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

Questo documento in italiano in pdf a: goo.gl/zpQLdx,

Lettera inviata il 4 settembre 2017 al Sig. Ides Debruyne, Direttore dell’associazione europea che organizza conferenze annuali per circa 400 giornalisti investigativi e finanzia i giornalisti che conducono indagini su progetti da loro approvati. Dopo quattro mesi di scambi di email, Ides Debruyne mi ha richiesto una pagina riassuntiva relativa alle mie invenzioni e verita’ scientifica a beneficio dell’umanita’ che viene soppressa da diversi anni ed i riferimenti alle risposte scientifiche ai commenti degli oppositori delle mie invenzioni. Tuttavia, dopo avermi promesso che avrebbe inviato tale pagina agli oltre 400 giornalisti del suo database e ne avrebbe parlato con alcuni alla Conferenza da lui organizzata a maggio del 2017 in Belgio, improvvisamente, senza ragione, mi comunica di non aver inviato ai giornalisti la pagina che mi aveva richiesto e non aveva parlato di questa causa ai suoi colleghi durante la Conferenza.4 settembre 2017

A: Sig. Ides Debruyne, Direttore di Journalismfund.eu

www.dataharvest.eu / European Investigative Journalism Conference EIJC17

Da giovedi 18 alla domenica 21 Maggio 2017, Mechelen, Belgium Journalismfund.eu – “Stimola un giornalismo indipendente e l’approfondimento delle indagini” Rozenweg 4B, B-1731 Zellik (Belgium) T. +32 2 705 59 19 – F. +32 2 705 59 29 – direct +32 2 726 97 88  www.journalismfund.eu – www.fondspascaldecroos.org  www.facebook.com/journalismfund @journalismfund – @pascaldecroos – @idesdebruyne PGP https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB1DDC758490B8BD3

 

Caro Ides, Direttore del Journalismfund.eu,

 

Forse non sei consapevole che da oltre 18 anni, lavoro fino a 14 ore al giorno, compresi molti sabati e domeniche, senza stipendio, con impegno, dedizione e tenacia, e tutto ciò non solo a beneficio tuo, ma anche dei tuoi nipoti e delle generazioni future, con lo scopo di ridurre la mortalita’ da cancro di oltre il 50% attraverso la mia invenzione tecnologica rivoluzionaria, efficace per la diagnosi precoce del cancro.

 

Se tu non informi i giornalisti che conosci ed il pubblico circa le mie risposte a coloro che si oppongono alle mie invenzioni salva vita e utili a risparmiare soldi dei contribuenti delle tasse, non solo arrecherai un danno a te stesso ma anche a tutti coloro che ripongono fiducia in te e nel ruolo di responsabilità che occupi.

 

Forse tu ed i tuoi colleghi che avete bloccato il mio numero di telefono e non rispondete alle mie email, non vi rendete conto che trascurando questo caso molti contribuenti delle tasse e pazienti affetti da tumore saranno danneggiati dallo spreco di miliardi di dollari e da milioni di vite perse inutilmente.

 

Chiedo quindi, legittimamente a te ed ai giornalisti che conosci di informare il pubblico circa le dichiarazioni degli scienziati e dei leader che si oppongono alle mie invenzioni che possono risparmiare molti soldi dei contribuenti e salvare molte vite, nonché le mie risposte che ho pubblicato in versione integrale a goo.gl/6N6A59 e in un articolo riassuntivo a goo.gl/TvY8Lr che riporta il link al documento completo. (Sarà utile anche fornire ai lettori il link delle mie risposte a tutte le domande che ho ricevuto relative alle mie invenzioni innovative goo.gl/XtMkJc).

 

Quando gli scienziati che ricoprono posizioni di alta responsabilità abiurano le loro dichiarazioni fatte in precedenza senza fornire alcuna ragione (Lankford goo.gl/8jaxDH, goo.gl/9E3vTf; Butler goo.gl/ZJh0Kg, goo.gl/fyYSQK, non svolgono un buon lavoro per la societa’ che ha in questi scienziati il massimo della fiducia e li ritengono i massimi esperti del settore; la stessa cosa e’ quando queste personalitaa’ oscillano sulla verità scientifica e sulla trasparenza come Pastrone, goo.gl/qp1RFH). Soprattutto quando 59 offerte/preventivi di industrie con alta reputazione dimostrano che la mia invenzione può sostituire 4.000 schede elettroniche (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) con 9 schede 3D-Flow OPRA (goo.gl/OTkH4z dettagliate a goo.gl/w3XlZ1) in grado di fornire enormi aumenti in prestazioni ad un millesimo del costo. La mia invenzione ha dimostrato negli ultimi due decenni una superiorita’ in maggiore efficienza e minori costi rispetto agli approcci alternativi (cfr. le pagine 102-117 di “goo.gl/w3XlZ1“) e se tali invenzioni fossero state usate nell’apparecchiatura 3D-CBS per la diagnostica medica (3-D Complete Body Screening) (vedi pieghevole a “goo.gl/YcAJDy“, e ulteriori informazioni a “goo.gl/JMKyek) avrebbe già potuto salvare milioni di vite attraverso una diagnosi precoce ed efficace del cancro.

 

Non rientra nel tuo dovere professionale indagare e rivelare la verità a beneficio dei contribuenti e dei pazienti affetti da cancro? E fare in modo che le innovazioni emergano insieme a tutti i danni che tu, i tuoi nipoti e l’umanità continuate ad essere colpiti perché le innovazioni sono soppresse?

