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

This document is available in pdf at Google Drive at; goo.gl/J9h4qL 

Response to the review signed by the Physics Department and by the INFN of Pavia, Italy, supervised by its Director, Dr. Valerio Vercesi, of my “3D-Flow OPRA” project.

 

The request for a review was made by Prof. Vincenzo Vigna who cares about accelerating the transfer of inventions to the bed of the patients, who asked the Dean of the University of Pavia, Prof. Fabio Rugge to conduct this review among the experts at his university, although I said that the proper forum would be at CERN in Geneva where are the experts of the Level-1 Triggers for High Energy Physics Experiments.

 

The Dean appointed the referee for science at the University of Pavia, Prof. Mauro Freccero, who, although very competent and respected in his discipline, graduating Magna cum Laude in Chemistry, could not evaluate my project in physics, computing, and electronics, and therefore asked for the collaboration of his colleagues from the Physics Department of the University and from Dr. Valerio Vercesi, Director of the INFN Section of Pavia.

 

Considering the importance of this issue for taxpayers and cancer patients, I was reassured that reviewers who would be making superficial statements, would take responsibility publicly. Therefore, because the untrue, unsubstantiated, unsupported statements in the review of my “3D-Flow OPRA” project (goo.gl/Sgdu15) are damaging the advancement in science, taxpayers, cancer patients, and also the reputation of the University of Pavia and their colleagues, I am sending this response to the Department of Physics of the University and the INFN Section of Pavia because Dr. Freccero stated that this review was signed by them.

 

Because I trust that there are several scientists at the University of Pavia who are used to supporting their statements with calculations and scientific evidence, and to avoid that their names are associated here without being informed by the Department of Physics and INFN who signed this review as stated by Dr. Freccero, I am respectfully requesting the Administration Office of the Dean to officially send my present response to all of them so as to give everyone an opportunity to confirm or disassociate their name among those who signed this review.

 

I am also informing journalists working in the public interest so they can inform the public about this important dialogue that will greatly benefit ourselves, our grandchildren, and future generations.

 

It is extremely important that the public be properly informed and that my answers which defend the public interest and the statements made by my opponents are disclosed with utmost transparency.  This way, equal opportunity will be given to both parties involved in the dialogue to refute with facts, data, calculations, and scientific evidence the statements that do not correspond to the truth of the other party.

 

Because of our role as scientists who receive the trust from the public to pursue the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity, we are all responsible to seek the scientific truth in this matter, not only the reviewers who wrote this inaccurate evaluation.

 

It is in the best interest of everyone who respects science, justice and humanity to support the request that I present my inventions before the top experts in Level-1 Triggers for HEP experiments at CERN, to give me the opportunity to answer all objections similar to those presented in this evaluation of my “3D-Flow OPRA” project.

 

When a scientist is evaluating a project/innovation on which the future of millions of people is at stake he should be truthful, sincere, honest to himself and other scientists.

 

As in many countries citizens are called for jury duty, scientists from time to time are called to review articles, projects, proposals of their colleagues, however, with no obligation to accept the job as for the jury duty, but they are free to accept or refuse the request.

 

Reviewers are asked:

 

1)      if they are willing to read an article/proposal/project in its entirety,

 

2)      if they feel competent in the subject,

 

3)      if they agree to support their statements/claims approving or rejecting the article/proposal/project with calculations and scientific arguments,

 

4)      if they are willing to comply with the ethics and code of conduct of a scientist. (i.e. a few examples can be found at: IEEE, CERN, DOE, NIH, BBC, INFN-ITALY, PAVIA UNIVERSITY)

 

As a professional in science, I am not asking the reader of this response to the Pavia’s reviewers and my responses to the other reviews listed at the end of this document to judge if a person is sincere, honest and truthful in general which is a moral observation, but if science has been respected from a person (the reviewer) who freely chooses to embrace science, therefore, to be truthful, sincere, honest to himself and other scientists.

 

Can the readers of my response to Pavia’s reviewers state beyond any reasonable doubt that reviewers of this project/invention complied with all four accounts above?

 

Transparency in science is the best way to show taxpayers and the public that we scientists are doing our job and deserve their trust.

The following text in black in ‘Arial’ font is the original review signed by the Department of Physics of the University and the INFN of Pavia, Italy. My point-by-point response is in ‘Times Roman’ font, red characters in between ***> my response <***.

 

 

000 Review of the project described in the document “3D-Flow OPRA” signed by Dario B. Crosetto on December 22, 2015

 

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>Thank you Pavia reviewers for expressing your views. I hope that my response below will convince you and anyone responsible to maximize the use of taxpayer money to request a public scientific review of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention at CERN where there are the top experts in Level-1 Trigger systems. A review that should be similar to the one organized for my basic 3D-Flow invention at Fermilab in 1993.<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

001 The document in question was written by the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer

002 Deaths to request funding from the Office of Science Financial Assistance for the financial

003 year 2016. It is divided into eight sections and some appendices, totaling 264 pages.

 

004 1. Structure of the document

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>Pavia’s reviewers lament that my 264-page document (goo.gl/Sgdu15) “3D-Flow OPRA” request for funding is not well organized and is repetitive. My 264-page document is neither a book nor an article; it is answering the requirements and questions listed in the 81-page solicitation’s instructions by the U.S. Department of Energy, 2016 DE-FOA-0001414 (goo.gl/7exZbM).

 

One can find in my document (goo.gl/Sgdu15) 28 times the sentence “Respectfully responding to DE-FOA-0001414 request on page xx” followed by my answers to their requests at the specified pages. It reflects the organization and repetitions of the 81 pages of DOE instructions; therefore, criticisms of the structure and organization of the material should be addressed to the DOE instruction document.

 

My concern was to answer in sequence all requirements listed in the 81 pages of instructions, assuming different Sections would be reviewed by different reviewers. I repeated some figures and text to facilitate reviewers of different Sections to save them the time of finding them in another Section. I facilitated the reviewers’ task by providing a Table of Contents (pages 250-254) and a two-page summary for each of the 3D-Flow OPRA (pages 246-247) and the 3D-CBS (pages 248-249) proposed projects.

 

I prepared a different document for article submission standards (400-word abstract, 2-page summary) where I condensed the 264-page document into 400-word abstract and 3 figures contained in 2-page summary (goo.gl/OTkH4z).

 

I am working to advance science and to serve humanity.

 

On May 6, 2015, Jim Siegrist, Director of the Office of High Energy Physics (HEP), of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and my former supervisor when we both worked at the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas, solicited me to submit a formal proposal of my invention to their continuing funding opportunity of $400 million every year.

