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

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

Consumer Protection – A Google Search of “Cancer Breakthrough” returns 50 million hits in 0.65 seconds. How can consumers, investors or philanthropists who care about reducing cancer deaths find the highest return from 50 million hits?

 BY DARIO CROSETTO

Special to Focus Daily News

COMMENTARY – After publishing last week the table at goo.gl/4vEEW6 which estimates the lives saved from premature cancer death for any cancer project or invention and the business revenue every year for 30 years, similar to a table that calculates the monthly mortgage payment, I have received several enquiries from people confused by so many advertisements and the 50 million Google search hits in 0.65 seconds for “cancer breakthrough” and 14.5 million hits in 0.74 seconds for “cancer breakthrough 2017”.

I was asked how to select the one that would provide the highest return in premature cancer death reduction and save the most money when making a charitable contribution when invested or paid through their taxes. They were particularly interested because on September 6 and 7, 2017, the MasSpec Pen as reported in the inventor’s website (goo.gl/51C1Nd) was announced by NBC, TIME, BBC, Forbes, CBS, Today, Wired, Medscape, WebMD and other media, and on October 4, 2017, by the Italian National Television RAI3 in the scientific program Leonardo by Battista Gardoncini and Silvia Rosa-Brusin, I was asked which criteria could help them estimate the number of lives saved and the business revenue forecast for 30 years as I did in my table published the previous week at goo.gl/4vEEW6.

 

Journalist should ask inventors/authors an estimate of lives and money saved by their project

The most logical step would be to talk to the scientist/inventor Dr. Livia Eberlin and the group at the University of Texas in Austin who developed the MasSpec Pen. Therefore, I first called and then sent an email to Dr. Eberlin. An automatic reply indicated she was on maternity leave. Dr. Eberlin’s group consists of a Research Associate, Jialing Zhang, Research Engineering Scientific Assistant, Noah Giese, Graduate Research Assistants, Clara Felder, Marta Sans Escofet, Kaya Garza, Rachel DeHoog, and Alena Bensussan, and Undergraduate Students, John Q. Lin, Ben Ludolph, Shirley Li, and Cameron Worthington.

I sent an email to the group leader, Jialing Zhang, asking if he could provide an estimate price of the MasSpec Pen and the Spectrometer, and if the device is useful not only during surgery but also to detect skin cancer. I received an automatic reply that he was out of office but would respond as soon as he could. Therefore, I sent the same email to the other staff member, Noah Giese, but did not receive an answer. I then called the secretary of the UTA Department of Chemistry who told me that no one in the Eberlin group could be reached by phone in the lab.

A more accurate estimate of the lives saved and revenues could be made by receiving input from inventors or from those who developed the MasSpec Pen; however, a calculation of the parameters of the cost of the device, the cost of an examination, and an estimate of the percent of lives saved can give meaningful results.

 

Values in the table can be updated

The values provided in the table below (interactively in Excel at: goo.gl/tjBFEU, and in a static pdf document at goo.gl/vf7EXp) can easily be updated as stronger supporting scientific and commercial evidence emerges.

Statements by the inventor indicate that the cost of the Pen is negligible while the spectrometer is expensive. The four parameters were calculated as follows:

 

  1. Prices for Spectrometers range from $15,000 to $150,000 (or even higher). I selected $100,000 to fill cell F16 of the table.

 

  1. Cost of the examination is estimated to be $100 which will fill cell F17 of the table.

 

  1. The estimate of lives saved by MasSpec Pen of 0.5% factor to fill row 24 of the table when used on those who underwent cancer surgery within a study group of 300,000 people in the age group 55 to 74, requiring an average of 750 cancer surgeries per year taken from a location where, in the previous 20 years, the mortality rate was constant (e.g. 0.5%) was calculated as describe below.

 

  1. The estimate of the number of MasSpec Pen units manufactured and sold selected in row 20 of the table has been kept at 85,409 units in 30 years to make a fair comparison with the estimated values in the previous table for the 3D-CBS at goo.gl/4vEEW6. However, it would be harder to sell 85,000 MasSpec Pens for a total cost of $85 billion that can only contribute to saving 16,040 lives in 30 years vs. the over 16 million estimated lives saved with the 3D-CBS over the same period.

 

Calculation of the estimated lives saved by the MasSpec PEN

The MasSpect Pen identifies the molecular profile of tissues using a small volume water droplet and mass spectrometry analysis. After three seconds of physical contact with a tissue surface, the water droplet is transported to a mass spectrometer, which characterizes diagnostic proteins, lipids, and metabolites. The pen could be used to rapidly distinguish tumor from healthy tissue during surgery. No device can claim to be effective and save lives if it does not analyze the signals from body cells.

To estimate the effectiveness of the MasSpec Pen, we need first to calculate the average number of cells in the body and then estimate the number of cells a MasSpec Pen on average analyzes during a cancer surgery.

The estimated number of cells in a 70 kg. body is approximately 37,000 billion calculated as follows: The majority of the cells in our body are actually red blood cells. Although they make up over 80 percent of our body in number, they constitute only about 4 percent of total body mass. This is because red blood cells only measure on average 8 micrometers in diameter. In contrast, the average size of a fat cell is 100 micrometers.

The estimated number of cells a MasSpec Pen contacts during a single touch of the body tissue is approximately 50,000 (although this number is an overestimate). A surgeon might sample 20 different body locations to make sure it is cancer free. There is a limit to the number of locations they can test because they need to close the patient’s wound.