 

Sono stato molto paziente e rispettoso nei sei mesi scorsi e continuerò ad esserlo, tuttavia, risulta chiaro che non ti sei reso conto che trascurando questo caso attraverso un comportamento non etico e irrispettoso nei miei confronti, in realta’ stai danneggiando principalmente i contribuenti ed i malati di cancro. Dal momento che le mie legittime domande poste per conto dei contribuenti e malati di cancro, la mancanza di rispetto ed i maggiori danni dovuti al vostro comportamento e alle azioni ricadono soprattutto su di loro.

 

Le mie telefonate e le email sono un tentativo per aiutarti a soddisfare la missione dichiarata in molti documenti e sul sito web della tua organizzazione. Se tu o i tuoi colleghi bloccate le mie chiamate telefoniche e non rispondete alle mie email, sono costretto ad affrontare nel blog pubblico a http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?cat=23&lang=it  ogni argomento pertinente e legittimo rispetto alle tue responsabilità che, come mi hai spiegato, è quello di filtrare le informazioni da trasmettere a centinaia di giornalisti che invitate alle conferenze da te organizzate, nonche’ quelli che tu e la tua organizzazione potete raggiungere attraverso il tuo database di dataharvest. (Durante una lunga conversazione telefonica il 29 maggio 2017, Ides mi ha spiegato che il suo ruolo è quello di prendere con responsabilita’ e professionalita’ la decisione su ciò che è “IMPORTANTE” e ciò che non lo è per un’indagine su di un argomento di interesse pubblico. Cioe’ colui che definisce le priorità).

 

Spero che capirai che non ho nulla di personale contro di te, ma sto difendendo l’interesse dei contribuenti e dei malati di cancro. Dal momento che loro mi chiedono di contattare organizzazioni come la tua che hanno come fine di perseguire pubblicamente la giustizia e di difendere il loro interesse, ho bisogno di renderli consapevoli di ciò che ho scritto e discusso con te e di segnalare le risposte ricevute da te. Continuerò a leggere le dichiarazioni pubbliche della tua e di altre organizzazioni, e a sottoporre in modo professionale richieste legittime e pertinenti che sono attinenti alla missione dichiarata e agli obiettivi della tua organizzazione. Fintanto che tu sarai il direttore di journalismfund.eu, dovro’ sottoporli alla tua attenzione. Il giorno in cui verrai sostituito da qualcun altro, invierò le richieste al tuo successore, rispettando quindi il tuo desiderio di non essere contattato via email o telefono. Di seguito è riportato un riepilogo di ciò che sto riferendo ai contribuenti e ai pazienti affetti da tumore, che riporta il contenuto delle nostre pagine di posta elettronica e di alcune telefonate.

 

Durante gli ultimi sei mesi ci siamo sentiti poche volte telefonicamente. Nonostante le tue promesse non ho mai ricevuto una tua chiamata per scambiarci qualche informazione/feedback che avrei dovuto ricevere da te o dalla tua organizzazione, ma che non ho mai ricevuto. Abbiamo parlato per telefono nel febbraio 2017, poi ho parlato con te il 16/5/17 per 9 minuti, il 23/5/17 per 2 minuti, il 24/5/17 per 5 minuti, il 29/5/17 per 38 minuti. Non ho ricevuto alcuna risposta alla mia chiamata dell’1/6/17, ed il 13/7/17 mi è stato detto che eri in vacanza per tre settimane. Il giorno 31/8/17 ho ricevuto il primo messaggio vocale automatico che mi avvertiva che la mia chiamata era stata bloccata ed un secondo messaggio il giorno successivo con la conferma che il mio numero di telefono era stato bloccato. Ho chiamato da un altro telefono e ho parlato con una tua assistente che mi ha detto che non sapeva quali numeri di telefono avevate bloccato.

 

Ho contattato i due giornalisti che mi avevi suggerito e relazionero’ ai contribuenti e ai pazienti affetti da tumore anche le risposte che ho ricevuto da loro.

 

  1. Il 13 marzo 2017, mi avevi suggerito di contattare la giornalista Cecilia Anesi presso IRPI in Italia e Hristio Boytchev presso il CORRETTIV tedesco. Ho contattato entrambi.

 

  1. Il 13 marzo 2017, mi hai scritto che “entrambi sono abituati a spingere le loro storie in tutta Europa. Entrambi possono coordinare un’indagine internazionale. Lo hanno fatto già in passato. Non si concentrano solo sull’Italia o sulla Germania “.

 

  1. Il 29 marzo 2017 ho risposto:
  2. a) “Cecilia Anesi non ha mai risposto. L’ho contattata via email in inglese il 24 febbraio 2017 al suo indirizzo info@irpi.eu e il 13 marzo 2017 con un messaggio in italiano a anesi@gmail.com.

 

  1. b) Hristio Boytchev ha risposto alla mia email. Mi ha posto alcune domande a cui ho risposto e le ha trovate soddisfacenti. Tuttavia, ha scritto un messaggio che afferma: “Purtroppo in questo momento non disponiamo delle risorse che sarebbero necessarie per coprire la tua storia” (Cio’ mi ha sorpreso perche’ dalle informazioni ricevute da te e dal tuo sito avevo capito che la tua organizzazione “journalismfund.eu” sta finanziando i giornalisti che svolgono indagini su argomenti importanti. A questo punto mi sono domandato quale fosse stato il motivo per cui mi avevi fornito il nome di Hristio se non avevi intenzione di finanziarlo per questa indagine). Hristio ha suggerito di contattare Philipp Hummel che ha affermato: “Questo argomento non e’ attinente al mio settore”.

