Dear Dr. Michael Corbat, CEO of Citigroup, Dear Dr. James Forese, President of Citigroup, Dear members of the Board of Directors and the Executive board of Citigroup, Dear decision makers, leaders in the field, investigative journalists and those who care to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail, we should work together to demand and implement transparency in science (please see APPEDIX for references to information supporting these claims). What is needed is to address the real problem that influential scientists handling taxpayer money have the responsibility to make the scientific truth emerge through transparent, public, scientific reviews, rather than wasting taxpayer money.
Thank you for sending your letter (goo.gl/NPpdZF) from the Office of the President dated April 17, 2017, stating “Please accept this letter as a confirmation that your concerns are currently under review. You will be promptly notified upon completion of our investigation. We appreciate your patience in the interim and are committed to providing you the best possible service.”
However, I never received your letter addressing my concerns expressed in my letters dated April 14, 2017 (in PDF at “goo.gl/4LP2rF” and in HTML at “http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1974”) and May 5, 2017 (in PDF at “goo. gl/H0ycXn” and in HTML at “http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1981”).
Instead I just discovered that your officers have reported me to the credit bureau and destroyed my credit that took me 26 years to build. This is not taking in good consideration your customer’s concerns as I am for 22 years.
As you can see from the attachment (goo.gl/iwWxPh) on September 3, 2016, my credit scores were all “Exceptional” as follows:
– Experian 822
– Equifax 834
– TransUnion 827
I discovered this because the same day I received a rejection for the application of a credit card with zero interest for 7 months. The Rejection stated: “You have an unsatisfactory payment history on your personal credit report”.
I immediately looked at my credit report and I didn’t see a single late payment reported during the past 25 years in my 5 credit cards, except one late payment 30+ days and one late payment 60+ days reported by your officers (goo.gl/iET0Z7) for the month of April and May 2017 instead of providing an answer to my letter dated April 14, 2017 as promised in your letter dated April 17, 2017.
Because I was not receiving an answer to my letter, on May 5, 2017, I wrote another letter, and on May 6, 2017 I answered the call from your office (+1-800-388-2200), hoping the agents would give me the good news that my concerns were addressed and found reasonable. I remained on the phone for 88 minutes. The first agent I spoke with was not aware of any of my letters. The second agent, Ms. Sheema claimed she was not aware of any of my letters as well. The third agent, Bryan who was the senior supervisor at the highest level did not address my concerns.
Bryan told me that there was a note on the Citigroup computer system that your response letter to my concerns was placed in the mail on May 3rd, 2017, therefore I should receive it in a few days. Such letter addressing my concerns never arrived.
- My concern is to greatly reduce the risk for you, your grandchildren, your dear ones and humanity to die prematurely from cancer, by building an effective 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) device targeted to early cancer detection which I made available for the past 17 years.
- My concern has been to inform you and other decision makers about my life-saving technology. I have done this by using my resources, dedicating my time and life for two decades and using also the credit line on my personal account trusting to have your consideration for the compassion I had toward the millions of people who have suffered and died needlessly from cancer (many of the 8.2 million dying from cancer every year) knowing that many of them could be saved with my 3D-CBS innovation.
- My concern has been to inform you that it would have been for your interest and for the interest of all your agents and personnel working for Citigroup to support scientific procedures as I have been pursuing during the past two decades to make the scientific truth beneficial to you and humanity prevail. Because Citigroup Citi Treasury and Trade Solutions (TTS) intermediates more than $3 trillion in global transactions daily and their concerns in 2008 were addressed by the government that shoulder their losses and inject new capital of $306 billion, making exceptions to all rules in place, it would have been logical to expect that in turn, Citigroup would have addressed my compelling case of a few influential scientists who are damaging science and humanity by suppressing innovations. It would have been logical to expect to understand that the compliance of the scientists with their job is long overdue and to contribute with a few thousand dollars (not billions of dollars as the Government did with Citigroup) to allow me to carry on with this important work. As I said before, this problem with Citigroup and many other problems would not exist if a few influential scientists handling taxpayers money would have addressed this issue following transparent, public, scientific procedures instead of suppressing innovations.
- My concern has been to inform you that it is not logical to ask a person with no income, working for your benefit, the benefit of Citigroup employees and the benefit of humanity, to pay Citigroup so it can make a profit on the cause benefitting them. If you do not want to contribute to this cause for the great benefit of humanity in defeating the most deadly and costly calamity, at least do not hurt others because you want to make a high profit by all means (200% profit, receiving an additional $9,000 in fees and interest on a $9,000 debt already paid).
- My concern is to explain and prove with the accounting reported in your credit card statements that I paid all my expenses charged to my personal credit card. In fact, on March 2017 when I stopped paying your invoices I already paid $1,390.83 more than my expenses charged to the credit card. The total of my payments in fees and interests reported at this link (goo.gl/AlWHvC) were the following: in 2013, $569.42 in fees and $799.36 in interest; in 2014, $2,190.51 in fees and $529.37 in interest; in 2015, $1,596.97 in interest; in 2016, $1,355.79 in fees and $2,769.75 in interest; and for 2017, to the date of March 27, $111.00 in fees and $306.38 in interest, totaling to $10,228.55. The money you were asking me to close the deal on March 27th when I stopped payments was $8,837.72 (see statement at “goo.gl/3Rx9UG”), however, I already gave Citigroup $1,390.83 more than what I charged to the credit card.
