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

This document is available in pdf at: goo.gl/EJD9yU

BY JOSHUA C. JOHNSON. Focus Daily News

October 22, 2017 – Some would argue that DeSoto scientist Dario Crosetto is the Ignaz Semmelweis of our time. Many of us born after the 19th Century don’t know who Semmelweis is, although we owe our lives to his unconventional efforts.
In 1845, the German-Hungarian physician was among the first to pioneer the extensive use of antiseptic procedures before childbirth. Later noted as the “savior of mothers”, the measure curbed the mortality of deaths during delivery by 30 percent. But before millions of lives were saved, Semmelweis was ostracized, arrested and finally committed to a mental institution for standing up for his beliefs.

Taking A Stand Today
Fast forward 172 years into the future and Scientist Dario Crosetto, 65, is making a stand on another medical marvel that could save millions more lives. After years of research, Crosetto has developed a medical imaging device that is hundreds of times more efficient at identifying cancerous cells than anything currently on the market.
Moreover, Crosetto’s invention reduces the radiation to the patient to less than 1 percent and the examination costs to less than 10 percent of PET (Positron Emission Tomography) imaging tools currently in use.

Encountering Roadblocks
The question remains…why isn’t he showered with acclaim? Why aren’t Crosetto’s devices in mass production?
He describes it in one word … suppression. Over the last 20 years, Crosetto has fought waning support and even persecution of his ideals that could radically curb the surge of cancer worldwide.
Crosetto worked on leading edge physics experiments at the world’s largest laboratories (CERN in Geneva, Superconducting Super Collider -SSC- Texas, FERMILAB and Brookhaven National Laboratory -BNL-). He won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for his invention for early cancer detection, was awarded one million dollars in government grants (Department Of Energy and Department Of Defense), and received $10,000 for the best Business Plan reviewed by Venture Capitalists in a start-up competition.
After the initial support of Crosetto’s inventions with DOE and DOD grants, his support faded. Funding agencies and companies started copying them, despite the fact they were protected by patents.
Crosetto says that these actions ultimately affect the taxpayers and the public. He argues his invention has been blackballed based on personal and economic reasons, rather than scientific.
The so-called Semmelweis reflex is a metaphor for a certain type of human behavior characterized by a rejection of new knowledge. Thus, because it contradicts entrenched norms, beliefs, or paradigms, it is named after Semmelweis.

3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS)
Since Crosetto’s development of the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) imaging device in 2000, more than 160 million people have succumbed to cancer.
During his time, Semmelweis called upon Dr. Scanzoni Siebold, to arrange a meeting of obstetricians so he could answer questions from his opponents.
A public forum that would follow scientific procedures was never arranged. In 1865, Semmelweis, twenty years after his breakthrough, was committed to an asylum. Days after he was committed, he died of pyaemia, after being beaten by the guards.
Years after his death, acclaimed Nobel Prize winner Louis Pasteur confirmed Semmelweis’ germ theory. Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.
Semmerlweis’ practice gained wide acceptance and was applied worldwide; more than twenty years after his death (forty from his breakthrough). When the medical community found out that he was right, after all, a statue, monument and University were built in his honor.
However, by then how many people had needlessly died? Could a similar situation befall Crosetto?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Following my article published on FDN Sunday, February 26, 2017, newspaper, FDN has been publishing almost weekly an article by Crosetto describing more details of his invention and the roadblocks. In the following pages are excerpts of the most relevant articles with the link to the full article. A complete list of all articles published during the past eight months is available at goo.gl/XtMkJc. This special supplement to FDN is also available electronically at goo.gl/EJD9yU.

Stand Up For Scientific Truth

BY DARIO CROSETTO
Special to Focus Daily News

PUBLISHED AUGUST 30, 2017 – (goo.gl/eYhSoQ) – 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. See the entire list of their statements, my responses to them and to generic questions at: goo.gl/XtMkJc.

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.

CERN Director General Fabiola Gianotti

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 my responses to 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 biomedical imaging because it can offer at the same time the three advantages of

a) an effective detection of diseases such as cancer at a very early and highly curable stage, and improved diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of treatments,
b) a radiation dose that is 1% of current PET and less than
c) 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 biomedical imaging enabling an effective early cancer detection which is what saves lives. (See references in the last page).

Page 2D – Focus Daily News – October 22, 2017
Plans That Cannot Defeat Cancer

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

PUBLISHED OCTOBER 13, 2017 – (goo.gl/FdAGvu) – 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”. (goo.gl/ymKBqC).

The MasSpec Pen Cannot Defeat Cancer

I was asked how to select the cancer breakthrough that would provide the highest return in premature cancer death reduction and save the most money when invested or paid through their taxes. They were particularly interested because when on September 6 and 7, 2017, the MasSpec Pen (goo.gl/51C1Nd) was announced by NBC, TIME, BBC, Forbes, CBS, Today, Wired, Medscape, WebMD RAI3, and other media, 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.

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

The MasSpec Pen is a useful accessory to have during surgery, however, they cannot defeat cancer. I appreciate the work of Dr. Eberlin and 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 Dr. Eberlin 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 estimate of the number of lives saved of 16,040 in 30 years, 1,601 thereafter every year assuming 85,409 total MasSpec Pen sold for a market of $85 billion in 30 years in the table may be overestimated because there are only 40,000 surgery rooms in the U.S. (See Table interactively in Excel at: goo.gl/tjBFEU, and in a static pdf document at goo.gl/vf7EXp).