 

  1. Il 17 maggio 2017 mi hai scritto: “Puoi sottoporre una descrizione del tuo caso a questo elenco di indirizzi di giornalisti: http://www.journalismfund.eu/mailinglist. Tuttavia, devi proporre la tua storia in modo più concentrato, altrimenti nessuno leggerà lunghi documenti. Quindi, se possibile, riassumilo in una pagina, formato A4“. Ho quindi preparato la pagina da te suggerita ed inviata immediatamente all’indirizzo: dataharvest-owner@list.journalismfund.eu, inviando anche una copia al tuo indirizzo dal momento che il giorno successivo si riunivano circa 400 giornalisti alla conferenza da te organizzata a Mechelen, in Belgio dal 18 al 21 maggio, promettendomi di descrivere personalmente il mio caso a alcuni giornalisti che conosci.

 

  1. Il 30 maggio 2017, quando la conferenza con i circa 400 giornalisti è finita, ho saputo che non hai parlato del mio caso a nessun giornalista come invece mi avevi promesso durante la nostra conversazione telefonica. Ho ricevuto il messaggio dalla moderatrice della base dati degli indirizzi dei giornalisti da voi gestito la quale mi ha comunicato che il mio riassunto di una pagina non era stato inviato ai 400 giornalisti presenti alla conferenza perché era stato respinto dal moderatore (lui) con il motivo: “I non-membri non possono inviare messaggi a questa lista“. Ho spiegato al moderatore (inviando anche una copia della mia email a te) che tu in qualità di direttore di journalismfund.eu mi avevi invitato a sottoporre tale pagina senza tuttavia rimuovere il blocco del moderatore.

 

  1. Tutte le promesse che mi avevi fatto al telefono per risolvere questo problema non sono state soddisfatte, e alla prima chiamata del 31 agosto 2017, dopo oltre un mese, dopo il tuo ritorno dalle vacanze, ho scoperto che tu o i tuoi colleghi avevate bloccato il mio numero di telefono.

 

Ci sono prove che le mie invenzioni avrebbero potuto sostituire 4,000 schede elettroniche con 9 delle mie schede 3D-Flow OPRA, fornendo un enorme miglioramento delle prestazioni a un millesimo del costo, perché le mie invenzioni hanno reso i computer più capaci prima della morte della legge di Moore (goo.gl/2CLTsP) e, se utilizzate nella tecnologia 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) ha il potenziale di salvare milioni di vite attraverso una diagnosi precoce del cancro. E’ quindi mia responsabilità affrontare queste argomento con coloro che detengono posizioni di responsabilità nei media come te.

 

Come affermato dall’Agenzia Investigativa, Reveal-Center for Reporting Investigative: “Dobbiamo far si che la scienza esca dai laboratori e dalle riviste scientifiche e condividerla con il mondo”, è responsabilità di persone come te informare i giornalisti ed il pubblico circa le dichiarazioni contraddittorie e non scientifiche di alcuni scienziati. Tu e i giornalisti non dovete prendere le parti o giudicare se l’affermazione di uno scienziato è giusta o sbagliata, poiché le dichiarazioni contraddittorie, non etiche e disoneste che sono incompatibili con la scienza fatta da alcuni scienziati li esporranno alla verita’ scientifica dei calcoli e dei risultati sperimentali.

 

La soppressione del dialogo tra gli scienziati è stata la causa di morti inutili di milioni di persone ed è scandaloso per l’umanità che per due decenni le mie invenzioni che sono state riconosciute valide dal mondo accademico, dall’industria e dai centri di ricerca in una revisione scientifica pubblica, internazionale (goo.gl/zP76Tc), dimostrate fattibili e funzionali in circuiti hardware, dimostrate fattibili da 59 offerte/preventivi da industrie rinomate, continuano ad essere soppresse perché alcune persone influenti del settore utilizzano il denaro dei contribuenti per finanziare progetti meno efficienti e più costosi e i media non stanno fornendo queste informazioni al pubblico per mettere alla luce la verità delle azioni non etiche e disoneste di alcuni dirigenti.

 

Spero che tu dia una risposta attenta e consideri legittima la mia richiesta di lavorare insieme per creare una pagina riassuntiva della mia causa,  che tu ed i tuoi colleghi possiate approvarla e inviarla ai giornalisti da te conosciuti in modo da poter informare il pubblico a) sulle dichiarazioni degli scienziati e dei leader che si oppongono alle mie invenzioni che possono salvare mote vite e far risparmiare molti soldi ai contribuenti delle tasse e b) pubblicando le mie risposte complete a questi leaders che si oppongono alle mie invenzioni disponibili su goo.gl/yyJhFG o una sintesi delle mie risposte a ciascun leader con il link al documento completo.

 

Cordiali saluti,

 

Dario Crosetto

President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

900 Hideaway Pl.

DeSoto, TX 75115

Email: crosettodario@gmail.com

Following is a copy of the correspondence on behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients to serve their interest

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

—–Original Message—– From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:34 AM To: ‘dataharvest-owner@lists.journalismfund.eu’ <dataharvest-owner@lists.journalismfund.eu>; ‘ides.debruyne@journalismfund.eu’ <ides.debruyne@journalismfund.eu> Cc: ‘crosettodario@gmail.com’ <crosettodario@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Request to mailing list Dataharvest rejected

 

Dear Ides and the moderator of the dataharvest list,

 

Were you able to send out to the list of 380 journalists the one page pitch that Ides asked me to prepare?