- My concern is to explain that the suggestion received over the phone on May 6, 2017 from Bryan, the Citigroup senior agent, to borrow money from others is not solving the problem because it is just passing on to others and it shows not having concerns for others asking them to make a payment so Citigroup will make a profit to a cause that is beneficial to them. What is needed is to address the real problem that influential scientists handling taxpayer money have the responsibility to make the scientific truth emerge through transparent, public, scientific reviews, rather than wasting taxpayer money.
- My concern is to explain that this case now falls into the category of cases discussed on the phone with Citigroup agent, Esperanza on April 17, 2017 when we discussed the article titled “New credit card rules lift pressure on banks” published in The Daily Telegraph on April 4, 2017, which states: “…The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has unveiled a host of proposals that would force firms to help consumers laboring under long-term credit card debts, including cancelling interests or charges for customers who are unable to clear their balances through a repayment plan…” With the latest actions by Citigroup of reporting my 30 and 60 days late payments instead of answering my letters, addressing my concerns as promised in your letter dated April 17, 2017, now my credit score is at 627, I applied for a new credit card offering 7 months, zero interest and I was rejected because of your reporting to the credit bureau. Your action has created a cycle that is destroying not only my credit but also me personally and my ability to continue my life saving technology effort.
For all the above reasons, I respectfully ask you, Dr. Michael Corbat, Dr. James Forese, the members of Citigroup Board of Directors to ask your agents at Citigroup to STOP hurting me and my cause. Please ask them to give up coming after me, to STOP a collection procedure on May 27, 2017 if I do not pay fees and interest as I was told by your agent, Bryan on the phone on May 6, 2017, causing more damage in taking out my chair, table, computers, oscilloscopes, logic state analyzer, taking away from me all resources crushing my inventions forever.
By starting the collection procedure on May 27, 2017, to remove my tools that will impede me to continue my research, Citigroup which has already destroyed my credit score that took me 26 years to build and now contributing more to destroy me personally with the collection, is on the path to repeat, 172 years later, the same scenario Semmelweis experienced in 1847. (See goo.gl/SA109k).
If your office would have responded as they promised on April 17, 2017 and addressed point by point my concerns in my letter dated April 14, 2017 and the following on May 5, 2017, we would not find ourselves in this situation and we would have hopefully resolved the issue in a reasonable way, addressing all above concerns as the Government addressed Citigroup concerns in 2008 and shouldered you with $306 billion. Instead I have received over 700 phone calls to my cell and home phone from Citigroup, including weekends. Just during the last 12 days I received 52 phone calls on my cell phone, many on my home phone and 12 voice messages on my answering machine each for 29 seconds. When I answer the phone the Citigroup agent is not aware of any exchange of correspondence with the Office of the President and do not have access to any correspondence nor are willing to address any concern.
I have a larger debt on other credit cards that is at zero interest, however, I cannot have more because I have been rejected on May 17, 2017 by another credit card as a consequence of Citigroup lowering my credit score from 834 to 627. Instead of charging me $10,228.55 in fees and interests, Citigroup could address my concerns listed above that can be solved by making the scientists accountable to implement transparent scientific procedures to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail. Their answers are long overdue and are the reason why my concerns deserve to be considered.
I cannot solve the cancer problem alone, not even if I am not paid with a salary for 17 years, working constantly with dedication, and it is unfair to ask me to pay a profit to Citigroup for $10,288.55 in interests and fees while I am working for their benefit, for the benefit of their grandchildren, future generations and humanity because I have considerations to reduce their risk of dying prematurely from cancer with an effective early detection. It will be logical and reasonable if Citigroup will appoint experts to examine my work and inventions and if their experts cannot find any other approach or project more cost-effective in discovering new particles, advancing in science and significantly reduce cancer deaths, because of the resources Citigroup has, it will be logical and reasonable to pay me a salary rather than asking me to pay them interests and fees for Citigroup profit.
I trust you will take action to resolve this issue. I will look forward to your prompt response via return e-mail.
APPENDIX: REFERENCES TO CROSETTO’S INVENTIONS
There is solid proof that over 50% of cancer deaths can be avoided with early detection as there are many treatment options when cancer is detected early and most have great success. Treatments, however, do not work when detected in cancer’s later stages. Take for example colon cancer: If caught early it has a 91% survival rate, versus 11% if caught too late. Breast cancer has a 98% survival rate when detected at an early stage and 27% when detected late. What is missing is a non-invasive diagnostic device effective for early cancer detection.
A solution providing effective early cancer detection has existed for 17 years. It is the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) life-saving technology based on the 3D-Flow OPRA invention. I can help investigative journalists working for this cause to inform them and the public, but I do not have your experience and your connections to the public.