 

I found repetitions and unorganized material in the 80-page DOE solicitations, sometimes even with contradicting statements such as stating in five places (on pages 52, 54 and 58) of the 2015 DE-FOA-0001204 (goo.gl/HH6AGX) solicitation that proposals should not exceed the page limit of the document even although I was told by Siegrist and others that there were no page limits. I called Siegrist to point out this inconsistency. He was also surprised, but because the $400 million was all gone by June 2015, he suggested I apply for the following year 2016 DE-FOA-0001414, confirming no page limit.<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

005 The eight sections are structured as follows:

006 I. Summary;

007 II. Description of 3D-Flow;

 

Crosetto

  1. ***> This shows that reviewers did not read with attention the documents describing the project because Section II does not describe the 3D-Flow, but the ER/DSU (Event Recorder and Detector Simulator Unit) to test and measure the efficiency of my 3D-Flow OPRA system and to test the efficiency of any Level-1 Trigger system. The 3D-Flow is described in the 96-page Section VI, of the project narrative and not 7 pages as stated by the reviewers.<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

008 III. Responsiveness of the proposed project to financially viable objectives;

009 IV. Background material for the proposed project;

010 V. Missed Opportunities for the Advancement of Science;

011 VI. Project research description;

012 VII. Funding requests;

013 VIII. Place of execution of the project.

 

014 In fact, the sections are written in a very repetitive manner, with overlap of very extensive

015 arguments, and it is not easy to distinguish them and understand the thread.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***> The criticisms of the structure and organization of the material should be addressed to DOE’s 81-page instruction document.

 

My concern was to answer in sequence all requirements listed in the 81 pages of instructions, assuming different sections were reviewed by different reviewers (i.e. one reviewing its relevance with respect to other projects, another the project narrative, another how my system would be tested and efficiency measured, another if I answered the Data Management question, another if I answered the question of significant potential problems and alternative strategies to resolve them, another if the budget would allow completion of the tasks and if the prices from at least two companies for each component were reasonable, etc.).

 

I repeated some figures and text to facilitate reviewers of different Sections saving them the time to find them in another Section <***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

016 The initial summary is 24 pages long, while the project description in Section II is only 7.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***> Reviewers missed the 96-page project description in Section VI (125-221) and did not realize that the 7 pages in Section II was the description of the ER/DSU to test and measure efficiency of my 3D-Flow OPRA system and to test the efficiency of any Level-1 Trigger system.<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

017 Fundamental figures, such as those on pages 1, 2 and 3, are repeated many times in all sections.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>A person skilled in the art of experiments in physics, electronics, computing, parallel-processing and knowledgeable in Level-1 Trigger systems should notice the disruptive advantages and benefits of a project by looking at the fundamental figures 1, 2 and 3 showing electronics that is replacing 4,000 electronic boards (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) of the CMS Level-1 Trigger (and many other trigger systems) with 9 boards (goo.gl/AoszvQ) of 3D-Flow OPRA providing enormous performance advantages at one thousandth the cost which is supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

 

If reviewers needed help to locate in the 264-page document the details of each component shown in the fundamental figures they could have looked at the Table of Contents or if they needed additional information they could have asked the author.

 

Instead, Pavia’s reviewers acknowledge seeing those figures several times but did not stop to look at them and grasp that one crate was replacing a room with hundreds of crates of the CMS Level-1 trigger system. Such a huge difference should not go unnoticed by a person expert in the field, but at least should trigger them to ask some specific questions within the figure and try to understand how it can be done.<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

018 Section IV is stuffed with copies of messages that have little to do with a scientific approach

019 to the problem.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>This section contains letters (pages 49-53 and 73-81) written by top experts in the field (Directors of National Laboratories, CERN Division Leader of Electronic and Computing in Physics, Deputy Division leaders, group leaders, leaders of the largest physics experiments in the world, etc.). These experts addressed scientific aspects of my work and inventions and endorsed them.

 

By claiming that what they wrote in their letters “has nothing to do with a scientific approach to the problem” is disrespectful to them because their letters show a scientific approach, while the comments made by Pavia’s reviewers do not show a scientific approach because they cannot be supported by calculations or scientific evidence.

 

By stating that the other material reported in Section IV regarding the public, formal, official, rigorous scientific review (pages 54-69), the list of deliverables (pages 70-72 and 82-89) of my work and inventions that were beneficial to advance science, and their presentations at conferences and contributions with articles to scientific journals (pages 90-99) “has nothing to do with a scientific approach to the problem,” are an insult to science, an insult to following scientific, open, transparent procedures to make the scientific truth emerge as with the FERMILAB review of my 3D-Flow invention in 1993.<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

020 In general, the entire document, rather than providing a description of the project that is asking

021 for funding, uses bombastic phrases to magnify its results,

 

Crosetto

  1. ***> In the document “goo.gl/Sgdu15”, I have provided the proven concept of my invention first simulated (page 108-111), then working in hardware (pages 140-141 and 217-219, references [51, 60, 62, 64, 71, 92, 93]), then a description of the new components (pages 142-209) and 59 quotes from reputable industries proving it can replace 4,000 boards (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) of the CMS Level-1 trigger (and many other triggers) with 9 boards (goo.gl/AoszvQ) of 3D-Flow OPRA providing an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost of the CMS Trigger system, yet the reviewers did not provide any calculations or scientific arguments to refute them or the 59 quotes, and they have not provided references to other more cost-effective systems.

 

Therefore, these are not bombastic phrases but calls for decision-makers handling taxpayer money to address this openly and publicly because continuing to suppress innovations is only going to increase the damage to taxpayers and to humanity<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

022 often without objective references, making statements of dubious truth about LHC’s experiments,

023 of which the author is a connoisseur who has worked in the past for one of them (see, for example,

024 the one before last phrase on page 11, or the third sentence on page 18), and is generally aiming

025 at moving the reader’s attention to the personal relationship between the author and some funding

026 agencies rather than the scientific one of the proposal.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>My sentence on page 11, (also reported in other documents) of “goo.gl/Sgdu15” which claims that if Level-1 Trigger misses the good events all other units and software will mostly process bad events except the good events recorded casually, and my sentence on page 18 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15” which lists documents and efforts to build several Level-1 Trigger systems that did not have the capability of capturing rare events satisfying experimenters’ desired characteristics of a new particle and had to be replaced are not statements of dubious truth.

 

These documents exist and Level-1 Triggers systems continue to be built and trashed. Instead, my 3D-Flow system has been recognized as having the capability of capturing all rare events satisfying experimenters’ desired characteristics at zero dead-time and also proving it feasible and functional.