 

This pitch consists of:

– two lines title which describes the problem/corruption/damage to the public

– Four line subtitle which further describe the problem/corruption/damage to the public

– nine paragraphs which further describe the problem/corruption/damage to the public with six links for a more in-depth study if desired

– one line with my contact information and link to my curriculum vitae and credential

– fifteen lines fine print only as a service to journalists in providing a description of the essence of the problem and how is solved by my invention in the event the journalists are interested in a more in-depth study and with additional five links to supporting material

– two bullet points in fine print summarizing the disruptive advantages and benefits of my inventions compared to existing approaches in physics applications and in medical imaging applications with additional seven links to serve the journalist interested in a more in-depth study.

 

The page is structured in a way that the journalist can stop reading at any line, however, as Ides promised me, on behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients who are deprived for more than a decade from the benefits from my inventions, I am expecting to receive the reasons provided by the investigative journalists to Ides why they are not interested to open an investigation on the damages to taxpayers, cancer patients and humanity on the corruption and clear actions violating laws, rules, ethics by many people on the world’s most deadly and costly calamity, cancer and on the most expensive experiment in the history of the planet at CERN.

 

I have been dealing with this question with Ides since February 2017 and now i think that in his position as the Director of the journalismfund who can reach the over 400 journalists, he has the responsibility to provide an answer to taxpayers and cancer patients that I will pass it on.

 

The time for this answer is making it overdue as days pass by. During my last phone contact with Ides, he asked for two to three additional days which brings to the deadline of today.

Would you please provide the answer you received by contacting over 400 journalists who read my one page pitch?

 

Thank you,

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dario Crosetto

President of the Crosetto Foundation for the reduction of Cancer Deaths

900 Hideaway Pl.

DeSoto, TX 75115

Email. crosettodario@gmail.com

 

 

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

—–Original Message—–

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org]

Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:11 AM

To: ‘dataharvest-owner@lists.journalismfund.eu’ <dataharvest-owner@lists.journalismfund.eu>

Cc: ‘ides.debruyne@journalismfund.eu’ <ides.debruyne@journalismfund.eu>; ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net>

Subject: RE: Request to mailing list Dataharvest rejected

 

Dear Moderator of the dataharvest-owner@lists.journalismfund.eu account,

 

Thank you for letting me know that my one page pitch requested by Ides did not reach the 380 recipients, also for giving me the opportunity to address this issue.

 

I am treating you with respect because I assume you are working to implement the mission stated in your website and shared by all professionals who placed their name on that website.

 

If your actions are against this implementation and against to what is declared by the people who placed their names in your website, this is your self-injury to your mission, destroying the credential of your organization and the work of your colleagues. Your colleagues should know and people should know.

 

Besides that, I was invited by the Director of Journalismfund to prepare a page pitch and send it to that email (you knew that this was the case because I specified it in the subject line), which that alone makes your rejection invalid, however, even if there would not have been the invitation from the Director of journalismfund please explain how anyone in the world can inform investigative journalists about corruptions damaging the public, etc.? Who is deciding which investigation case is more worthwhile than another instead of freely letting each individual investigative journalist decide which one is more important?

 

During a long phone conversation yesterday with Ides apparently he is the person responsible to take this decision about what is “RELAVANT”  and what is not for an investigation in the public interest. Also he is the one who sets priorities.

 

As a courtesy and respect, I am trying to resolve this issue with a dialogue to make sure that you stand behind your words on behalf of all the members of journalism funds and his Director. Ultimately, if this is your position I will have to inform about the response I received from journalismfund and publish it on my blog in HTML and as a back up I also publish it on Google Drive in PDF which has less chance to be obscured than a website.

 

Please let me know your final response and please ask Ides to share my email with him.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dario Crosetto

 

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

—–Original Message—–

From: Dataharvest [mailto:dataharvest-bounces@lists.journalismfund.eu] On Behalf Of dataharvest-owner@lists.journalismfund.eu

Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 8:08 AM

To: volunteers@u2ec.org

Subject: Request to mailing list Dataharvest rejected

 

Your request to the Dataharvest mailing list

 

Posting of your message titled “RE: The Managing Director,      Ides

Debruyne of the Journalismfund invited me to send to the 380

participants at The European Investigative Journalism     Conference &

Dataharvest 2017,            one page A4 pitch of my very important cause  ”

 

has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request:

 

“Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this list.”

 

Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator

at:

 

dataharvest-owner@lists.journalismfund.eu

 

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

From: Crosetto Dario [mailto:crosettodario@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 2:41 AM To: ‘kristof.clerix@knack.be’ <kristof.clerix@knack.be> Cc: ‘ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org’ <ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org> Subject: Dear Kristof, thank you for your feedback through Ides…

 

Dear Kristof,

 

Thank you for your feedback through Ides about my page pitch that Ides asked me to prepare.

 

I am sorry to hear that you did not read it because there was too much information.

 

Here is the link goo.gl/9KzNJ6

 

I will appreciate if we start step by step and you will comment about

 

  1. The two lines title
  2. The four lines subtitle
  3. The nine paragraphs
  4. The hyperlinks in the nine paragraph
  5. The fine print providing more details in the event you need supporting arguments
  6. The links within the fine print
  7. The last two bullet point that describes the disruptive advantages of my inventions in two applications: physics and medical imaging

 

I am looking forward receiving your comments critique that will allow me to improve communicating this subject to you.

