetto’s 271-page 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS lifesaving and money-saving proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1), as well as the 59 quotes from industries written in 155 pages will be examines by the experts appointed by Senator Jane Nelson who raised $3 billion to eradicate cancer and when Crosetto will be given the opportunity to answer face-to-face any objections from opponents.

Questions from Diana D’Amari and Darrel Johnson & Crosetto’s answers:

 

DD&DJ: It is inconceivable that in 2017, the scientific community is making the same error they made in 1847. Could you please tell us about this modern day suppression that is happening right now wasting so much money and causing the loss of so many lives?

 

  1. CROSETTO: Unfortunately, mistakes are repeated in history. However, what is important is to make changes and correct them as soon as possible. Your interest in these inconsistencies is what will accelerate the transfer of the benefits of inventions to all of us. There are many facts proving the similarity of my situation compared with Semmelweis. Money and lives were and are still lost today because the scientific community neither organized a public forum for Semmelweis nor for myself to answer the non-scientific objections of the opponents. To facilitate your and the public’s understanding, I have created documents containing three different levels of details. The first level is explained in one page at goo.gl/SA109k. The next level is accessible by clicking on the green box within that page.

 

DD&DJ: As simple as possible — describe your invention and why should we discuss it with experts in particle physics in order to save lives?

 

  1. CROSETTO: My 3D-Flow basic invention of 1992 that has now evolved in 2015 into a new 3D-Flow OPRA invention breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications. It provides technical advantages and benefits to humanity in several fields (e.g. Physics, Medical Imaging, fighting terrorism, etc.). It opens the door to new inventions (e.g. 3D-CBS: 3-D Complete Body Screening). It can find a “needle in a haystack”, or even better, an object within data arriving at a speed that cannot be stored in hard drives because the data would fill all hard drives of the planet in one day. This feature is essential when one wants to find particular signals from radiation. It is necessary to design and build a “trap” that in technical terms in physics is called a “Level-1 Trigger” which is identifying and capturing specific objects among billions of objects per second from data arriving from radiation at ten to over one hundred million frames per second. We cannot stop the radiation and if the “trap” is not working properly, data is lost forever. Medical Imaging devices such as CT, PET, SPECT, X-Ray are based on radiation. To improve these techniques one should first address them with experts in particle physics who extract specific information from radiation. Medical doctors are not experts in particle physics, but they will receive the advantages of more accurate information if these techniques and devices are improved.

DD&DJ: Could you please explain your innovative concept in very simple terms, understandable to investigative journalists to justify them opening an investigation into the benefits lost during the past 25 years?

 

III.    CROSETTO: My innovative concept is so simple that its advantages have been explained with an analogy to Montessori Middle School students in 2000 which was described in a book ISBN 0-9702897-1-5 and to high school students in 2009 as shown in the video (see “goo.gl/tKGUjw” at minute 7:58). First, I defined the problem as needing 30 seconds to analyze the data in each envelope which arrive every 6 seconds. The students began by saying it was impossible and they could only analyze data in one envelope within that time frame and trash the next four. However, in the four trashed envelopes the sought particle (or tumor marker) could be missed. So, together we solved the problem by placing five teams of students in classes along a corridor and one student at the door of each class taking one envelope from the flow, handing it to its class when 30 seconds have elapsed, at the same time, placing in the flow the results of previous calculations from its class, while the other four cycles would bypass envelopes along the corridor. With these synchronized actions, none of the envelopes were trashed and each was analyzed for 30 seconds.

 

Misapplication Of Tax Payer Money To Advance Science

 

DD&DJ: Before addressing the lifesaving application of your invention, you mentioned that it can save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Well…, not wasting our money also matters to us, therefore please explain how.

 

  1. CROSETTO: In physics the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) plus related detectors is the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet costing over $50 billion that required the work of over 10,000 people and took more than 20 years to build. The tradition is that each experiment in physics designs and builds its own “trap” or Level-1 Trigger. Clearly this is the most ambitious, challenging, crucial unit in the system because if it is not working properly all other electronics, and apparatus would be wasting money by capturing mostly garbage data and thousands of scientists would be wasting their time analyzing garbage data, with the exception of perhaps the incidental capture of some good events not for merit of the Level-1 Trigger. Thinking out of the box, in 1992 I invented the 3D-Flow architecture and system “demonstrating the feasibility of executing several Level-1 Trigger algorithms of different experiments” as recognized and stated by Joel Butler and many other leaders in the field. A single 3D-Flow unit for all experiments giving each one more power and flexibility to execute their preferred algorithms. Perhaps during the past 25 years, out of pride, jealousy or other factors not considering scientific merit and saving taxpayer money drove each experiment to develop its own “trap” or Level-1 trigger system. Scientists even developed more than one trap for the same experiment because the first one did not work, ending up spending over $600 million as shown in Figure  Physics_2 (goo.gl/dUidNx). All these systems can be replaced by my more powerful 3D-Flow OPRA system at a total cost of $0.4 million. For example, the well documented CMS Level-1 Trigger system by Wesley Smith made of 4,000 electronic data processing boards costing over $100 million (Smith alone received $50 million of taxpayer money) was trashed on February 26, 2016, and replaced with 100 data processing boards that will be trashed in a few years (or months) like all the others because they do not have the capability to filter the sought particle from the increasing noise in the radiation generated by the increased power of the LHC.