 

This is recognized by many experts in the field (page 49-53 and 73-81), by the panel of an official, formal, major scientific review (page 54-69) by the 3D-Flow parallel processing architecture described at page (140-141) and its prove of concept in hardware (page 11, 61, 70, 84, 84, 113, 115, 131, 135, 221, 238, 239, 240, 243, 246, 240, 243, 246 and 248 Search for the number “2001” in the document “goo.gl/Sgdu15”.

 

Having missed not just one time but over 15 times the description of the public verification at the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego, California, of the proof of concept in hardware of my invention it is dubious that reviewers read with attention this document. <***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

027 In conclusion, the way this document is written is not very scientific, is non-compliant with grant

028 submissions standards

 

Crosetto

  1. ***> This document is very scientific. Figure 2 summarizes the entire project, each component of Figure 2 is described in detail in the 264-page document “goo.gl/Sgdu15” and their feasibility is proven by 59 quotes.

 

This shows that reviewers do not read with attention the documents describing the project, do not read the requirements in the instructions (goo.gl/7exZbM)  to submit a proposal, even the funding agencies do not check for inconsistencies in their own documents with the requirements to submit a proposal.

 

When a funding agency such as DOE is providing instructions on how to request funding, applicants should respond to their requirements and not to other standards.

 

Some research grants using taxpayer money are assigned at the complete discretion of the reviewers and funding agencies with no checks and balance, with no accountability, without verifying if it maximizes the objectives specified in the solicitation or in the mission statement of their funding agency, with no bearing to scientific merit, cost-effectiveness or comparison to other projects.

 

Some review processes are just a facade for legality, legitimacy, fairness, but in reality the scientists had already decided how the taxpayer money would be split among themselves, a circle of friends of scientists, before the scientific review process started.

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

029 and disrespectful of people and/or projects that do not agree with the author’s position.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***> The conflict is between the reviewers and science. They are disrespectful to science and to the public who place their trust in them to make the scientific truth for their benefit emerge, and they are disrespectful to me taking the side of the public and of science.

 

Scientists should take the side of science, the results of correct calculations, of scientific evidence showing understanding of the laws of nature rather than taking the side of or agreeing with another scientist because they belong to a circle of friends.

 

I am respectful of science when I prove that my 3D-Flow invention breaks the speed barrier in real time applications, that my one crate 3D-Flow OPRA system with 9 boards illustrated in Figure 2 (goo.gl/AoszvQ) made of components described in the 264 pages which have been proven feasible by 59 quotes can replace at a fraction of the cost and with enormous performance improvements, hundreds of crates housing 4,000 boards (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) of the CERN CMS Level-1 Trigger and advantageously replacing several other trigger systems.

 

Reviewers are disrespectful and in conflict with science when they deny the evidence without providing supporting scientific arguments for their claims, without invalidating my calculations and references to the laws of nature. My design/invention is in agreement, respectful of the laws of nature in designing an assembly of Micro Twinax cables (Figure 2 and pages 182, 185 and 193-197 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15”) in one square foot that can reliably transfer 1.3Terabyte/sec, a 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture in 40 nm technology (pages 137 and 146 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15”) assembled in ASICs, (page 142) boards (pages 153-154), crate (page 2) that can execute experimenters’ desired complex, programmable Level-1 Trigger algorithms in real time (references [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56] and pages 134-139). Reviewers disrespected science with false claims and incorrect calculations which impedes me from accessing public funding controlled by their circle of friends.

 

After 172 years when Semmelweis who was accused to be disrespectful to his colleagues who did not agree with his claim that if they would wash their hands mothers and children would not die I am receiving the same accusations of being disrespectful to my colleagues who do not agree with my claims that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and millions of lives have been needlessly lost.

 

Time showed, after Semmelweis deaths, that scientists who obstructed Semmelweis’ correct understanding of the laws of nature were at fault, and their claims were wrong.

 

However, who is responsible in both cases of the millions of lives needlessly lost?

 

The cause of prolonging these losses for over 20 years was the denial of a public dialogue between Semmelweis and his opponents.

 

The same error is repeated with me as long I am prevented to present my inventions at CERN, DOE, NIH, NCI, etc. and the opportunity to answer the objections from my opponents, publicly, live, face-to-face, not just writing the answer as we have a demonstration with this review that reviewers do not read with attention my document, they make superficial, generic statements unsupported by calculations, without scientific evidence.

 

The people who are suppressing the open, transparent, public scientific procedure to make the scientific truth emerge are instead those who are disrespectful to science, taxpayers, cancer patients, the public and consequently to the inventor who defends their interests. <***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

 

030 2. Scientific evaluation

 

031 To make a judgment of merit on a document that is not very scientific is complicated.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>My document is very scientific and realistic; it can be built and touched as summarized in “goo.gl/Sgdu15” in the fundamental Figures 1, 2 and 3. The components of Figure 2, relative to the 3D-Flow OPRA boards are described at page 153-154. The description of the 3D-Flow OPRA architecture and its implementation in FPGA and ASIC is at page 140-143. The presentation to the DOE leaders of the material related to the 3D-Flow particle detection algorithms also reported in references [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56] is at pages 134-139. The cable assembly at pages 193-197. The features of the Micro Twinax cable capable of sustaining ten times the speed used is at page 182. The 400-pins connectors guaranteeing free crosstalk in carrying 128 LVDS signals is at page 185. The complete design of the ER/DSU system to test and measure the efficiency of my 3D-Flow OPRA system and to test the efficiency of any Level-1 Trigger system is on pages 29-35 and 156-195. <***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

032 I personally met the author about fifteen years ago, although I have never had

033 a direct working relationship, so I am surprised by his lack of a critical approach

034 to the general problem of optimizing 034 the methodologies to extract the information from detectors;

035 to use his language, a critical approach 035 must always be present in a person of science to avoid

036 being self referential.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>Fifteen years ago I might have met Agostino Lanza from the INFN of Pavia. If he is not the person writing the above sentence, I am sure that I could have explained this to anyone that I met in Pavia as I did with many other scientists (pages 49-53 and 73-81) who recognized my valuable (not lack as defined by the Pavia’s reviewer) “approach to the general problem of optimizing the methodologies to extract the information from detectors” of the 3D-Flow architecture.

 

These testimonials, the major public scientific review (pages 54-69) and the 45-page peer-reviewed article (page 112, reference 51) prove that my work was not self-referential.

 

In fact, my new approach/invention was so revolutionary that it created a paradigm shift in the field in 1993 when Level-1 Triggers were designed with expensive, high power consumption ECL and GaAs technology because designers were bound by the speed of the technology at the Level-1 Trigger.