 

Kind Regards,

Dario

 

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

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 10:47 AM To: ‘ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org’ <ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org> Subject: RE: Citigroup Board of Directors, Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations

 

Ides,

 

I was very much surprised for your email. Last week you promised that you will give me a feedback from Clerix about the title, subtitle and nine paragraphs you asked me to provide to you.

 

Your answer is that he is not going to read them.

 

Is it the correct protocol that I should inform the public that Clerix and all the other investigative journalists you have contacted are not interested to read one title, the subtitle and nine paragraphs?

 

During our recent phone conversation we came to the conclusion that the key point to clarify is what is “RELEVANT” or not for an investigative journalist. They have thousands of cases they can work on, how do they make a priority to those more important to serve the public?

 

Below is the email I sent you last week and I will appreciate receiving your response.

 

Kind Regards,

Dario

 

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

From: ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org [mailto:ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 7:51 AM To: United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org> Subject: Re: Citigroup Board of Directors, Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations

 

Is it possible to stop this emails? You send me the last 3 days 7 emails of this kind. This more than spam and works contra productive.

 

thanks,

 

Ides

 

Op 26 mei 2017, om 10:55 heeft United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org> het volgende geschreven:

 

[This document is available in PDF at Google Drive at goo.gl/qVubjR]

The document to scientists is available in PDF at Google Drive at goo.gl/JjnM2U and in HTML at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=2010

Subject: RE: Dr. Butler, Dr. Lankford, Dr. Pastrone, & Decision Makers, …regarding: SCIENTIST IMPOSES TWO THINGS upon himself and upon other scientists, NAMELY TRUTH AND SINCERITY

 

Dear Citigroup member of the Board of Directors and Decision Makers,

_____________________________________________ From: Gerspach, John C [mailto:john.c.gerspach@citi.com]  Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 6:57 PM To: United To End Cancer S <science4me@blog.u2ec.org> Subject: Read: RE: Letter to Citigroup, Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations

Your message

To: Gerspach, John C [CCC]

Subject: RE: Letter to Citigroup,    Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and  implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations

Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 7:28:59 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

was read on Monday, May 22, 2017 7:56:35 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

_____________________________________________ From: Fraser, Jane [mailto:jane.fraser@citi.com]  Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 6:39 PM To: United To End Cancer S <science4me@blog.u2ec.org> Subject: Read: RE: Letter to Citigroup, Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations

Your message

To: Fraser, Jane [ICG-CORP]

Subject: RE: Letter to Citigroup,    Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and  implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations

Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 7:28:59 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

was read on Monday, May 22, 2017 7:38:55 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

_____________________________________________ From: Volk, Stephen [mailto:stephen.volk@citi.com]  Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 6:36 PM To: United To End Cancer S <science4me@blog.u2ec.org> Subject: Read: RE: Letter to Citigroup, Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations

Your message

To: Volk, Stephen [ICG-CORP]

Subject: RE: Letter to Citigroup,    Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and  implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations

Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 7:28:59 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

was read on Monday, May 22, 2017 7:36:22 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

_____________________________________________ From: Bird, Stephen [mailto:stephen.bird@citi.com]  Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:01 PM To: United To End Cancer S <science4me@blog.u2ec.org> Subject: Read: RE: Letter to Citigroup, Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations

Your message

To: Bird, Stephen [GCB]

Subject: RE: Letter to Citigroup,    Decision Makers and journalists working together to demand and  implement transparency in science and eliminate the suppression of innovations

Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:37:01 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

was read on Monday, May 22, 2017 5:00:35 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

————————————————————————–

I see that you read my email dated May 22, 2017 and you are therefore aware that Citigroup agents deceived me and those benefitting of my inventions: taxpayers, cancer patients and humanity, by making me believe they were addressing my concerns first described in my letter dated April 14, 2017 (goo.gl/4LP2rF) and later on May 5, 2017 (goo. gl/H0ycXn) as it was stated in the letter dated April 17, 2017, (goo.gl/NPpdZF) sent from the Office of the President of Citigroup. Instead they reported me to the credit bureau making my 834 score that took me 26 year to build, plunging to 627.

 

I respectfully request you acknowledge via email that you are not starting the collection procedure on May 27, 2017 of my tools: table, chair, computers, oscilloscopes, Logic State Analyzer, power supplies, etc. and that you will address one-by-one all seven points of the concerns I listed below in the letter that your read on May 22, 2017. Please 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.

 

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.

 

To solve Citigroup problem and many other problems of stopping wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and the needless loss of millions of people from cancer that could be save with an effective early cancer detection provided by my invention, I respectfully request you (decision makers, leaders in the field, investigative journalists and those who care…) write an email to Andy Lankford, ajlankfo@uci.edu, Joel Butler, joel.butler@cern.ch,  and Nadia Pastrone, nadia.pastrone@cern.ch, asking them to organize a public discussion/review of my inventions at CERN and stated in a letter from CERN Director General on February 2nd, 2017. This public scientific review of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention similar to the one Andrew Lankford and Joel Butler organized in 1993 at FERMILAB on my previous basic 3D-Flow invention, which was recognized valuable, is long overdue.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dario Crosetto

 

 

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

From: ides.debruyne@journalismfund.eu [mailto:ides.debruyne@journalismfund.eu]

Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 1:57 AM

To: United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org>

Subject: Re: I respectfully request you address the proof that my invention can replace 4, 000 electronic data processing boards with my 9 electronic data processing boards while providing an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost

 

Hi Dario,

 

Best,

 

Ides

 

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

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:37 PM To: ‘ides.debruyne@journalismfund.eu’ <ides.debruyne@journalismfund.eu> Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer2@gmail.com’ <unitedtoendcancer2@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Need to be connected to an investigative journalist in Europe, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUPPRESSING FOR 40 YEARS INVENTIONS TO SAVE LIVES AND TAXPAYER/DONATION MONEY

 

Dear Ides,

 

Thank you for providing the names of two investigative journalists, I contacted both of them.