We cannot let the public down on these two important issues. You should give them a high priority because of the number of lives they affect and who will benefit. (Please sign the Petition at: goo.gl/dzmYCz)
What is missing is a non-invasive diagnostic device, effective for early cancer detection in all organs of the body that can capture the most relevant and reliable signals related to the mutation of the very first normal cells into cancerous cells. Among the change in odor, temperature, conductivity, fluorescence, density, metabolism etc. of normal cells into cancerous cells, the most reliable signal is the one related to a change in metabolism. Cancerous cells eat from 5 to 70 times more nutrient than normal cells because they grow faster than normal cells -the more aggressive the tumor is, the more nutrient it eats. The technique to track the nutrient delivered by the blood stream to the trillion cells in our body is called Positron Emission Technology (PET). It works by tagging the molecules of the nutrient to the body cells such as oxygen, glucose etc. with a radioisotope (radiation) that is emitting two 511 keV photons in opposite direction with an energy that can pass through flesh and bones and exit the body of the patient. The PET technique was invented in 1953 and today we have over 10,000 PET devices in use in hospitals. However, these PET devices are not useful for early detection because of their inefficiency of capturing only about 1 out of 10,000 pairs of good photons, requiring a high radiation dose to the patient. Because the basic technology is related to the efficiency in detecting specific subatomic particles among a huge number of signals received from the radiation, the breakthrough must come from the field of particle physics and should be in the Level-1 Trigger unit (or “The Trap”). My 3D-Flow invention that breaks the speed barrier in real-time application provides this breakthrough and has been recognized as valuable by academia, industries and research centers at a major public, scientific, international review (goo.gl/zP76Tc), endorsed by top experts in the field (goo.gl/GIC5aR and goo.gl/VXBx33), published in a 45-page article by a prestigious scientific journal (goo.gl/BlSzQu), and proven feasible and functional in hardware (goo.gl/RiIn0B). The 3D-Flow provides unprecedented advantages in capturing all possible good signals from radiation related to a rare particle in physics experiments and related to the tumor markers (511 keV photons) for medical imaging applications, at the lowest cost per valid signal captured compared to other approaches”.
My 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) based on the 3D-Flow (see trifold “goo.gl/YcAJDy”, and overview at “goo.gl/JMKyek”) is hundreds of times more efficient than the current over 10,000 PET devices. The 3D-Flow invention is technology-independent and can migrate to the most cost-effective technology. Both inventions 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern Recognition Algorithm) and 3D-CBS have been proven feasible with current technology by 59 quotes from reputable industries.
- The 3D-Flow OPRA invention can replace 4,000 CMS electronic data processing boards (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) in physics experiments with 9 electronic data processing boards “goo.gl/OTkH4z” detailed at “goo.gl/w3XlZ1” while providing an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost.
- The 3D-CBS can claim to be the first true paradigm change in molecular imaging because it offers at once the three advantages of a) an effective early detection of diseases at a highly curable stage, improved diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring treatments effectively, b) a radiation dose that is 1% of current PET and c) a 4-minute, very low examination cost that will cover all organs of the body. Therefore, individual screening on specific parts of the body, such as mammograms, PAP-tests, colonoscopies and PSA, will not be necessary. (See also the comparison at “goo.gl/tmTZ9O” of the 3D-CBS “goo.gl/6DS5oy” with the “Explorer Project”: “goo.gl/Tl95NN” or at “goo.gl/ovMZ5j”, funded by NIH for $15.5 million although less efficient, without the ability to save many lives and is more than ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS). The 3D-CBS invention can reduce cancer deaths by over 50% through an effective early detection while reducing healthcare costs.
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 1:54 PM
To: ‘James.A.Forese@citi.com’ <James.A.Forese@citi.com>; ‘Michael.L.Corbat@citi.com’ <Michael.L.Corbat@citi.com>; ‘Alberto.J.Verme@citi.com’ <Alberto.J.Verme@citi.com>; ‘Richard.Evans@citi.com’ <Richard.Evans@citi.com>; ‘Vikram.Pandit@citi.com’ <Vikram.Pandit@citi.com>; ‘Jane.Fraser@citi.com’ <Jane.Fraser@citi.com>; ‘John.C.Gerspach@citi.com’ <John.C.Gerspach@citi.com>; ‘Deepak.Sharma@citi.com’ <Deepak.Sharma@citi.com>; ‘Stephen.Volk@citi.com’ <Stephen.Volk@citi.com>; ‘Paco.Ybarra@citi.com’ <Paco.Ybarra@citi.com>; ‘Stephen.Bird@citi.com’ <Stephen.Bird@citi.com>; ‘Don.Callahan@citi.com’ <Don.Callahan@citi.com>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘GOLOVCHENKO@physics.harvard.edu’ <GOLOVCHENKO@physics.harvard.edu>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘President@rockfound.org’ <President@rockfound.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov’ <The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘IGHOTLINE@hq.doe.gov’ <IGHOTLINE@hq.doe.gov>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov’ <Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Michael.Lauer@nih.gov’ <Michael.Lauer@nih.gov>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘LowyD@mail.nih.gov’ <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ’email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk’ <Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk’ <Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Letter to Citigroup, Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations