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

This document is available in pdf at: goo.gl/bTDJ81

Dear Senator McCain and all cancer patients, I have been working long days for over 18 years without a salary, including most weekends for the benefit of cancer patients like you and for the future generations in reducing cancer deaths by over 50% with my breakthrough technology for an effective early cancer detection. Many people like you would enormously increase their survival rate if they will be able to make sure that all cancerous tissue has been removed with surgery, radiation therapy or chemotherapy, as well as with an effective early cancer detection, with my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) hundreds of times more efficient and requiring 1% the radiation compared to the current over 10,000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices used in hospitals.

We know from scientific literature and described also in the NIH article “Gliomas: Survival, origin and early detection” at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3019361/ that: “…gliomas are incurable because we are finding them far too late in their clinical course. …If the concept of early detection has any merit at all [experimental data prove high merit: colon cancer caught early it has a 91% survival rate, versus 11% if caught late, breast 98% vs. 27%, etc.] it should be in the early detection of gliomas: find them when they may still be curable by some minimally invasive surgical method or even by stereotactic radiation methods such as brachytherapy or radiosurgery.” The author of the article then lists some medical imaging devices such as CT and MRI, but apparently he is not familiar with PET (Positron Emission Tomography). 

 

Therefore, I am citing another article from NIH “Molecular imaging of gliomas with PET: Opportunities and limitations” at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145468/ which refers to the low efficiency of over 10,000 PET devices in hospitals.

 

Also this author does not have a clear picture of all the weapons available to fight cancer and is not familiar with the benefits the doctors and the patients can receive from my breakthrough inventions a) my 3D-Flow OPRA invention extracting all valuable information from radiation that was recognized valuable by academia, industry and major research centers (including a representative from CERN) in a formal, official scientific review held at FERMILAB in 1993 (goo.gl/zP76Tc) and b) the 3D-CBS that won the 2011 Leonardo da Vinci Prize for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis.

 

The “limitations” of PET stated by the author of the second article (although he explained the advantages of PET molecular imaging vs. the imaging of morphological changes shown by CT and MRI) refer to the features and capabilities of the current 10,000 PET devices. The additional features of my 3D-CBS compared to current PET would allow doctors to think outside the box and make a statement similar to the one made by the FERMILAB review panel regarding my previous 3D-Flow invention “…given these features experimenters [doctors in this case] would probably think of clever uses not now possible” (see page 6 of goo.gl/zP76Tc).

 

When the 3D-Flow OPRA invention is used in the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technology, it provides for the first time a true paradigm change in molecular imaging because it offers three advantages at once: a) an effective early detection of cancer and other 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) less than a 4-minute examination at a very low cost that will cover all organs of the body.

 

Therefore, individual screenings 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’, 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’.

 

Senator McCain, what millions of cancer patients need to save their lives is a device that detects with high precision at very low radiation dose any cancer cells in their body at the lowest examination cost that would allow doctors to remove them promptly with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. This technology, the 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS has been available for two decades and has not been funded.

 

To obtain such a high precision device spotting all cancer cells in the body, improvement must be made in particle detection to detect all signals from radiation related to the tumor markers. This is a field of expertise at FERMILAB and now at CERN in Geneva that receives billions of dollars of taxpayer money from all over the world to build the most expensive experiment in the history of the planet to advance science and technology in capturing specific signals from radiation.

 

Both my 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions after being officially and formally recognized valuable have had their concepts proven feasible and functional in hardware. The possibility of building complete systems for applications in physics experiments and medical imaging that would save many lives, enormously increase performance and save taxpayer money during the past 25 years with respect to alternative approaches have been irrefutably documented.

 

For example: a) in 1994 with a cylinder of electronics 1.8m tall x 1m in diameter, b) 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, and c) using 2015 technology can replace hundreds of crates of electronics (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) containing 4,000 electronic boards at CERN with one crate containing 9 of my 3D-Flow OPRA boards, while providing higher performance at one thousandth the cost. (summarized in two pages at goo.gl/AoszvQ detailed at goo.gl/w3XlZ1).