 

My 3D-Flow invention described on page 140 broke that speed barrier in real-time applications. My bypass-switch enabled the possibility to execute more steps using standard technology. I was able to explain this advantage to non-scientists, to high school students with whom we made a video (goo.gl/tKGUjw) and with Montessori, middle school students and their teachers with whom we wrote a book “Understanding a new idea for a Cancer Screening device”.

 

At the end of May 2017, another reviewer of this 3D-Flow OPRA project from Pavia working at CERN, Roberto Ferrari asked me how I calculated the cost of LHC and how I could claim that my 3D-Flow invention could satisfy the needs of the four major experiments at CERN.

 

I gave a quick answer and then offered a more complete answer for the scientific community on June 1, 2017, when I published the cost of LHC at “goo.gl/aHbWUu”, and on June 8, 2017, for the Level-1 Trigger satisfying the four major experiments at CERN at “goo.gl/bLXiWo”, reporting that it was recognized for 26 years by many experts in the field (pages 49-63 and 73-81) and by a formal scientific review reported on pages 54-69, in a 45-page peer-reviewed article cited on page 112.

 

It would be appropriate ethically to receive an acknowledgement from Ferrari on whether he found my answers satisfactory. Instead on June 12, 2017, I received this evaluation showing that my 264-page document was not read with attention. Scientific issues should be discussed in an open public forum and innovations should not be suppressed without providing supporting scientific evidence.

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

037 The only section in which one can find valuable information on the proposed system is in section V.

038 Here are shown some photos of prototypes made in 1994.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>I am glad Pavia’s reviewers found valuable information on the proposed system in “Section V. LOST OPPORTUNITY TO ADVANCE SCIENCE, SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES AND REDUCE THE COST TO TAXPAYERS” (pages 100-115 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15”) where I listed 11 missed opportunities to provide experimenters with a very powerful tool to discover new particles and to reduce the cost of High Energy Physics experiments because my 3D-Flow invention was not funded.

 

However, if Pavia’s reviewers recognize that money and advancement in science with more powerful tools were lost, why would they want to continue to waste money and develop less powerful tools?

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

039 It should be noted that the author repeatedly states in his document that he has twice obtained

040 funding in that period for a total of $1,156,000 (page 21), without being able to achieve a true

041 demonstrator with that money.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>I built several demonstrators and listed them over 20 times in the document “goo.gl/Sgdu15” (on pages 11, 61, 70, 84, 84, 113, 115, 131, 135, 221, 238, 239, 240, 243, 246, 240, 243, 246 and 248). I am surprised Pavia’s reviewers did not see any of them.

 

The senior vice-president of one of the world’s largest semiconductor companies and several other professionals were impressed with the work I have accomplished with the relatively small grant.

 

With that money I purchased three oscilloscopes Tektronix, a Logic State Analyzer Tektronix, two pulse generators HP, a wide 36” Calcomp plotter, a Universal EPROM, PAL programmer, laser printers, computers, a real-time system in VME with extender boards, several powers supplies, components, software, including the expensive software from Synopsys and from Cadence Concept HDL which in 2003, I also used to enter schematics to design the modular board with 2,211 components (page 217) that proves feasibility to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size (for PET and CERN detectors). I purchased a Cadence Spectra software to route traces on a PCB automatically and a Cadence Allegro to route PCB traces manually, used to laying PCB traces for the board with over 20,000 pins connecting signals that worked at the first version (pages 218-219). I paid several consultants, including Synopsys, who designed the 3D-Flow ASIC in 350 nm technology as well as paying the salary of four people for three years (however, I put back most of my salary and I used my own money to purchase components and worked without a salary for over 18 years to advance science).

 

After all this development, with just $1,156,000 from the government and having the tape-out generated by the consultant Synopsys to be sent to the Silicon Foundry to produce the 3D-Flow ASIC, DOE and other funding agencies spent hundreds of millions of dollars to fund CMS, Atlas and several other Level-1 Triggers that did not work and had to be replaced in 2016. One person, Wesley Smith, received $50 million alone of taxpayer dollars for his Level-1 Trigger (See from pages 12 to 16 of Smith’s curriculum vitae (goo.gl/NkDW25) which lists grants totaling approximately $50 million from the DOE).

 

Synopsys is one of the most reputable companies which designs ASICs and also software tools to design ASIC that are used worldwide by many other companies. Their ASIC was guaranteed to work. My simulation of the entire 3D-Flow system was recognized by many scientists that would provide experimenters the capability to execute programmable Level-1 Trigger algorithm (references [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56] and pages 134-139) providing a powerful tool to the scientists; instead, hundreds of millions of dollars went to several Level-1 Trigger systems where it was known in advance that they did not have the capability to filter a particle with the desired characteristics from the background noise.

 

I am surprised that Pavia’s reviewers do not know these facts, and knowing what it takes to develop these systems they cannot understand that the value that I, my coworkers and Synopsys provided were worth much more than the million dollars received from the government.

 

Taxpayers should receive an answer as to why the DOE did not fund the Silicon Foundry building the ASIC designed by Synopsys yet spent hundreds of millions of dollars on other designs that did not work?

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

042 The architectural aspect of the system reflects clearly the limits of the time it was conceived in

043 the early 1990s.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>The architectural aspect of the 3D-Flow processors, its parallel-processing architecture, its system architecture and the fact it is technology-independent, has now evolved into the 3D-Flow OPRA (Object, Pattern real-time, Recognition, Algorithm), which is very up to date and competitive. In fact, no one has been able to provide a reference to any approach/project which compares to the 3D-Flow OPRA system in performance, efficiency and cost-effectiveness<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

044 Currently, a VXI-based system (page 17) would not be considered technologically adequate.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***> In the document reviewed by Pavia’s reviewers I stated several times that my 3D-Flow OPRA system can be implemented in several form factors such as VXI, VME, ATCA, Micro-TCA, VPX, etc. (page 6, 8, 33, 184, 193, 195, 197, 203, 207, 208, 213). The word “ATCA” has been used 43 times in my document.

 

I am surprised Pavia’s reviewers did not see any and state that VXI “would not be considered technologically adequatewithout providing technical-scientific reasons.

 

I repeat that I am willing to build the 3D-Flow OPRA on any form factor requested by the DOE, CERN, Universities, or customers, however, I am trying to help them with scientific evidence that VXI and next VME would be more cost-effective for CERN for the following reasons:

 

  1. a) Reuse of many VXI and VME crates existing at CERN, which would save money.
  2. b) VXI is more economical per volume of electronics housed than ATCA and other form factors.
  3. c) VXI is designed for instrumentation
  4. d) ATCA is designed for telecommunication which serves the different purpose of transmitting a few packages of data related to conversation, each independent of the other, transmitted on a high-speed line up to 100 Gbps and retransmitting when one or more pieces of information have not been received correctly.
  5. e) In the Level-1 Trigger of HEP experiments we need to transmit correlated pieces of an event occurring at a given time over many cables and rebuild the information for that given time/event at the receiving end.