 

 

Wesley Smith CERN-CMS Trigger

 

DD&DJ: This is shocking! $0.4 million instead of $600 million is an enormous savings. Why is so much taxpayer money wasted?

 

  1. CROSETTO: The reason is that influential scientists in the field do not want to be accountable to colleagues proving better approaches in an analytical discussion. Instead, they suppress the inventions like mine which show higher scientific merit. Furthermore, they do not want to be accountable to experimental results obtained in a controlled environment of a laboratory by building instrumentation like my ER/DSU unit (see from page 149 to 170 of goo.gl/w3XlZ1) that will provide the same data recorded from LHC to different units such as the CMS, ATLAS, 3D-Flow OPRA and other Level-1 Trigger systems determining which system is more efficient in finding the sought particle and filtering the background noise.

 

DD&DJ: Why wouldn’t the experts want to prove which system is the most efficient based on the test described in a controlled environment that will show the one that will detect more sought particles?

 

  1. CROSETTO: They prefer not to measure the efficiency of their system in the controlled environment of a lab, but install it in the field where data of the sought particle is generated casually. In this way, no one would ever know the efficiency of each system compared to another system. After a period of time, the authors will claim they need a new system and seek funding. They will trash the old one, spend money to build the new system without verifying analytically and experimentally the efficiency of their systems. As you can see from Figure Physics_2 (goo.gl/dUidNx), this waste of money in physics experiments continues year after year. The $600 million is destined to increase as year after year Wesley Smith has made  so many mistakes and wasted money continues to receive over $4.2 million per year as published on page 16 (goo.gl/9cvmxs)  of his resume for 2016, while my 3D-Flow invention costing $0.4 million (vs. the $600 million cost of the alternative approaches), saving more than 1000 times the expense, continues to go unfunded.

 

 

DD&DJ: We are wondering why investigative journalists and agencies are not revealing this waste of money because influential scientists to not want to be accountable to experimental results from a test of their system in a controlled environment of a laboratory. Now please tell us how your invention in particle physics can provide technological advantages in the field of Medical Imaging and the benefits of saving lives with an effective early cancer detection.

 

VII.  CROSETTO: In physics, good signals extracted from radiation are the characteristics of a new particle, but in Medical Imaging they are the characteristics of cancer cells that start their development. It is important to accurately capture all possible good signals from the tumor marker to reduce the radiation to the patient to the minimum level, to see the start of anomalous biological processes typical of degenerative diseases at the lowest examination cost. The Positron Emission Technology works by injecting into the bloodstream, swallowing or inhaling as a gas a nutrient compound (molecules of glucose, oxygen, carbon, etc.) tagged with a radioisotope (tracer). The nutrient tagged with radioisotope is taken up by the body cells and its path and where it accumulates within the patient’s body is monitored by means of a device that can capture signals emitted (photon pairs) by the decay of the radioisotope. Because cancerous cells take up to 70 times more nutrient than normal cells, positron emission technology allows identification of those cells (or group of cells) that take up more nutrient than normal, thus a suspected cancer site

 

Representation of the principle of operation of Positron Emission Technology. Cancerous tissue (neoplasm) is identified by its natural nutrient uptake (for example: glucose molecules) labeled with a radionuclide. The positron e+ emitted by the radionuclide, after traveling for a distance D, annihilates (collides with) an electron generating two photons that are emitted in opposite directions and their signals detected by the 3D-CBS device.

Figure of the PET Detector. Pairs of photons (or gamma rays) hit two locations on the detector almost at the same time (called in-time coincidence). The intersection of several Line of Response (LOR) connecting those points in time coincidence reveal the concentration quantity of the radioisotopes (or nutrient) in the body cells.

 

The current over 10,000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices in use are capturing approximately one pair of 511 keV photons from every 10,000 emitted from the radioisotope in the patient’s body. My 3D-CBS technology that makes use of the 3D-Flow OPRA can more accurately capture 400 times the number of signals. This provides the advantage of requiring 1% of the radiation of the current 10,000 PET, enabling an effective early cancer detection and reducing the cost of the examination to 10% of the current cost.

