A breakthrough invention providing an effective, very low radiation dose early cancer detection exist for more than a decade, but is silenced and is not funded.
We need more journalists and newspapers with the courage to inform their readers of the scientific truth which will benefit humanity by reporting statements made by scientists and reviewers holding positions of responsibility and my responses to them.
The statements were made by CERN CMS Spokesperson, Joel Butler goo.gl/k46ea6,who represents 5,000 scientists at CERN; Pavia’s University-INFN reviewers (summary goo.gl/ivcYPC and details goo.gl/J9h4qL); Andy Lankford goo.gl/EJpKyq, and Nadia Pastrone goo.gl/iEph5R.
All these scientists backed away from previous statements they made supporting transparency and the scientific truth, whereas my responses defend the public interest.
To adhere to standard scientific procedures, and to be fair to taxpayers, these reviewers should explain why they recanted their previous statements which validated the 3D-Flow technology.
Despite CERN Director General Dr. F. Gianotti appointing Lankford, Butler and Pastrone to organize a scientific discussion/review of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention at CERN in an email sent to them on February 7, 2017, and copied to the Honorable G. Pittella, head of the second largest political party of the European Parliament, his collaborators, Dr. V. Vigna and Dr. N. Carmine and myself, to show CERN’s commitment to transparency in science. However, they impeded a discussion/review with their statements, which denied transparency and the scientific truth as they stated in the articles at these links goo.gl/EJpKyq, goo.gl/k46ea6 and goo.gl/iEph5R.
A standard scientific procedure would require Lankford, Butler and Pastrone to attempt to invalidate (and face the reactions) the written statements made during a formal, official, international, public scientific review they had organized (goo.gl/ZJh0Kg, goo.gl/8jaxDH), at FERMILAB in 1993, which recognized the value of my invention ‘goo.gl/zP76Tc’.
They would also have to invalidate the written statements by many scientists (see citations at “goo.gl/GIC5aR” a few complete letters at “goo.gl/VXBx33) who endorsed and supported the value of my invention, and they would need to demonstrate the professional incompetence (and face the reactions) from all the engineers who proved, in their 59 quotes, the feasibility of my invention to replace 4,000 electronic boards of CERN CMS L-1 trigger with 9 of my 3D-Flow OPRA boards which offer higher speed of the input data and more accurate results at one thousandth the cost. If the above standard scientific procedure and information to the public does not take place, then journalists should report the statements made by the above-mentioned people as they silence the truth and suppress innovations beneficial to humanity.
The Editor, Joshua C. Johnson of the FDN daily newspaper in the previous issues of June 21 and July 5, 2017 reported the above discussion in English stating: “We do this in the hopes of spreading greater understanding of an endeavor that could change the tide of the war on cancer forever.” Journalists should follow his example and report the answers or non-answers from experts in the field from prestigious universities, to avoid events similar to the article on the MIT Technology Review in 2016 which was not aware ‘goo.gl/2CLTsP’ that my invention answered 25 years ago MIT’s basic question regarding making computers more capable after Moore’s law was declared dead.
My 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithms) invention could have already saved hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, and its application, my 3D-CBS invention (3-D Complete Body Screening, see 11-minute video at: goo.gl/tKGUjw), which won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize in 2011, could have already saved millions of lives with an effective early cancer detection technology (See supporting material at: goo.gl/dYGusD).
Taxpayers and cancer patients ask that these innovations beneficial to humanity be examined publicly, scientifically and funded.
Responsible action by decision-makers and experts in the field to compare the 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions with alternative approaches is long overdue. The alternative approaches have been funded, although far less efficient and at a greater cost.
This legitimizes and justifies the request by taxpayers for the most prestigious universities to examine my inventions and my responses to experts in the field and a request for everyone who cares about saving taxpayer money and significantly reducing cancer deaths to Sign the Petition at goo.gl/dzmYCz which requests a public scientific discussion/review of my inventions at CERN in Geneva, as in 1993 at Fermilab
The essence and disruptive benefits of my inventions are the following:
My 3D-Flow invention could have replaced hundreds of crates containing 4,000 electronic boards of CERN CMS L-1 Trigger Experiment, at a fraction of the cost while providing more performance as reported on pages 102-117 of ‘goo.gl/w3XlZ1’, and could have replaced the trigger at many other experiments at CERN. For example,
- in 1994 with a cylinder of electronics 1.8m tall x 1m in diameter,
- in 1999 with 6 x 9U VME crates as described in the 45-page peer-reviewed article published by Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Sec. A, vol. 436, (1999) pp.341-385.
In 2015, my basic ‘goo.gl/NQ8Cck’ 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture and the synergy of its implementation in its different parts was summarized in two pages at ‘goo.gl/AoszvQ’ and detailed at ‘goo.gl/w3XlZ1’. It provided the inventive step of the new 3D-Flow OPRA technology with unprecedented advantages, replacing hundreds of crates of electronics containing 4,000 electronic boards with one crate containing 9 of my 3D-Flow OPRA boards, while providing higher performance at one thousandth the cost.
Fifty-nine quotes from reputable industries prove the feasibility to build a 3D-Flow OPRA system with over 10,000 channels, in one 36 cm (15 inch) cube of electronics capable of sustaining several terabytes/sec. of input data, and execute complex real-time Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) at a production cost of approximately $100,000. Larger systems can be built by linking several similar cubes of electronics.
In addition, when the 3D-Flow OPRA invention is used in the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technology, it makes it hundreds of times more efficient than the over 10,000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices used in hospitals (see 11-minute video at: goo.gl/tKGUjw).
The 3D-CBS can claim for the first time a true paradigm change in molecular imaging because it can offer at the same time the three advantages of
- an effective detection of diseases such as cancer at a very early and highly curable stage, and improved diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of treatments,
- a radiation dose that is 1% of current PET and
- a 4-minute, very low examination cost that will cover all organs of the body. Hence, screening of specific organs currently performed by a mammogram, PAP-test, colonoscopy, and PSA would become unnecessary.
The 3D-CBS invention can reduce cancer deaths by over 50% through an effective early detection while reducing healthcare costs.
This is not my claim but experimental data over 50 years proves it and is confirmed by major cancer organizations. I am claiming it can achieve the three goals listed above that create a paradigm change in molecular imaging enabling an effective early cancer detection which is what saves lives.
(See the 2000 book: “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening at ‘goo.gl/ggGGwF’, see trifold at “goo.gl/YcAJDy“, more details at “goo.gl/JMKyek“, the five-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’, which was funded by NIH for $15.5 million although less efficient, incapable of saving many lives and more than ten times expensive as the 3D-CBS).