 

In a dialogue, we could analyze my calculations, technical, scientific, cost reasons with others and eventually ask quotes for building the same system in VXI, VME, ATCA, VPX, etc., to see which one is more cost-effective.

 

I have done this exercise by implementing my 3D-Flow OPRA in VXI and VME, and have noticed that VXI results are more cost-effective per volume of electronics housed.

 

I have used ATCA to receive signals at high speed, correlated them and retransmitted each event a 50 cm distance to my 3D-Flow OPRA crate.

 

Because the decision on which form factor to adopt involves several universities, research centers, etc., it would be more appropriate if Pavia’s reviewers would support the request that I give a presentation at CERN.  Then by analyzing in a dialogue my findings, calculations, scientific evidence and costs against others, we may come to an agreement on which system is more cost-effective for CERN, or I can just build it in the form factor preferred by the customer, however, it would be an informed choice of all pro and con.<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

045 The connections between the different cards made by electric cables instead of optical fibers,

046 or rather printed circuits, do not favor the assertion of zero dead-times, as many

047 times repeated.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***> The zero dead-time is achieved by the 3D-Flow architecture described on page 140 and addressed in the previous answers 8 and 13 of this document. It achieves this by its architecture and not by the speed of the optical fibers. Zero dead-time is achieved by the 3D-Flow system’s capability of executing a programmable, complex real-time algorithm (references [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56] and pages 134-139) for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data package and not with optical fibers that are just affecting latency and the number of wires or fibers. A deeper buffer can accept slower transmission and a longer latency, still providing zero dead-time.

 

In the case of the 3D-Flow OPRA project, CERN’s researchers have maximum freedom to use the most convenient means of communication to transfer the data from the detector of each experiment to the PRAI chassis (Patch Panel Regrouping Associates Ideas) located 50 cm from the 3D-Flow OPRA electronic boards as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15”. In fact, these figures include fiber channel connectors and cables, 100Gbps Ethernet, PCI, Firewire, USB, SATA, InfiniBand, etc.

 

It is more cost-effective to use the connections between the different cards for the last 50 cm. by electrical cables, as I recently explained in a public article at “goo.gl/6tNyTK”.

 

In short, assuming optical fibers are used for the 50 cm transmission from the PRAI-F board, the receiving circuit on the 3D-Flow OPRA board, converting optical to electrical, decoding the high-speed protocol, adjusting arrival time due to error recovery, correlating the information related to a specific event/time over several optical fibers, would subtract the printed circuit area and increase the power consumption on the 3D-Flow OPRA board which in turn would increase the volume of the system, lowering its overall performance.

 

When technology evolves and my 3D-Flow OPRA processors can be built optically instead of silicon so that conversion from optical to electrical would not be required, I will reconsider the suggestions of Pavia’s reviewers.

 

Pavia’s reviewers who stated “rather printed circuits” missed the backplane on page 155 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15” which connects the different boards using traces on printed circuits of the backplane <*** .

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

048 Parallel computers have always existed and often have not represent a lasting solution to optimizing

049 the computing performance; for example, one of the most known and exotic processors of the

050 1990s, that is, the Transputer, which has had a very short life. Nowadays parallel processing is the

051 domain of some specialized companies and even some research centers, for example the INFN

052 APE project and its evolutions;

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>This is a superficial remark reiterated for the past 25 years (including references to the hypercube and other parallel-processing systems), which when associated, as in this case, to the statement: “…is the domain of some specialized companies and even some research centers” reveals that those who make these remarks have not looked at supporting their statements with scientific evidence but rather seems to be of the opinion that new ideas are the domain of specialized companies and research centers and that no one outside could ever think of new ideas even when the advantages are supported by scientific evidence.

 

I hope that no one would take into consideration this prejudiced idea that could create injustice and suppress innovative ideas that can instead be provided by anyone. On the contrary these “..specialized companies and research centers” should take responsibility to publicly review at the presence of the inventor who could answer questions, innovations in their field and provide calculations and scientific arguments that would confirm or reject inventor’s claims.

 

The short answer to this remark is that all existing parallel-processing systems, the most powerful being now in China, next more powerful is in the U.S., followed Japan and Switzerland, with many of them based on GPUs (Graphic Processing Units), do not have the capability to input data at rates not even close to 1.3 Terabytes/sec required by the Level-1 Trigger of a large experiment at CERN (in comparison a 3D-Flow OPRA system can sustain over 20 Terabytes/sec in a cube of 36 cm of electronics and over 20 Petabytes/sec in a volume of electronics comparable to the largest supercomputers). Furthermore, none of these systems would have processors and system architecture having an instruction set like my 3D-Flow processor.

 

I have provided reference 112 in “goo.gl/Sgdu15” to my lecture at CERN School of Computing in 1991, after being recognized as an expert in microprocessors in High Energy Physics applications. In my lecture I compared the architectures of different microprocessors including the Transputer, RISC, DSP, microcontrollers, etc., and provided examples of applications in parallel processing for Level-2 Trigger and for the Q-measurement of the beam at the SPS at CERN.

 

Recently, I wrote an article “goo.gl/R9eUZh” addressed to the generic public which address the recurring claim that large parallel-processing systems have more of a chance to solve the Level-1 Trigger problem than my 3D-Flow OPRA.<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

053 however, none of these supercomputers are advertised as capable of saving millions of human lives

054 from cancer, even though they are capable of far superior performance with respect to what is touted

055 by the author for his project.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>The reason why none of these supercomputers are advertised as capable of saving millions of human lives from cancer is because they cannot acquire and process data at a high rate and cannot claim as the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) can using the 3D-Flow OPRA to improve efficiency in filtering background radiation and capturing ALL possible signals from tumor markers. This makes it possible to diagnose cancer at an early curable stage which is what can save many lives.

 

My 3D-CBS invention is summarized in the figure at page 3 with more details at pages 22-25, 32, 81, 91-92, 94-99, 143-144, 200-201, 231-232, 248-249 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15”.

 

The 3D-CBS (see trifold at “goo.gl/YcAJDy” and more information at “goo.gl/JMKyek“) and the 3D-Flow OPRA inventions create for the first time a paradigmatic change in Molecular Imaging because they offer at the same time three benefits that no other equipment can offer:

 

  1. a) a diagnosis of diseases such as cancer at a highly curable early stage; provide more accurate information to the physician to improve diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of treatments to assure that all tumor cells have been eliminated by the treatment;
  2. b) require only 1% of the radiation compared to current over 10,000 PET;
  3. c) a 4-minute, low-cost examination covering all organs of the body.