 

Which would it give more peace of mind to the surgeon and the patient:

  1. a) a MasSpec Pen analyzing the signals from one million cells (in the most optimistic case) out of 37,000 billion body cells, or
  2. b) a 3D-CBS analyzing signals from almost all the 37,000 billion cells because it detects all possible signals from tumor markers? (One position of the 3D-CBS with 1.5m detector length covers all organs of the body in a single examination, a second position of the 3D-CBS can cover legs and feet if necessary).

 

The principle of operation of the 3D-CBS is to detect all possible signals from the tumor marker (radioisotope) associated with the molecules of nutrient that is administered to the patient via injection or inhalation. The compound of the nutrient tagged with the tumor marker is supplied to all body cells through the blood stream. Therefore, the 3D-CBS has the capability to detect abnormal consumption of nutrient (which is typical of cancer cells that take up to 70 times more nutrient than normal cells) from almost all body cells.

The limitation of the MasSpec Pen to analyze only one million cells out of 37,000 billion cells and the fact that it is beneficial only to early stage cancer patients that can undergo surgery is the reason for assigning the 0.5% factor in survival rate reported in row 24 of the table for those in a study group of 300,000 people, where 750 of them underwent cancer surgery. When these experimental results would be compared with a 300,000 people of a group who do not use the MasSpec Pen, the estimated lives saved of the table might not even be achieved. One additional way to calculate the estimated 0.5% factor is to gather statistical data of errors made by surgeons who did not completely removed the tumor and the patient showed residual cancerous cells in a subsequent CT or PET/CT or who died because surgeon did not have the MasSpec Pen that would have prevented it.

 

MasSpec Pen is useful, but is not defeating cancer.

In conclusion, the MasSpec Pen is a useful accessory to have during surgery. There is no reason to believe that they do not perform as specified, however, they cannot defeat cancer. I appreciate the work of Dr. Eberlin and of all scientists who share their knowledge in a professional, respectful, ethical and fair manner to their colleagues, taxpayers and cancer patients to benefit humanity.

I trust that she will provide her professional information to make a fair comparison of cost-benefits between her MasSpec Pen and other devices by updating the table with more accurate numbers as she continues testing the MasSpec Pen.

The estimated lives saved may be overestimated as well as the market because there are only 40,000 surgery rooms in the United States which unlikely will perform an average of three cancer surgeries every working day of the year as estimated in the table and the estimated manufacturing of 85,000 units needs to find other markets in Europe, Japan, China, etc.

 

Is the 3D-CBS presented to the media?

With this enormous difference in estimated lives saved between the MsSpec Pen and the 3D-CBS, people ask me why the media has not presented my 3D-CBS invention as NBC, TIME, BBC, Forbes, CBS, Today, Wired, Medscape, WebMD and many others such as RAI-Leonardo in Italy did on October 4, 2017 for the MasSpec Pen, and if I have submitted my breakthrough invention to their attention.

The answer to whether I have submitted my breakthrough invention to their attention is “yes”. I continue to inform the media as I did with BBC, 60 minutes, NPR, etc.

For example, I provided documentation of my invention to the conductors, Battista Gardoncini and Silvia Rosa-Brusin of the scientific program RAI-Leonardo in Italy; however, they never set an appointment to allow me present it orally to them and answer their questions. A sports and regional news reporter, Gian Franco Bianco, who worked at the same location in RAI, Via Verdi in Turin, noticing my correspondence and denial of a meeting or interview by the Leonardo Program, invited me for an interview to broadcast in the news that he reported in RAI3 (see the 11 minutes video at goo.gl/tKGUjw). Unfortunately, Gian Franco Bianco, on June 2016, at the age of 64, died from cancer. He was diagnosed with lung cancer three years before. This diagnose was made four years after he made my interview on the RAI-News.

David Tedesco, the brother-in-law of Texas State Senator Jane Nelson who raised $3 billion to fight cancer, is the editor who assembled the 11-minute movie about my invention which included the interview with Gian Franco Bianco, succumbed to cancer on October 3, 2015, at the age of 58, five months after being diagnose with a glioblastoma.

Peter Jennings, reporter at ABC World News Tonight died from lung cancer on august 2005 at the age of 67, and there are many others… and many reasons to believe that they would still be alive if my 3D-CBS device could have been built 17 years ago when I first published in the year 2000 the technical-scientific book: “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening at ‘goo.gl/ggGGwF’.

 

Who is the winner in the 50 million Google hits?

Unfortunately, the winners among the 50 million hits from google search of “cancer breakthrough” are the ones who have more money and power to make more advertisement and not by an analytical discussion of the invention as to which has more scientific merit.

Real “cancer breakthroughs” will only have a chance to benefit humanity when a procedure for merits like the Olympics can select ten (or twenty) “cancer breakthroughs” out of the 50 million hits which have the highest potential to save lives, and then organize a public forum inviting the ten inventors or authors of a cancer project and experts in the field to discuss and question each other to determine with calculations and scientific evidence the projects with highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost.

The least thing that the media can do is to publish my answers to the opponents of my inventions which are available at goo.gl/yyJhFG and start a discussion on the roadblocks listed in the letter to U.S. Senator John McCain and all cancer patients at goo.gl/bTDJ81 that are preventing breakthrough inventions like mine to benefit humanity. Please Sign the Petition: goo.gl/dzmYCz

Dario Crosetto

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