The 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) consists of the combination of two medical imaging modalities: the CT (on the left in the figure) measuring the density of the tissues (visualizing the anatomy) by sending X-Rays through the patient’s body (Transmission photons) and the PET (on the right of the figure) measuring the path and concentration of the tracer (nutrient + radioisotope) administered to the patient which is emitting pairs of photons (visualizing the activity of biological processes).

 

The 3D-CBS quantifies the minimum abnormal biological process for many diseases and for instance it displays the hot spot showing abnormality with different colors, providing also the precise quantitative information with a number (numerator in the figure) showing the measurement and the normal value (denominator in the figure) as we are used to see in the results of a blood exam. It measures minimum abnormal biological processes, before anatomical changes take place.

 

 

Crosetto Touts Innovative Efficiency

 

DD&DJ: What is the difference between the other approaches and your invention in filtering the desired sought after particle or tumor marker signals with respect to the other systems?

 

VIII.                        CROSETTO: The big difference between my 3D-Flow OPRA system and the alternative systems, “traps” (or L-1 Trigger in physics and PET in Medical Imaging) on alternative systems are only measuring the “weight” of the sought after object, while I filter the sought objects based on their “weight” and “shape”.

 

DD&DJ: Why is it so important to evaluate by more than just weight?

 

  1. CROSETTO: The drawback is it misses many sought after objects (particles or tumor markers) akin to “throwing away the baby with the bathwater” because the baby could have the same weight as a stone and it requires an object pattern recognition “shape” to decide which objects need retaining and which ones needs filtering.

 

DD&DJ: Is weight and shape the only difference between these two approaches? If not, what other differences set it apart?

 

  1. CROSETTO: The weight and shape is just the difference in the concept, however, there are many other differences in the implementation of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention that can replace 4,000 electronic boards housed in hundreds of crates in a room of approximately 22m x 16m, with 9 boards, housed in one crate 0.5m x 0.8m, providing unprecedented powerful tools to experimental physicists with a staggering performance improvement at 1/1000th the cost. In the Medical Imaging application, my 3D-CBS that makes use of the 3D-Flow OPRA is hundreds of times more efficient than the over 10,000 current PET with the potential to save many lives through an effective early cancer detection and is more efficient and ten times less expensive than the Explorer that received $15.5 million from NIH. The 3D-CBS creates a paradigm change in molecular imaging because for the first time it can provide at once, three features that no other medical imaging device can offer: a) effective early cancer detection, b) 1% the radiation dose of the current PET and c) a 4-minute affordable examination cost, covering all organs of the body that can replace more cost-effectively several screening procedures such as the mammogram, PAP-test, colonoscopy, PSA, etc.

 

 

DD&DJ: Is your invention just a theoretical concept or how can you prove it works?

 

  1. CROSETTO: The proof of concept has been presented functional in hardware in two large FPGAs chips, each housing four 3D-Flow processors at the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in San Diego, California, where scientists could set a desired input pattern on switches, see if the cluster was found or not on the LED display and the timing of the signals on the oscilloscope.

 

 

The 3D-Flow system was proven functional in hardware in two modular electronic boards, each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors that were presented at the 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Portland, Oregon (goo.gl/RiIn0B).

 

My 3D-Flow OPRA invention is technology-independent; therefore, its direct applications and the derivative inventions such as the 3D-CBS for early cancer detection can use the advantages of the latest technology. In 2015, the Director of the Office of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. Jim Siegrist, who was my supervisor when we both worked at the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas in 1991-94, knew the value of my invention. Perhaps he realized that during all these years the Level-1 Trigger in different experiments did not have a solution and insisted during several phone calls and emails that I should submit a formal proposal of my invention to the DOE. He charged Glen Crawford at a lower level of the DOE hierarchy, to provide the solicitation appropriate for the submission and follow up of technical issues. I worked diligently with several reputable companies who prepared 59 quotes proving the feasibility of my invention for physics and the medical imaging application providing a staggering performance improvement at a fraction of the cost compared to current systems in both applications as stated earlier. On December 22, 2015, I then formally submitted a 400+ page proposal of my new 3D-Flow OPRA system and 3D-CBS to the Department of Energy for funding (#0000222704 to DE-FOA-0001414, CFDA: 81.049).