 

Hence, screening on specific organs such as: mammography, PAP-test, colonoscopy, and PSA will be superfluous.

 

The 3D-Flow OPRA system for the 3D-CBS is contained in a 16 cm electronic cube with 2,304 electronic channels capable of sustaining an input data rate of 368 Gigabytes per second, and capable of capturing all possible signals from tumor markers at the lowest cost for each valid signal captured. The cost of this unit based on the 59 quotes is $50,000. (See the 2000 book: “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” at “goo.gl/ggGGwF”, the 5 page 2003 article at (goo.gl/RiIn0B), the 32-page 2013 article at “goo.gl/qpnNxd”, one-page innovations at “goo.gl/3AFCWM”, one-page benefits at “goo.gl/Zx1p9Q”, two-page 2016 summary and comparison with the Explorer at: “goo.gl/QLuA1n”).

 

The 3D-CBS invention can reduce cancer deaths by over 50% through an effective early detection while reducing healthcare costs. <***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

056 Another aspect completely neglected in the document is the cooling system, far from being of

057 secondary importance in a very dense volume of processors. Apparently, at least looking at the

058 figure on page 17, it is based exclusively on air ventilation, clearly insufficient in a compact

059 environment.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>Indeed this aspect has not been neglected. The considerations were just not read by Pavia’s reviewers. They are reported in the Table of Contents Section VI.I.2 and on page 210.

 

All calculations of the power dissipations of the VXI crate and electronic boards have been considered to be well below the power dissipation capability of the VXI crate as specified by the manufacturer.

 

Preliminary calculations by ASICs designers estimate 4 Watt power consumption for the 3D-Flow ASIC. Page 210 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15”  states: “In the event it [the 3D-Flow ASIC] is greater than 4 Watt, the design of the boards will be modified to accommodate fewer ASICs to be able to handle boards and crate power dissipation.” The timeline on page 212 shows that we would wait to begin the designs of the VME and VXI boards after receiving confirmation of the ASIC power consumption. <***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

060 No hints are made to the code needed to run a system

061 of 8192 parallel processors.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>Also this remark from Pavia’s reviewers shows that my 264-page document was not read with attention. The 8,192 mentioned by Pavia’s reviewers are instead the number of channels in a VXI crate.

 

The number of processors in a VXI system are between 33,792 and 43,008 (depending on the power consumption of the ASIC). It is described in Figure 2 and Figure 35 on page 153 and in Figure 36-37 on page 154. A search in the document shows “8,192 channels” is mentioned 73 times. Has the number of channels being confused 73 times with the number of processors?

 

The code to run the 3D-Flow processors that with current technology can execute up to 26 operations in less than 3 nanoseconds (pages 20, 129, 139, 176, 221, 246) is reported on pages 128 to 146 and in references [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56]. On page 134 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15”  I state the following to Glen Crawford, DOE Research and Technology Division Director: “…on page 557 [of reference 31] I give algorithm examples that could be executed by the 3D-Flow at Level-1 Trigger, and on page 562 I invite Glen [Crawford] to follow the steps of the assembly code of the OPRT 3D-Flow Level-1 Trigger algorithm -to find Et, electrons, isolations and jets-“.<***.

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

062 Without going on here to portray the many dozens of questions that cannot be answered by a

063 document essentially devoid of technical/scientific information

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>This is just not true. Many more answers are contained in the document “goo.gl/Sgdu15”.

 

This point-to-point response reveals that Pavia’s reviewers did not read with attention the document “goo.gl/Sgdu15”.

 

They missed several important pieces of information that were also in the titles and in the Table of Contents such as my availability to implement any board of the project in any form factor VXI, VME, VPX, ATCA, Micro-TCA, etc., as stated in the title of Section II.C on page 33 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15”. Therefore, they also overlooked the titles<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

064 my conclusion is that the architecture described is currently obsolete and could hardly find a kind of

065 processor suitable for its operation (a 350nm processor is mentioned in the document, which

066 nowadays is not being used because it is too old).

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>Every word in this sentence is disconnected from the document “goo.gl/Sgdu15” or is not supported by any scientific argument.

 

The statement:“…architecture described is currently obsolete” is false because it is shown to be very up to date and competitive in replacing 4,000 electronic boards (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) of the CMS Level-1 trigger with 9 boards (goo.gl/AoszvQ) 3D-Flow OPRA at a fraction of the cost.

 

It is surprising that Pavia’s reviewers state:“…could hardly find a kind of processor suitable for its operation” while a search in the “goo.gl/Sgdu15” shows that the name of the processor “3D-Flow” was used over 800 times. Twenty-six years after I invented the 3D-Flow processor that has been recognized valuable and endorsed by top experts in the field (pages 49-53 and 73-81) and approved by a major scientific review (pages 54-69), and demonstrated feasible and functional in FPGA hardware, it seems the claims made by Pavia’s reviewers :“…could hardly find a kind of processor suitable for its operation…” show they are not aware of the 3D-Flow processor suitable for this operation and did not came across to any of the 800 times mentioned in my document.

 

Next they state: “…(a 350nm processor is mentioned in the document, which nowadays is not being used because it is too old”. They are referring to a processor that was mentioned in the document without stating which processor they are referring to (perhaps the same processor which they stated would be hard to find) and refer to Section V of the lost opportunities regarding the work by Synopsys in 1998 who provided the tape-out of the 3D-Flow ASIC to be sent to the Silicon Foundry but was never funded by the DOE, who instead funded other Level-1 Trigger Systems for hundreds of millions of dollars, which were trashed in 2016.

 

Pavia’s reviewers did not seem to read the 96 pages of Section VI describing the project using current technology from 180 nm down to 14 nm which found the one at 40 nm more cost-effective for the volume of 3D-Flow processors needed for this project as stated on page 137, 142 and 146 of “goo.gl/Sgdu15”. <***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

067 No evidence is provided showing that the two referenced electronic boards can communicate

068 correctly, which could have been verified thanks to copious funding obtained more than twenty

069 years ago.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>Also these statements are not correct and are not supported by scientific arguments. I designed, built, and tested the two modular boards in 2003 using my own money. The million-dollar grant was received and used from 1996-1998. The boards are described in the document “goo.gl/Sgdu15” on page 141 and in pages 217-220, and its functionality also is referenced [61, 62]<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

070 Above all, there is no proper comparison between the current parallel processing systems and the 071 proposed one, while comparisons are made on tools working on completely different logics, such as 072 oscilloscopes and logic analyzers.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>Pavia’s reviewers missed many pages describing the comparison between the 3D-Flow OPRA system and current Level-1 Trigger systems at CERN. See Figure 3, Section I.A.2 on pages 18, 20, 22, 29, 51, 61, 67, 112, 126, 131, 133, 146, 177, 202, 221, 231, 247.