 

Cecilia Anesi never replied. I contacted her with emails in English on February 24, 2017 at her address info@irpi.eu and on March 13, 2017 with a message in Italian at cecilia.anesi@gmail.com.

 

Hristio Boytchev answered my email. He asked some questions to which I answered and he found them satisfactory. However, yesterday he wrote a message stating “Unfortunately, we don’t have the resources right now that would be necessary to cover your story”  Hristio suggested Philipp Hummel who also stated “this topic doesn’t really fall into my field of work.”

 

Perhaps there is a misconception about the work, expertise and help that millions of taxpayers and cancer patients need from investigative journalists on this case to protect their interests.

 

As I mentioned I am doing all what I can to help taxpayers, cancer patient and humanity for their money not being wasted, their lives not being lost needlessly as it is happening since many years because we have a solution and not being deprived from the benefits from invention, however, I cannot do it alone.

 

They need also the help from you and the investigative journalists when I point out inconsistencies in science, violations to rules and laws, the wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars and the people responsible ignore it. They do not answer, they continue to waste money and lives continue to be lost because I do not have the power to make them accountable. Instead the position of an investigative journalist or agency like yours who can reach and inform many people who are robbed and cheated can exercise more pressure to the people responsible, make them accountable and make a positive change.

 

Perhaps there is a misconception that the investigative journalist need to understand all details of the Level-1 Trigger at CERN, or how Positron Emission Tomography device operates, what is the most cost-efficient way to capture all possible signals from tumor markers, etc. No, the investigative journalist does not need to be more knowledgeable on a specific technical subject than all people at CERN, but rather ask the pertinent question and point out the inconsistencies, contradictions, the violation of laws, rules, etc. For example the journalist who conducted the investication: Ue, 3 miliardi per ricerca sulla sicurezza: molti prototipi, pochi progetti realizzati. “Funzionale all’industria, non ai cittadini” (Italian) – Investigative Reporting Project Italy, 22 February 2017. I don’t’ thing that they knew the details of all projects and had the competence to evaluate the scientific merit of each one, they look at the money that was wasted and who gained advantages: taxpayers or the industry? In this other project 800,000 Euros for a Terror Air Bag that Never Got Made (English) – Zeit Online, 23 February 2017. I doubt that the investigative journalist was the best expert in the world on Air Bags, but he followed the path of the money, what was built and who received advantages.

 

In my case we have some people working at the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet (over $50 billion) wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, suppressing inventions and depriving taxpayer and humanity from their benefits. We have also an effective technological solution for early cancer detection proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries that can save millions of lives and reduce healthcare cost for the most deadly and costly calamity and it is hard to find an investigative journalist who can follow the path of the money and see who is receiving the advantages, just like the investigations mentioned above?

 

What is effective is the pertinent question to make those who waste money and do not comply with laws and rules accountable. Their answers, their inconsistencies, contradictions and the results from experiments will “judge” them not the knowledge on Air Bags from the super expert investigative journalist.

 

In my case CERN Director General on February 2, 2017, appointed three experts to organize a scientific discussion/review of my invention at CERN. Without your request/pressure on behalf of the taxpayers, it will be unlikely that these three experts will let me present my inventions at CERN because even if they endorsed the value of my inventions in writing, they are in difficulty and want to protect and cover up their colleagues who made mistakes, who continue to make mistakes, continue to receive $4.2 million per year of taxpayer money continue to waste it, suppressing my invention in particle detection.

 

Or another group of people who receive $15.5 million from NIH to build a medical imaging device that is less efficient, cannot save many lives and is over ten times more expensive than my 3D-CBS, early detection device.

 

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

 

The following question to Butler and Lankford would help to initiate a concrete scientific discussion that would make emerge the scientific truth for the benefit of taxpayer and humanity: Would you please provide the reference to any alternative Level-1 Trigger project for which you could make a similar statement today?”

 

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

 

Or asking to the U.S. Department of Energy why they first promised I could give a presentation of my invention to DOE, than they denied it and destroyed hundreds of pages of my officially submitted proposal… and an investigative journalist could ask several other question that shows them breaking laws, rules, but that I do not have the power to make them accountable because I have not the communication as you have with media that can disseminate these information.

 

I also read several pages of your website www.journalismfund.eu and I admire and applaud what you are doing. Reading your “mission”, “about us” the resume of the people involved it gives me confidence that if I explain clearly which kind of help taxpayers, cancer patients and humanity need from you that I cannot give despite all my effort to help them.

 

Therefore I continue this discussion asking a few question in trying to find an investigative journalist willing to help taxpayers and humanity in this case/cause. I see that you are giving grants to freelance investigative journalist to conduct studies and investigations.