Suppression And ‘The Semmelweis Effect’

DD&DJ: What is the Department of Energy doing with the 400 pages you gave them?
XII.  CROSETTO: Apparently, they destroyed them with several other documents and official correspondence with DOE officers, including the May 19, 2016, 8-line email from DOE officer, Glen Crawford (goo.gl/Ycm3ph), where he contradicts at the end of one line what he stated earlier, self-incriminated himself referring to nonexistent rules and regulations to support unsubstantiated statements and formal actions which need to be investigated as abuse of power. This was the result provided by DOE-FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) on September 30, 2016, to my inquiry of July 29, 2016. My appeal to the DOE Hearing and Appeals Office on December 29, 2016, where I included in my appeal proofs that hundreds of pages of documents were apparently destroyed, was granted. However, so far it looks like my 400+ page invention and related correspondence with the DOE were destroyed. Because of Crawford’s self-incriminating email, the disappearance of documents, and several other inconsistencies with the DOE rules and mission, such as denying receiving my correspondence, and blocking my email communication with the DOE that apparently was set by Crawford on July 26, 2016, I have submitted all the above to the DOE Inspector General for investigation. I was told to expect a response within one or two weeks from my submission; however, after 9 months I have not received any information about the DOE internal investigation. Because I do not have a way to pressure for transparency and justice on these inconsistencies which are damaging taxpayers, and investigative journalists who have the ability to reach the public and who work in their best interest, could pressure the DOE on their behalf to resolve these inconsistencies complying with their rules and mandate from the taxpayers.

 

DD&DJ: Mr. Crosetto, we are outraged to know that they would destroy this incredible, valuable information. Why exactly did funding stop 18 years ago since your project seemed to be accepted by your peers? Why would the DOE destroy your proposal after they had requested you to submit one in 2015?

 

XIII.CROSETTO: My 3D-Flow architecture was recognized a valuable invention by the major international public scientific review held in 1993 at Fermilab (goo.gl/zP76Tc). The first line of the summary recognizes the invention as “an interesting and unique concept”. Page 6 of the report states “…given this feature experimenters would probably think of clever uses not now possible” which clearly recognizes opening the door beyond the imagination of future science. The committee assigned all money available during the SSC closeout, $150,000, “…to leave the project in a state where it could be continued”. In 1995, the DOE granted me $906,000 to continue the project. I developed all software tools (the 3D-Flow simulator, editor, assembler, real-time design process, verification tools at the system level generating test vectors at the gate level, etc.).

I hired Synopsys as consultant for the design of the ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit). They completed the design of the 3D-Flow ASIC and generated the files ready to be sent to the silicon foundry to create the chip; however, the DOE never provided funding to create the chip, the project aborted there because influential scientists of other experiment such as W. Smith from Wisconsin University for the CMS experiment and the universities of Orsay, France and Bologna, Italy for the LHCb experiment and other scientists had the interest to get their project funded although with less scientific merit. Some investigative journalists wrote to me that they could not find a guarantee that my project would work. Because Synopsys is among the most reputable of ASIC design houses and generate the best software tools for the synthesis of logical circuit into target silicon technologies. Because the president of IEEE, the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity, is Dr. Karen Bartleson, Senior Director of Corporate Programs and Initiatives at Synopsys, these journalists can ask her if the software tools and services provided by Synopsys can guarantee the ASIC is working or not. In 2015, Jim Siegrist, Director of the Office of Science at the U.S. DOE, who knew the value of my invention from the time he was my supervisor at the Superconducting Super Collider in 1991-94, perhaps naively believed my Invention would receive a fair competition for funding and insisted over the phone and via email that I submit a formal proposal. He also agreed that I could give a presentation of my invention to his colleagues (as I did previously in 1999) during the summer of 2015. In July, he asked that I wait until everyone at the DOE returned from their summer vacation; however, my presentation was still blocked as has happened at conferences and many other places where there is competition for funding projects for the Level-1 Trigger. Instead, Wesley Smith, despite his CMS Level-1 Trigger with 4,000 electronic boards being trashed on February 26, 2016, received $4.2 million funding for the year 2016 and the documents of my proposal were destroyed.

 

DD&DJ: How long do you estimate it would take to build and test your 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS?

 

XIV.                        CROSETTO: The detailed timeline reported on page 214 of the proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) which is based on the 59 quotes of different components from industries (for each component I received two to three quotes) shows the detailed phases of the work plan synchronizing the delivery of the different components assembled by a team of 12 people, estimates it will take 2 years. At the end of the 2 years, the following units are planned to be fully tested:

  • The 3D-Flow ASIC with 64 x 3D-Flow processors
  • Two ER/DSU units each with 8,192 channels at 320MHz per channel to replace the functionality of the current LHC power allowing to test the efficiency of the CMS, Atlas, 3D-Flow OPRA and other Level-1 trigger systems, as well as the 3D-CBS and other devices for medical imaging.
  • Two ER/DSU units each with 4,096 channels at 640MHz per channel to replace the functionality of the future LHC at higher power and luminosity allowing to test the efficiency of the CMS, Atlas, 3D-Flow OPRA and other Level-1 Trigger systems with more data from additional sub-detectors.
  • One 3D-Flow unit in 16 x VXI boards with 8,192 channels capable of sustaining 1.3TB/sec input data rate for Level-1 Trigger applications in physics.
  • One 3D-Flow unit in 16 x VME boards with 4,096 channels capable to sustain 0.65TB/sec for Level-1 Trigger applications in physics or by using only 9 x VME boards with 2,304 channels capable of sustaining 368GB/sec for the 3D-CBS medical imaging application.