 

A comparison was also made by Michal Shavitz from NEVIS Lab, Columbia University, responsible with Barry Barish for the GEM experiment at SSC. On page 51 of this document “goo.gl/Sgdu15” can be found an excerpt of his letter: I am writing this letter in support of Dario Crosetto’s development work on digital trigger processor. He has made rather impressive progress in designing a fully programmable trigger system that should be applicable to the trigger problems encountered in high luminosity colliders. In fact, the standard techniques used today for low-level triggering may need to be augmented or replaced by processors such as Dario’s 3D-Flow device. His design uses a novel approach in which a processor array is used to provide the nearest-neighbor communication for various algorithms.

 

My 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture was also recognized as being able to replace the Level-1 Trigger of several experiments by the panel of the major scientific review at Fermilab in 1993 as reported on page 67.<***

 

Pavia’s University, INFN-CERN reviewers

073 This project is unlikely to be positively evaluated by any scientific referee, nor would it be funded by

074 any national or European commission.

 

075 Pavia, May 30, 2017

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>In light of the above facts, on behalf of taxpayers, cancer patients and the public who place their trust in scientists to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge and prevail, I respectfully request Pavia’s reviewers to immediately take back, officially and formally this last statement that is damaging humanity including the scientific community.

 

Above all we need to show the public honesty and professional integrity, be united to work together to advance in science, to fight our common enemy which is cancer, to put aside any super ego, pride, personal ambition, interest in suppressing colleagues’ ideas/inventions to have a better chance of funding other projects less efficient and more costly of a circle of friends.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dario Crosetto<***

 

On June 12, 2017, referee for science at the University of Pavia, Dr. Mauro Freccero sent the result of the review requested on May 5, 2017 to the Dean of the University of Pavia, Prof. Fabio Rugge and others.

 

I was then solicited several times to answer point-by-point to the comments from Pavia’s reviewers.

 

Dr. Freccero accompanied the review report to the Dean of the University of Pavia and others with the following statement: “… I obtained this first evaluation from the colleagues of the Department of Physics and from the Director of the INFN who collaborated on this task. Unfortunately, the evaluation is negative and the final conclusions do not leave doubts regarding the opportunity to fund the project. I am attaching the file of the evaluation in pdf. Best regards, Mauro Freccero

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>In light of the above facts, on behalf of taxpayers, cancer patients and the public who place their trust in scientists to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge and prevail, I respectfully request Dr. Freccero to immediately take back, officially and formally this last statement that is damaging humanity including the scientific community.

 

###################################################

Links to responses to other reviews.

##########################################

 

As a professional in science, I am not asking the reader of the response from other reviewers of my 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions reported at several links listed below to judge if a person is sincere, honest and truthful in general which is a moral observation, but if science has been respected from a person (the reviewer) who freely chooses to embrace science, therefore, to be truthful, sincere, honest to himself and other scientists.

 

Can the readers of my responses to the reviewers at the links reported below state beyond any reasonable doubt that ALL reviewers of my 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS complied with all four accounts above?

 

Why major, international, public, scientific reviews are in favor and anonymous reviews are against and funding agencies and leaders in the field do not give me the opportunity to answer the objections from my opponents, publicly, live, face-to-face, not just writing the answer as we have a demonstration with DOE in 2016 and Pavia-INFN-CERN in 2017, that reviewers do not read with attention my document?

 

Transparency in science is the best way to show taxpayers and the public that we scientists are doing our job and deserve their trust

 

My breakthrough 3D-Flow invention that breaks the speed barrier in real-time application 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. The result of the migration to the 2015 technology has demonstrated the feasibility of my invention with DISRUPTIVE advantages and benefits compared to current alternative systems. 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 boardsgoo.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 the 2000 book: “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening at “goo.gl/ggGGwF”, the 5 page 2003 article at (goo.gl/RiIn0B), the 32-page 2013 article at “goo.gl/qpnNxd”, one-page innovations at “goo.gl/3AFCWM”, one-page benefits at “goo.gl/Zx1p9Q”, two-page 2016 summary and comparison with the Explorer at: “goo.gl/QLuA1n” and the source information from the authors of the “Explorer Project” at “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.

 

Starting from 1999 my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions have been suppressed: articles, presentation to conferences deciding the future in the field, and requests for funding have been ignored, boycotted or rejected, mainly by anonymous reviewers.

 

The suppression of my inventions is real and continues during the past two decades with precise facts and events proving violations to laws, rules, regulations, ethics by some influential scientists and by funding agencies. Below you have the list of some of them, more are available. Here is an excerpt:

 

  1. DOE Research and Technology Division Director, Dr. Glen Crawford, on May 19, 2016, wrote an 8-line contradicting, self-incriminating email with order actions referring to non-existent rules, regulations or laws, but more specifically prohibiting me from talking with any DOE employee in the future about my invention/proposal, and prohibiting me from resubmitting my invention for future consideration (see “goo.gl/Ycm3ph). My official proposal, documents, emails correspondence with DOE, including Crawford’s self-incriminating email sent officially, with copies to other DOE employees have been destroyed. This was confirmed by the FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) and by the DOE Office of Hearing and Appeals that recognized I was right when I provided the proof that those documents existed. They ordered the DOE to investigate why those official documents disappeared, and sent me a letter dated 02/01/2017, informing that I won the appeal (goo.gl/SD1Za4), but their order also has been ignored by the DOE Office of Science and the Office of High Energy Physics. Instead, what remains in place is the prohibition to discuss my invention with DOE employees and to resubmit a proposal. DOE continue giving $4.2 million per year of taxpayer money to Wesley Smith who received already $50 million from DOE to build Level-1 Trigger for CMS experiment that did not work and had to be trashed on February 26, 2016. (See from pages 12 to 16 of Smith’s curriculum vitae (goo.gl/NkDW25) which lists grants totaling approximately $50 million from the DOE). Here are the 8-line contradicting, self-incriminating email by Glen Crawford sent officially also to other DOE officers, for which the effects of prohibiting discussing my invention with DOE employees and resubmitting my proposal remains:

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

From: Crawford, Glen [mailto:Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 2:58 PM To: Dario Crosetto <crosetto@att.net> Cc: Laing, Kim <Kim.Laing@science.doe.gov>; unitedtoendcancer@att.net

  1. We will honor your request to withdraw application #0000222704 as a matter of professional courtesy.
  2. The withdrawal will be made effective upon the completion of the technical merit review you consented to by submitting the application.
  3. We plan to take no action on this application: it will neither be declined nor recommended for award.
  4. All current and future funding opportunities will be published on our website and the Government-wide portal at www.Grants.gov.
  5. In the interest of fair competition, we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications:
  6. our processes are described in each Funding Opportunity Announcement.
  7. The work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible, as required by 10 CFR 605.10.
  8. Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review.