 

Now, 59 quotes from reputable industries prove that my 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions are feasible providing the advantages that many cancer patients need. Fifty-nine quotes from industry prove that 4,000 boards of electronics at CERN can be replaced with 9 of my 3D-Flow OPRA boards, more performant at one thousandth the cost and can replace the most advanced project in Medical Imaging, the Explorer (goo.gl/QLuA1n), that copied several of my ideas but is less efficient as it consumes 60KW, vs. 4KW, uses half a million expensive crystals vs. less than 3,000 economical crystals, can process only 40TB of data in one day by a farm of computers vs. 40,000TB per day by 9 of my 3D-Flow OPRA boards, plus the Explorer costs over ten times the 3D-CBS.

 

Many people ask me why my invention, knowing it could have saved many lives and taxpayer money, was not funded, and instead less efficient and more costly approaches that have not been effective in reducing cancer deaths (because we still have 8.2 million cancer deaths every year) were funded.  The American Cancer Society predicts the number of cancer deaths will double in the next 20 years.

 

What is needed to transfer the benefits of my inventions to the people is for the government funding agencies to make the scientists who evaluate and fund research projects accountable. They should follow transparent, public, scientific procedures to make the scientific truth beneficial to taxpayers and cancer patients emerge and prevail.

 

Here is the reason why you and all other cancer patients did not receive the benefits of my invention. I limit myself to the most recent years, however, the table at the article (goo.gl/qpnNxd) and one page summary (goo.gl/SA109k) give a broader picture.

 

The essence is that scientists who endorsed my inventions and supported transparency in science are now holding positions of high responsibility, and apparently to cover up the mistakes of their colleagues, have recanted their statements without providing a reason.

 

They impeded transparency in science and a public discussion-review at CERN on my new inventions similar to the public scientific review they organized at FERMILAB in 1993 (goo.gl/ZJh0Kg, goo.gl/8jaxDH). Following are a few references to the recanting statements by Andrew Lankford, Joel Butler and Nadia Pastrone who were appointed on February 7, 2017 by CERN Director General Dr. Fabiola Gianotti to organize a discussion/review of my new inventions at CERN (Lankford goo.gl/EJpKyq; Butler goo.gl/k46ea6; or wavers on scientific truth and transparency like Pastrone, goo.gl/iEph5R).

 

They backed away from previous statements they made supporting transparency and the scientific truth, whereas my responses to them defend the public interest. Following proper scientific procedures, they should attempt to invalidate (and face the reactions) the formal, official, international, public scientific review held 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) of all the engineers who wrote in 2015 the 59 quotes proving feasibility of my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS systems.

 

Senator McCain, I have made several attempts to bring my inventions beneficial to you and to millions of cancer patients and taxpayers in saving their tax-money, but so far all have been suppressed; your help would be greatly appreciated for actions and responsibilities related to the agencies (DOE, NIH, NCI) of the U.S. Government that would help to make the scientific truth for your benefit, the benefit of millions of cancer patients and future generation emerge and prevail.

 

Time is of the essence.

 

This is not a snake oil or a drug that may only be beneficial to patients with some types of cancer, or might have different reactions on different patients, including becoming drug resistant.

 

This is a breakthrough technology beneficial to all type of cancers that is accurately capturing from radiation all possible valid signals related to the tumor marker at the lowest cost per valid signal captured compared to alternative approaches. It can only provide advantages in lower radiation and precisely detect the smallest mutation of normal cells into cancerous cells. Lowering the radiation to 1% of current PET allows for repetitive safe examinations on cancer patients, as well as for screening for early detection. All these claims are measurable analytically with calculations and then experimentally.

 

It is urgent to discuss any objection from reviewers who are not familiar with this technology to avoid finding out decades later that my technological inventions described in articles and books that have been opposed by some reviewers now are copied by them. Although this is a clear confirmation of the validity of my inventions, those people who copied it, are building the Explorer (goo.gl/QLuA1n), a less efficient device, over ten times more expensive that cannot save many lives. How many people have died who could have been saved with my 3D-CBS technology? How many will continue to die because the statements from the reviewers and scientists opposing my invention are not addressed publicly?

 

To fulfil the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients, I am seeking your help by asking you to use all your power and word of mouth to create awareness on injustices, so that the “rule of law” and transparency in science can be enforced, in particular, among the U.S. funding agencies DOE, NIH, NCI and NIBIB, who should organize a meeting to let me present and compare the advantages of my inventions with respect to the projects they are funding.

 

Opponents of my inventions need to be forced to come forth in public for a scientific discussion to express their objections and allow me the opportunity to provide calculations, scientific evidence (endorsed in writing by many scientists), references to data sheets of technologies, and 59 quotes from industry that prove my inventions are feasible.