 

Because those contacted so far did not show interest and because this inconsistencies, contradictions that are damaging the public are related to the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet and to the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer what do you think about sending to entire list of your investigative journalists the five paragraphs after the word “I am requesting” (not me but taxpayers and cancer patients) that I sent you (perhaps with some additional information), hoping to find one or a few interested because this falls into the category of in-depth, cross-border investigation?

 

If the people listed in your advisory board, the Jury, the Board, the Daily Board and the Management believe that this is an important cause worth to support for building a European public debate that would provide a great positive impact to humanity, perhaps you can announce to the entire list of journalists that you have allocated some funds for this project and are calling for submission of proposals to evaluate the best one.

 

Perhaps this will accelerate the transfer of my invention to the bed of the patient, it will avoid repeating another Semmelweis story until my death because the scientific community neither organized a public forum for Semmelweis nor for myself to answer the non-scientific objections of the opponents and by doing this action of finding an investigative journalists interested to this story it will also …let science happen!

 

Looking forward to receive your positive response.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dario Crosetto

 

 

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

From: ides.debruyne@journalismfund.eu [mailto:ides.debruyne@journalismfund.eu] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:35 PM To: Dario Crosetto <crosetto@att.net> Subject: Re: Need to be connected to an investigative journalist in Europe, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUPPRESSING FOR 40 YEARS INVENTIONS TO SAVE LIVES AND TAXPAYER/DONATION MONEY

 

Hi Dario,

 

Both are used to push their stories all over Europe. Both can coordinate an international investigation. They did that already in the past. They aren’t focussed on Italy or Germany only.

 

We have funded some of Cecilia her work: http://journalismfund.eu/author/cecilia-anesi

 

Or if you look at this project, then you will see that it’s possible to push it in a lot of countries in Europe.

http://journalismfund.eu/workinggrant/security-sale-price-we-pay-protect-europeans

 

Best,

 

Ides

 

Ides Debruyne Managing Director Journalismfund.eu vzw

 

www.dataharvest.eu / European Investigative Journalism Conference EIJC17 Thursday 18 to Sunday 21 May 2017, Mechelen, Belgium

——————————————————- Journalismfund.eu – “Stimulating in-depth and independent journalism” Rozenweg 4B, B-1731 Zellik (Belgium) T. +32 2 705 59 19 – F. +32 2 705 59 29 – direct +32 2 726 97 88  www.journalismfund.eu – www.fondspascaldecroos.org www.facebook.com/journalismfund @journalismfund – @pascaldecroos – @idesdebruyne PGP https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB1DDC758490B8BD3

 

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

On March 13 at 8:06 am, Dario Crosetto writes to Ides

 

Op 13 mrt. 2017, om 15:06 heeft Dario Crosetto <crosetto@att.net> het volgende geschreven:

 

Hi Ides,

 

Thank you for your information. I have already contacted Cecila Anese and Hristio Boytchev, however this investigation is not limited to Germany or Italy. I will let you know how things progress with Anese and Boytchev, however, if you have an idea who might coordinate the international effort, please let me know.

 

To facilitate your access to information I have provided a few links in the attached page, also available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5TUY4bHoyeVVZSHc/view?usp=sharing (I will add more links to substantiate my claims and to provide a clearer picture of the situation.

 

Please find the document substantiating the appropriateness of the comparison between Semmelweis and Crosetto in the article below and page above at this link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5c25sYmh1SnJTa00/view?usp=sharing

 

Please find the requests in the PETITION which are not limited to Italy, but are addressed to the European Parliament, Belgium, Germany, England, France, United States, etc. Do you know investigative journalists in all these countries and who would you suggest best for coordinate the investigation and then a single person in each country (in addition to Cecilia Anese in Italy) who could take care to inform about this case in their own country? Link to the PETITION: https://www.change.org/p/cardio-surgeon-who-supports-the-scientific-truth-dr-vincenzo-vigna-stop-suppressing-crosetto-s-lifesaving-technology-we-demand-an-investigation

 

 

I am requesting:

  1. A public scientific review of Crosetto’s new 3D-Flow OPRA invention, similar to the one held at FERMILAB in 1993 for Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention, where he presents his invention at CERN auditorium and has the possibility to publicly answer questions from his opponents. Because the benefits from Crosetto’s inventions in several fields are related to a revolutionary improvement of the tools for particle detection, and because the indisputable most advanced research center in the world in particle detection is CERN, the first review should be conducted at CERN. We are grateful to CERN Director General, Dr Fabiola Gianotti, who gave her blessing on February 3, 2017 to hold this review at CERN, nominating top experts in the field to organize such a discussion, and we hope that her example will be followed by other leaders in the field of medical imaging as well as government agencies in Europe and the U.S. who fund both particle detection and medical imaging. Specifically, the review should address Crosetto’s 271-page proposal proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries showing how 4,000 electronic data processing boards of the CERN CMS Level-1 Trigger can be replaced with only 9 electronic boards of the 3D-Flow OPRA system with much higher performance at one thousandth the cost.  Similarly, the 3D-Flow OPRA system can replace electronics for the Atlas experiment and other physics experiments at a fraction of the cost and provide a much more powerful tool for them to discover new particles.

 

  1. At least two public hearings in Europe and in the U.S. where Crosetto can present his 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention targeted to early cancer detection, that makes use of the 3D-Flow system and has the highest potential to significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs compared to other approaches.  Scientists who opposed Crosetto’s inventions by rejecting articles, rejecting funding and refused to provide calculations and scientific evidence defending their claims when compared to Crosetto’s claims and calculations should be invited.