Sincerely, Glen Crawford glen.crawford@science.doe.gov. Director, Research and Technology Division. Office of High Energy Physics. Phone 301 903 4829

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

 

  1. The NCI Deputy Executive Officer, Anne Lubenow promised me in a one-on-one meeting at the NCI, Building 31 in Bethesda, Maryland on December 11, 2014 and in several other emails (last of which on January 15, 2016) that she was organizing a meeting or conference call with her NIH-NCI experts in the field about the most cost-effective approach in reducing cancer deaths and costs and about the specific technology related to my 3D-CBS invention (3D-Complete body Screening). However, she never organized such meeting or conference call (see goo.gl/xZTVju).” On May 20, 2016, I had a 35 minute phone conversation with Michael Lauer, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), informing him about the ten rejection of my request for $100,000 grants submitted during a period of nine years to NIH-NCI. I informed him that the same scientists who rejected the presentation of my ideas/approaches/innovations at conferences, etc. now are receiving $15.5 million from NIH for the Explorer project which has several ideas that they rejected of mine in the past which they have copied to receive grants. NIH rejected all my proposals and funded the Explorer project that is less efficient, cannot save many lives and costs over ten times my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) innovations that can instead save many lives and reduce healthcare costs. I also told him that Bill Moses, one of the authors of the Explorer project, confirmed in a meeting on November 31, 2016 at the IEEE_NSS-MIC Conference in Strasbourg that all my data and source information in the table (see goo.gl/tmTZ9O) showing the enormous advantages of my 3D-CBS compared to the Explorer project were correct and he was available to address this issue with the funding agency NIH if Michal Lauer would call him for a meeting with me. I asked Michael Lauer for this meeting and he did not respond. He continues giving over $3 million of taxpayer money every year to the Explorer project that is known in advance it cannot significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs, while the 3D-CBS that has these capabilities goes unfunded (see goo.gl/qn02Wk).

 

  1. The scientific community did not allow me to present my work at conferences (see goo.gl/8brWEA). They took the microphone from me on four occasions while I was asking questions to the keynote speakers at conferences and workshops.

 

  1. Eleven minutes after midnight, on June 3, 2017, I receive a message form David Nelson from the office of Texas State Senator Jane Nelson that my email sent a few days before was delete without being read. In the past I was told by the office of Senator Nelson that I should address my questions to the scientists, however, when I talk to taxpayers and cancer patients they refer to the person who authored the legislation that appropriated $3 billion of taxpayers money for the important mission in the fight against cancer. If she gave the money to scientists and leaders of the organization CPRIT (Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas) that was subject to a criminal investigation in 2012 and who, without reading my research project “triaged out” my proposal in 2009 with 400 other proposals (out of 800 submitted) base on my title: “3D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) for Early Cancer Detection Targeted to Reduce Premature Cancer Death at a Lower Cost per Life Saved Compared to Current Cost, it is legitimate the question on behalf of taxpayer and cancer patients to her who appropriated for the $3 billion to eradicate cancer why her scientists/reviewers did not want to achieve the goal specified in the title of my proposal.

 

  1. Similarly, I was not able to communicate with any scientists handling the $1.8 billion that former U.S. Vice-President, Joe Biden was able to appropriate from taxpayer money in December 2016. Ultimately cancer patients identify him responsible for the good use of that money as in the case of State Senator Jane Nelson.

 

Crosetto

  1. ***>In summary, in light of the above facts, on behalf of taxpayers, cancer patients and the public who place their trust in scientists to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge and prevail, I respectfully request the following actions from the leaders responsible in the field:

 

  1. Dr. Joel Butler, Spokesperson for the CMS experiment at CERN; Dr. Andrew Lankford, Deputy Spokesman of the Atlas experiment at CERN. and Dr. Lankford and Dr. Nadia Pastrone, responsible for CMS Italian scientists at CERN and leaders at CERN to organize a scientific public review of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention at CERN similar to the one organized for my basic 3D-Flow invention at Fermilab in 1993 where I can present the advantages/benefits of my inventions and have the opportunity to answer directly to the objections of my opponents.

 

  1. Dr. Jim Siegrist, Director of the Office of High Energy Physics of the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and leaders at DOE to
  2. Remove the block of my email account so that I can communicate via email with DOE employees
  3. Remove the prohibition in Crawford’s May 19, 2016, email that I cannot talk about my invention/project to any DOE employee now and in the future
  4. Fulfil Siegrist promise of May-July 2015 to give a presentation of my project/invention at DOE Office in Germantown
  5. Remove the prohibition in Crawford’s May 19, 2016, email that I cannot resubmit for life my 3D-Flow OPRA invention/project to DOE
  6. Eliminate all contradictions in Crawford’s May 19, 2016 email.

 

  1. Dr. Michael Lauer, U.S. Deputy Director of Extramural Research at NIH, the U.S. Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Francis Collins, and the U.S. Director of National Cancer Institute NCI), Dr. Douglas Lowy, to organize a meeting at NIH, Bethesda with the experts in Medical Imaging and cancer deaths reduction to whom I can present my 3D-CBS technology for an effective early cancer detection with the potential to save millions of lives, more efficient and one tenth the cost of the Explorer project funded with $15.5 million by NIH which does not have the capability to save many lives

 

  1. Dr. Stefan Ritt, President of the IEEE-NPSS to address and provide a scientific answer to at least to my last two rebuttals (or if possible also for the 2002, 2007, 2008, etc.) of the rejections of all my articles submitted to the 2014 and 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference.

 

  1. Texas State Senator Jane Nelson who appropriated $3 billion of taxpayer money in the fight against cancer and former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden to organize a meeting with the scientists they placed in charge to handle the funding who could address scientific arguments related to my 3D-CBS invention for early cancer detection in a public meeting.

 

I respectfully invite everyone who believes scientists who freely choose to embrace science, should be truthful, sincere and honest to themselves and other scientists to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail to sign the petition at

goo.gl/dzmYCz.

 

 

This post is also available in: Italian

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