DD&DJ: In what way are your inventions being suppressed? By whom, and why?

 

CROSETTO: You can find much information answering this question in my letter to Butler, Lankford and Pastrone dated March 10, 2017 (goo.gl/IkXrEm), in the one page Figure Physics_2 (goo.gl/dUidNx) and related links. In particular Wesley Smith prevented me from presenting my inventions at the Workshop on the Electronics for LHC at Snowmass, Colorado, in 1999 because he was presenting his project of 4,000 electronic data processing boards (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) and received over $50 million alone which is the sum of the grants Smith listed in his resume from page 13 to page 16 (goo.gl/9cvmxs) for a project that was trashed on February 26, 2016.  It was trashed because it did not have the capability to find the sought after particle because it measured only the “weight”. In the field of Medical imaging the one page table comparing my 3D-CBS with the Explorer (goo.gl/tmTZ9O) with the links to the source data reported at the bottom of the table and several other documents/references that I can show you, will provide information who received the money for a project that is less efficient and more costly than mine and how several of these people rejected and suppressed my innovations during these past decades. Despite the Explorer project copying several of my ideas and many of the Explorer’s authors rejecting those ideas when used in my project for decades, Bill Moses, one of the authors, did not object to any cited data for their Explorer in my comparison table (goo.gl/tmTZ9O). He did not object to my claims of the superiority and cost-effectiveness of the 3D-CBS compared to the Explorer and added that they were not going to build the Explorer as specified in their proposal to NIH that was correctly reported in my table. He did not deny that some of my new ideas were copied as well as those showing advantages in the table could be copied, adding that they will give NIH money to industries and do not know which electronics they will get from them. When I pointed out that it would not be fair to taxpayers to use their money to build the Explorer knowing that it is less efficient and over ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS, he agreed to discuss this before the NIH funding agency if Michael Lauer, NIH Director of Extramural Research, would call for a meeting. However, NIH and NCI Directors and Lauer never answered my request to grant such a meeting. Neither did the former US Vice-President, Mr. Joe Biden answer, head of the Cancer Moonshot project who received two paper copies of my 271-page proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) and 155pages of the 59 quotes from industries. I hand delivered one copy to Biden when he was at the World Economic Congress in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2016 and another copy was sent to him via U.S. postal service certified mail. On December 13, 2016, a paper copy of both documents were also hand delivered to the office of Texas State Senator, Jane Nelson, who had raised $3 billion to eradicate cancer. These agencies continue to assign millions of dollars of taxpayer money to cancer research projects that so far have not significantly reduced cancer deaths without knowing that their reviewers could receive help to understand and evaluate my breakthrough invention based on particle physics from Joel Butler, Andrew Lankford and Nadia Pastrone, named by the CERN Director General to organize a discussion/review with experts in particle physics to examine my 400+ page proposal.

 

The 3D-CBS outperforms the Explorer which was funded by NIH for $15.5 million in October 2015.  The authors, who for many years rejected the 3D-CBS, copied many of its ideas.  However, the 3D-CBS intense computation capability at the front-end using 3D-Flow OPRA, provides more accurate measurements with less than 3,000  economical (BGO) crystals compared to 500,000 expensive (LYSO x5 the cost of BGO) crystals used by the Explorer project. The 3D-CBS technological advantages offer the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs.

 

 

Table I  Features of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS (3D-Complete Body Screening) compared to the Explorer by Simon Cherry at al.

Description EXPLORER 3D-CBS
Crystal Type Expensive LYSO 491,520 crystals Economical BGO <3,000

crystals

Number of electronic channels 1,920 2,304
Number of Channels per Board 16 256
Number of Detector Boards 120 9
Number of Crates housing the Detector Boards (the 3D-CBS crate is also housing the computer to process valid data and provide results in analytical and graphical form) 12 1
Capability to acquire and process data each day 40 TB >40,000 TB
Hard Drive’s size needed each day 40 TB 1 GB
Number of racks containing computers to process acquired data 4 to 6 0
Power Consumption 40 to 60 kW 3 to 4 kW
Sensitivity Less than the 3D-CBS Ultra-Sensitive
Cost of the Device 30 to 50 times current PET 2 to 3 times current PET
Examination Cost

(what matters to the patient)

Higher than current cost because the throughput cannot be 30 to 50 times current PET Lower than current cost because the throughput can be higher than 2 to 3 times current PET
Potential to save millions of lives

(what should matter to humanity: to solve the world’s most deadly calamity)

Cannot prove to save lives on a sample population because each day it cannot process 40,000 TB data from tumor markers Can prove on a sample population to save many lives because each day it can process cost-effectively over 40,000 TB data from tumor markers
Potential to reduce healthcare costs

(what should matter to politicians to solve the world’s most costly calamity)

Increases healthcare cost because of its exorbitant cost; losing many lives lowers productivity The lower examination cost saves many lives; who return to be productive and are removed from healthcare bill

 

Data for the Explorer reported in the above table are derived from publications, slide (goo.gl/BpqjAj) presentations and several (goo.gl/RG8COf) press (goo.gl/ovMZ5j) releases (goo.gl/Tl95NN) made (goo.gl/NpNNNr) by the authors (goo.gl/xcBe0Q) of the (goo.gl/W6cZ9Y) Explorer and from calculations based on the data reported in the articles.