 

The following are some of the laws, rules, regulations and ethics that have been violated where your help and support is needed so as to accelerate benefits of my inventions to the public. The items where you could help to remove roadblocks are marked with “ACTION NEEDED”.

 

 

ACTION NEEDED: Allow me to present my life-saving invention at DOE Office of High Energy Physics as promised by its Director Dr. Jim Siegrist.

 

On May 19, 2016, I received an 8-line contradicting, self-incriminating email from Glen Crawford, Director of DOE Research and Technology Division 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). Crawford email also stated that my 3D-Flow OPRA system was not sound and feasible without providing any technical-scientific reason, without invalidating the 59 quotes from reputable industries:

 

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

 

ACTION NEEDED:

  • Remove the prohibition for me to discuss my invention/project with any DOE employees,
  • Remove the block of my email to DOE employees,
  • Remove the prohibition in Crawford’s email that I cannot resubmit for life my 3D-Flow OPRA invention/project to DOE,
  • Request Glen Crawford to list what he believes is not sound and feasible in my 3D-Flow OPRA project so I, or the engineers who wrote the 59 quotes can explain the technology they are not familiar with and
  • Eliminate all contradictions and references to non-existent rules, regulations or laws that he could not cite.
  • Request DOE Inspector General to provide the response he promised 14 months ago relative to this case
  • Request DOE Office of High Energy Physics to comply with the orders from DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals that granted my appeal on February 1, 2017, and I have not heard since.

 

ACTION NEEDED: Request 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 where I may present my 3D-CBS technology more efficient and one tenth the cost of the Explorer (goo.gl/QLuA1n) project funded by NIH for $15.5 million although less efficient, incapable of saving many lives and more than ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS

 

ACTION NEEDED: For your interest and the interest of all cancer patients please bring this invention/technology/project to the attention of Mr. Joe Biden head of the Cancer Moonshot project who on December 2016 appropriated $1.8 billion public funding to eradicate cancer and ask him to set up a meeting between myself and his experts to discuss in a scientific forum the approaches/projects with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs. The first step would be for all people raising money to end cancer, claiming to have/know of a solution to significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost, should find a criteria acceptable to everyone that would create a competition to solve the cancer problem and that is considered fair to all parties.

 

One way to reduce millions of preventable deaths and trillion of dollars LOST every year is to demand that funding agencies using taxpayer and donation money or anyone raising or spending money to fight cancer, whether it be for a vaccine, a new drug, medical imaging device, or healthy lifestyle promotion, etc., answer the five questions below which include estimating the reduction of cancer deaths and costs they expect to attain with their project (or combined with existing techniques) and present a plan to test it on a sample population.

 

For example, test the plan on 10,000 people ages 55-74 taken from a location where the mortality rate has been constant for the past 20 years (e.g. 0.5%).

 

A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution. Here are five questions that should be asked:

 

  1. a) How much is the expected reduction in cancer deaths 6 years and 10 years from funding that your project/approach can provide when measured on a sample population?

 

  1. b) How much will your project cost to develop?

 

  1. c) When can the first results be expected?

 

  1. d) How much are the operating costs?

 

  1. e) Is there a link to support the analytical and scientific evidence of your claims?

 

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

Email: crosettodario@gmail.com

Share it!Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Site Overview
Please visit our
Site Overview for help in navigating the site.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Upcoming Events
October 2017
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
September 25, 2017 September 26, 2017 September 27, 2017 September 28, 2017 September 29, 2017 September 30, 2017 October 1, 2017
October 2, 2017 October 3, 2017 October 4, 2017 October 5, 2017 October 6, 2017 October 7, 2017 October 8, 2017
October 9, 2017 October 10, 2017 October 11, 2017 October 12, 2017 October 13, 2017 October 14, 2017 October 15, 2017
October 16, 2017 October 17, 2017 October 18, 2017 October 19, 2017 October 20, 2017 October 21, 2017 October 22, 2017
October 23, 2017 October 24, 2017 October 25, 2017 October 26, 2017 October 27, 2017 October 28, 2017 October 29, 2017
October 30, 2017 October 31, 2017 November 1, 2017 November 2, 2017 November 3, 2017 November 4, 2017 November 5, 2017
Recent Comments