 

  1. In Europe the ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) European Union Committee in Brussels and/or the STOA(Science and Technology Options Assessment) under the “Thematic priority area: Health and new technologies in the life sciences”, need to organize such a hearing inviting experts from European countries who spend the most money on fighting cancer (Italy, France, Germany, etc.). The audio, video and documentation of this hearing translated into 24 languages and posted as usual on the European Union website, will inform the European community. This will help accelerate the transfer the benefits of Crosetto’s inventions to the bed of the patient.

 

  1. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the Cancer Moonshot Project, and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRITNelson) need to organize a combined hearing inviting their experts in particle detection and medical imaging who opposed Crosetto’s inventions, rejected his articles and his requests for funding, and in particular those who received $15.5 million funding from NCI to build the Explorerdevice which is less efficient and ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS. It would be appropriate to organize this combined hearing at DOE, or separate hearings starting with the DOE followed by the others. (Dr. Jim Siegrist, Director of the Office of High Energy Physics of DOE already promised Crosetto in emails and phone conversations in the summer 2015 to hold a presentation at DOE).

 

At all these public reviews and hearings that would follow scientific procedures of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions, it is of utmost importance that Dr. Stefan Ritt, President of IEEE-NPSS, the world’s largest technical professional organization with over 400,000 members dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity would attend or person(s) appointed by him. On November 5, 2016, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Strasbourg, France, Crosetto had a meeting lasting almost two hours with Dr. Ritt and the previous IEEE-NPSS President, John Verboncoeur, where they could not point out flaws with Crosetto’s inventions and where they stated they had never heard of anything like his inventions before.

 

 

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

From: ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org [mailto:ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org]  Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 7:45 AM To: Dario Crosetto <crosetto@att.net> Subject: Re: Please find one page summary of my situation FW: Need to be connected to an investigative journalist in Europe

 

Hi Dario,

 

I would suggest to contact the IRPI people. They are Italian but think European. This is their website: https://irpi.eu

 

You can contact them with my regards. This is the email of Cecilia Anesi: cecilia.anesi@gmail.com

 

An alternative is the German Correct!v https://correctiv.org

Phone: +49 30 555 780 20

Hristio Boytchev is the guy you need:  hristio.boytchev@correctiv.org

 

Best,

 

Ides

 

Ides Debruyne Managing Director Journalismfund.eu vzw

 

www.dataharvest.eu / European Investigative Journalism Conference EIJC17

Thursday 18 to Sunday 21 May 2017, Mechelen, Belgium ——————————————————- Journalismfund.eu – “Stimulating in-depth and independent journalism” Rozenweg 4B, B-1731 Zellik (Belgium) T. +32 2 705 59 19 – F. +32 2 705 59 29 – direct +32 2 726 97 88  www.journalismfund.eu – www.fondspascaldecroos.org www.facebook.com/journalismfund @journalismfund – @pascaldecroos – @idesdebruyne PGP https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB1DDC758490B8BD3

 

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

On March 10, 2017 at 9:13 am Dario Crosetto writes to Ides

 

Op 10 mrt. 2017, om 16:13 heeft Dario Crosetto <crosetto@att.net> het volgende geschreven:

 

Dear Ides,

 

Please find attached one page summary of my situation.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dario Crosetto

 

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

On February 24, 2017 at 6:06 am Dario Crosetto writes to Ides

 

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]  Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 6:06 AM To: ‘ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org’ <ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org> Subject: Need to be connected to an investigative journalist in Europe

 

 

Dear Ides,

 

Bianca Lemmens provided your email address as a contact who could help provide the names of investigative journalists in Europe.

 

I appreciate if you could provide the names of a few investigative journalists who could consider taking the case described in the following petition. I live in Dallas, Texas since 1991, my phone number is:  +001-972-223-2904.

 

See the description of the case at:

 

https://www.change.org/p/cardio-surgeon-who-supports-the-scientific-truth-dr-vincenzo-vigna-stop-suppressing-crosetto-s-lifesaving-technology-we-demand-an-investigation

 

looking forward to your reply.

Kind Regards,

 

Dario Crosetto

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *



Sintesi
Per favore visita la nostra
pagina riassuntiva che aiuta nella navigazione del sito.
Iscriviti alla nostra newsletter

gennaio 2021
lunedì martedì mercoledì giovedì venerdì sabato domenica
dicembre 28, 2020 dicembre 29, 2020 dicembre 30, 2020 dicembre 31, 2020 gennaio 1, 2021 gennaio 2, 2021 gennaio 3, 2021
gennaio 4, 2021 gennaio 5, 2021 gennaio 6, 2021 gennaio 7, 2021 gennaio 8, 2021 gennaio 9, 2021 gennaio 10, 2021
gennaio 11, 2021 gennaio 12, 2021 gennaio 13, 2021 gennaio 14, 2021 gennaio 15, 2021 gennaio 16, 2021 gennaio 17, 2021
gennaio 18, 2021 gennaio 19, 2021 gennaio 20, 2021 gennaio 21, 2021 gennaio 22, 2021 gennaio 23, 2021 gennaio 24, 2021
gennaio 25, 2021 gennaio 26, 2021 gennaio 27, 2021 gennaio 28, 2021 gennaio 29, 2021 gennaio 30, 2021 gennaio 31, 2021