Data and feasibility (goo.gl/6DS5oy) of the 3D-CBS (goo.gl/YGg04E) (3D-Complete Body Screening) is proven by the 3D-Flow (goo.gl/5EUkYe) innovative basic concept proven feasible and functional in hardware in two modular boards (goo.gl/ymgnXz) each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors and recently the 3D-Flow OPRA (goo.gl/goYPv9) proven feasible and cost-effective by 59 quotes from reputable industries

 

DD&DJ:  Can you give us the names of other experts on the issue that could comment on your technology?

 

  1. CROSETTO: I would like to provide the same names provided by the CERN Director General, Dr. Fabiola Gianotti on February 2, 2017 to the President of the Socialists Democrats and his collaborators who, in several letters asked her to organize the presentation of my inventions at CERN followed by a public scientific review of my inventions. These names of experts on the issue suggested by the CERN Director General are:

 

Andrew Lankford,    Deputy Spokesman of the ATLAS Collaboration at CERN, Chairman of the High-Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). Email: ajlankfo@uci.edu

Joel Butler,                Spokesman of CMS Collaboration at CERN, former Director of the Computing Division at Fermialb. Email: joel.butler@cern.ch

Nadia Pastrone,        President of the INFN Committee for Particle Physics (CSN1). Representing the CMS Italian Collaboration at CERN. Email: nadia.pastrone@cern.ch

 

In an official letter (goo.gl/ZJh0Kg) in 1995 Butler wrote: “The 3D-Flow project is the only detailed study demonstrating the feasibility of executing several level-1 trigger algorithms of different experiments… I would like to strongly endorse funding…“ and Lankford in an official letter (goo.gl/8jaxDH) in 1993 wrote: “The ‘3D-Flow’ concept has potential for applications in nearly any future high energy physics experiment.” After providing the 271-page document of my detailed proposal replacing 4,000 electronic boards of the CMS Level-1 Trigger with 9 x 3D-Flow OPRA boards proven feasible by 59 quotes, providing higher performance at 1/1000 the cost of the CMS L-1 Trigger and telling Nadia Pastrone that the coordinator of the CMS Trigger stated he was not interested, on June 3, 2016, during a phone conversation with her, she stated: “You are right, I see your point… before next week I will provide you an answer… It is clear that if what you propose is saving money, I do not see the reason why it should not be examined…, I see your point…, I do not need anything formal, because as you know in this field formality is not important what counts is the substance. Do you agree?” However, after more than nine months I have not received an answer and after nearly two months from her being appointed by the CERN Director General to organize with Butler and Lankford a discussion/review of my inventions at CERN, we are still waiting.

 

Please ask officially in a way that the FDN could publish the answers:

The question to Butler and Lankford: Would you please provide the reference to any alternative Level-1 Trigger project for which you could make a similar statement today?”

 

The question to Nadia Pastrone: “Because you agree that a project saving money should be examined and what is important in science is the substance, when will you give an opportunity to Crosetto to present his invention at CERN to the scientists who built a less performing and more expensive system and discuss the current and future L-1 Triggers?

 

I can also provide you excerpts from several letters (goo.gl/GIC5aR) of people who care to advance science, reduce cancer deaths and want justice who wrote letters of support (see the links to a few full letters at goo.gl/VXBx33). However, several of these people have retired. Others who are still active may be worried about repercussions for criticizing their colleagues, therefore I suggest referring to the names suggested by the CERN Director General.

 

DD&DJ: Thank you for your precise, eye-opening answers and information.  At this point, it is clear there are solid grounds to request an investigation from journalists and/or agencies who are working in the public’s best interest. Our understanding of the case, since you have done all that you can and people who should take responsibility do not answer, is to ask questions ourselves to those who have the responsibility to address this issue. Thank you to the Focus Daily News and we ask investigative journalists and agencies to take up this case that is of extreme importance and urgency to be addressed and resolved for the best interest of the public.

 

 

 

Questions For Decision Makers

 

We have identified 1) some urgent actions and questions to the three experts indicated by CERN Director General to organize a discussion/review of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA invention at CERN, 2) important issues to be addressed in this discussion/review 3) help from investigative journalists is necessary to analyze the obstacles to fund projects with highest scientific merits, 4) help from investigators to stop the scientific community from suppressing innovative ideas and 5) help from investigative journalists is needed to remove immediate roadblocks to make the scientific truth for the benefit of taxpayers emerge.

 

To be more precise with our questions we ask Crosetto for his assistance to formulate the questions with technical content.

 

  1. URGENT ACTIONS AND QUESTIONS FOR THE THREE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD APPOINTED BY CERN DIRECTOR GENERAL TO ORGANIZE A DISCUSSION/REVIEW:

 

  1. URGENT ACTIONS: Because in the cases of Semmelweis and Crosetto it is clear that the key for accelerating the benefits to humanity is for the scientific community to organize a public forum for Crosetto to present his inventions and address non-scientific objections of his opponents beginning with CERN, and this must be organized as soon as possible. Because the CERN Director General has identified Butler, Lankford and Pastrone as experts in the field a swift action should be taken by them to organize such presentation/review of Crosetto’s invention at CERN.

 

  1. QUESTION TO LANKFORD AND BUTLER: In reference to the written statements by Andrew Lankford in 1993 and Joel Butler in 1995, the answer to the following question would help to initiate a discussion on concrete issues: “Would you please provide the reference to any alternative Level-1 Trigger project for which you could make a similar statement today?”

 

  1. QUESTION TO PASTRONE: In reference to Pastrone’s June 3rd, 2016, statements to Crosetto: “You are right, I see your point… before next week I will provide you an answer… It is clear that if what you propose is saving money, I do not see the reason why it should not be examined…, I see your point…, I do not need anything formal, because as you know in this field formality is not important what counts is the substance. Do you agree?” The following question would help to accelerate the benefits from inventions to taxpayers: “Would you please swiftly move forward in the direction you stated over nine months ago and also requested by the CERN Director General two months ago and organize with Butler and Lankford a discussion/review of Crosetto’s inventions?

 

  1. important issues to be addressed in this discussion/review:

 

  1. “SHAPE” vs. “WEIGHT”: Question aimed to filter sought object from data (radiation) arriving at very high speed based on “weight” or “weight & shape”: “Would you agree to a public discussion between the authors of current Level-1 Triggers which select good events based on a threshold on energy deposition and Crosetto’s more economical 3D-Flow OPRA system selecting good events based on the energy deposition and the shape of the object?This would avoid missing good events having the same energy as the background noise, akin to “throwing away the baby with the bathwater” because the weight might be the same as a stone and its shape was not checked.

 

  1. COMPARING EFFICIENCY IN THE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT OF A LAB BEFORE INSTALLING A DEVICE IN THE FIELD. Question about testing the efficiency of Level-1 Trigger systems in a laboratory with instruments in a controlled environment, rather than in the field in an uncontrolled environment:Would you agree that if there is a disagreement on analytical results between Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA approach proven feasible by 59 quotes and the authors of the alternative Level-1 Trigger systems, the “judge” should be experimental results in a controlled environment on a test-bench in a laboratory using real raw data recorded by the ER/DSU unit from LHC rather than in the field in an uncontrolled environment?”

 

  1. Help from investigative journalists is necessary to analyze the obstacles AND fund projects with highest scientific merit. This is also needed to support transparency in science and let scientists who made mistakes take responsibility in a public forum rather than defend and cover up their mistakes: “Because hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on several Level-1 Trigger systems whose analytical results appeared before construction to be less efficient and more costly than Crosetto’s 3D-Flow system, would you agree to a public forum between Crosetto and the authors of these systems so they can take responsibility before taxpayers for their wrong approach/concept rather than placing the responsibility on leaders like Butler, Lankford and many others who instead, endorse Crosetto’s approach/concept to be the correct one as well as on the institutions like CERN?

 

  1. Help from investigative journalists to stop the scientific community from suppressing innovative ideas. This is also needed to support transparency in science and let scientists who are suppressing colleagues’ innovations take responsibility in a public forum rather than defend and cover up their wrong doing. Because Crosetto’s inventions are suppressed and his latest 3D-Flow OPRA project proven feasible by 59 quotes from industry, that can replace CMS 4,000 electronic boards with 9 boards providing higher performance at a fraction of the CMS system cost submitted to a funding agency and made public on December 22, 2015, has been suppressed by anonymous reviewers for publication and the project and 59 quotes have not been examined would you agree on the following: “Would you agree that it is urgent to give the opportunity for Crosetto to present his 3D-Flow OPRA project at CERN where hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on similar systems and where he can answer the non-scientific objections of his opponents? Would you agree that it is necessary to make them take responsibility for the wasted taxpayer money rather than placing the responsibility on leaders like Butler, Lankford and many others who instead endorse Crosetto’s approach/concept to be the correct one as well as on the institutions like CERN?”

 

  1. HELP FROM INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS IS NEEDED TO REMOVE ROADBLOCKS, CLARIFY INCONSISTENCIES AND VIOLATIONS TO LAWS AND RULES BY EMPLOYEES OF SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS AND GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCIES

 

  1. In 2015, the Director of the Office of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. Jim Siegrist, who was Crosetto’s supervisor when they both worked at the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas in 1991-94, knew the value of his invention. He promised Crosetto could give a presentation of his invention to his colleagues at DOE (as he did previously in 1999) during the summer of 2015. In July, Dr. Siegrist asked that Crosetto wait until everyone at the DOE returned from their summer vacation; however, Crosetto’s presentation was still blocked as has happened at conferences and many other places where there is competition for funding projects for the Level-1 Trigger. Journalists working in the public interest should request the DOE allow Crosetto to give the presentation they had promised. There he can answer questions from his opponents including Glen Crawford and Wesley Smith, who after wasting over $50 million on the CMS L-1 Trigger which was trashed on February 26, 2016, continues to receive funds from DOE (e.g. $4.2 million in 2016) for projects that waste taxpayer money.

 

  1. In 2016, the DOE destroyed over 400 pages of Crosetto’s proposal which they had requested he submit in 2015. They were destroyed with several other documents and official correspondence between Crosetto and DOE officers was blocked. This is appalling. Investigative journalists should not tolerate this behavior and immediately challenge it. An investigation should be opened into the destroying of official documents by DOE officers and their blockage of the correspondence with Crosetto on scientific issues advancing science and saving taxpayer money.

 

  1. On July 26, 2016, the DOE Inspector General promised to respond within one or two weeks to Crosetto’s submission of irregularities from DOE officers, including Glen Crawford (goo.gl/Ycm3ph), who contradicted and incriminated himself by referring to nonexistent rules and regulations to support unsubstantiated statements and formal actions resulting in abuse of power. However, after nine months no response was provided. An investigation should be opened into the DOE Inspector General who for more than nine months did not address the inconsistencies actuated by DOE employees regarding science and violations of DOE rules and regulations that are damaging taxpayers.

 

  1. On September 30, 2016, The DOE-FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) confirmed that Crosetto’s 400+ page proposal and other official emails and letters exchanged with the DOE were destroyed. However, to date there has been no resolution on how to replace Crosetto’s documents on file, and no resolution to Crawford’s contradictory statement which impedes email exchanges with the DOE and denies a resubmission of the proposal. Following Crosetto’s Appeal regarding the disappearance of official documents, now journalists working in the public interest should follow up to make sure the documents are reinstated and the benefits to taxpayer are guaranteed

 

  1. The Directors of NIH, NCI, and Michael Lauer, Director of NIH Extramural Research, continue to fund the Explorer project with $15.5 million of taxpayer money knowing that it is less efficient and over ten times more expensive than Crosetto’s 3D-CBS. They will not organize a meeting between Crosetto and the authors of the Explorer which would shed light on the wastage of taxpayer money for more expensive and less efficient devices. Journalists working in the public interest should request NIH and NCI organize a meeting between Crosetto – the author of the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) project, and the authors of the Explorer project that is less efficient, cannot save many lives and is ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS.

 

  1. In January and March of 2016, Former U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden, head of the Cancer Moonshot project who received $1.8 billion in December of 2016 to eradicate cancer, received two paper copies of Crosetto’s 271-page proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) and the 59 quotes from industries written on 155 pages, but has not provided a reason why other more expensive projects with lower potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost are being funded and has not appointed scientific reviewers to examine the section of Crosetto’s 217-page proposal related to the 3D-CBS for an effective early cancer detection. His innovations continue to be suppressed. Journalists working in the public interest should ask when Crosetto’s 271-page 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS life-saving and money-saving proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1), as well as the 59 quotes from industries written in 155 pages, will be examined by the experts appointed by Mr. Joe Biden, and when Crosetto will be given the opportunity to answer face-to-face any objections from opponents

 

  1. On December 13, 2016, Texas State Senator Jane Nelson who raised $3 billion to eradicate cancer received a paper copy of Crosetto’s 271-page proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) and the 155 pages containing the 59 quotes from industries but has not provided a reason why other more expensive projects with lower potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost are being funded and does not appoint scientific reviewers to examine the section of Crosetto’s 217-page proposal related to the 3D-CBS for an effective early cancer detection. Crosetto’s innovations continue to be suppressed. Journalists working in the public interest should ask when Crosetto’s 271-page 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS life-saving and money-saving proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1), as well as the 59 quotes from industries written in 155 pages, will be examined by the experts appointed by Senator Jane Nelson and when Crosetto will be given the opportunity to answer face-to-face any objections from opponents.

 

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