Who is the winner in the 50 million Google hits?

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

Real “cancer breakthroughs” will only have a chance to benefit humanity when a procedure to determine 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. (See more details at goo.gl/FdAGvu).

The Explorer Cannot Make A Paradigm Change In Biomedical Imaging And Cannot Defeat Cancer

The 3D-CBS (3-D Compete Body Screening) outperforms the Explorer which was funded by NIH for $15.5 million in October 2015. The authors, who for many years rejected the 3D-CBS, copied many of its ideas.

However, the 3D-CBS intense computation (goo.gl/XqgnNf) capability at the front-end using 3D-Flow OPRA, provides more accurate measurements with less than 3,000 economical BGO crystals compared to 500,000 expensive LSO crystals used by the Explorer project.

The Explorer consumes 60KW compared to 3D-CBS’s 4KW, can process only 40TB of data in one day by a farm of computers compared to 40,000TB per day by just 9 3D-Flow OPRA boards; plus the Explorer is ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS.

To create a paradigm change in biomedical imaging it is necessary to design a medical imaging device that provides three features at once: a) accurately capture all possible signals from the tumor marker at the lowest cost per valid signal capture compared to alternative approaches; this would allow an effective detection of diseases at a highly curable stage, an improved diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring treatments on a large population b) require very low radiation dose, and c) a fast and very low examination cost. The Explorer less efficient that the 3D-CBS, costing 25 to 35 times the current PET cannot create a paradigm change in biomedical imaging because it cannot implement a plan to save millions of lives in 30 years as described in the table at goo.gl/4vEEW6. There is nothing new in the Explorer, just more of everything as it was commented by a top expert, leader at GE.

The 3D-CBS technological advantages offer the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs.

The table reported below compares the features of the Explorer with Crosetto’s 3D-CBS features. Values in the tables have been confirmed by Bill Moses, one of the authors of the Explorer during a meeting at the 2016 IEEE-MIC conference and the references to their articles reporting those values are reported after the table.

Data for the Explorer reported in the above table are derived from publications, slide (goo.gl/BpqjAj) presentations and several (goo.gl/RG8COf) press (goo.gl/ovMZ5j) releases (goo.gl/Tl95NN) made (goo.gl/NpNNNr) by the authors (goo.gl/xcBe0Q) of the (goo.gl/W6cZ9Y) Explorer and from calculations based on the data reported in the articles.

Data and feasibility (goo.gl/6DS5oy) of the 3D-CBS (goo.gl/YGg04E) (3D-Complete Body Screening) is proven by the 3D-Flow (goo.gl/5EUkYe) innovative basic concept proven feasible and functional in hardware in two modular boards (goo.gl/ymgnXz) each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors, and recently the 3D-Flow OPRA (goo.gl/goYPv9) was proven feasible and cost-effective by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

 

Obstacles And Roadblocks That Suppress Innovations

BY DARIO CROSETTO
Special to Focus Daily News

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 – (goo.gl/bTDJ81) – A more detailed list of the obstacles that suppress innovations and need to be removed are reported in the section “ACTION NEEDED” in a letter to U.S. Senator John McCain and all cancer patients at goo.gl/bTDJ81.

The most important obstacles to be removed are those clearly violating laws, rules from government funding agencies, etc. for which it is clear the damage is making to taxpayers and cancer patients.

Some of these violations such as the disappearance of my proposal from the DOE Office of High Energy Physics (HEP), together with most of our official correspondence, have even been confirmed by FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) and the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals who granted an Appeal on February 1, 2017 (goo.gl/SD1Za4). Item 3 on the last page of this letter indicates that I should go to court should DOE Office of HEP not comply with their order (which they didn’t) “aggrieved party may seek judicial review pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)”.

I contacted an attorney who kindly listened for two hours to my grievances. He said he felt confident that he could win many of the injustices; however, he could not do this on contingency and believed this should be a cause sponsored by an organization defending an injustice against a large population or a class-action suit.

Instead of providing scientific reasons for rejecting articles and funding, and organizing a public forum similar to the one (goo.gl/zP76Tc) held for my previous invention requested by the Director of the Supercollider (also Director of Fermialb) in 1993 which was recognized valuable after I was able to address any objections, suppression of my inventions continue.

Just to list a few: my emails and websites were attacked, my emails to CERN and DOE have been blocked, a presentation of my invention to DOE which was approved, was later denied. On May 19, 2016, I received an 8-line contradictory, self-incriminating email from Glen Crawford, Director of DOE Research and Technology Division; it referred to non-existent rules, regulations or laws, but more specifically prohibited me from talking with any DOE employee in the future about my invention/proposal, and prohibited me from resubmitting my invention for future consideration (see “goo.gl/Ycm3ph).

The contradictory Crawford email also stated on line 3 that there would be no evaluation of my project; however, on line 7 it stated without providing any technical-scientific reason or invalidating the 59 quotes from reputable industries, that my 3D-Flow OPRA system was not sound and feasible.

The NIH also first approved and promised a meeting with experts at NIH and NCI to discuss scientifically my invention and then denied it.

Taxpayers and cancer patients need help from investigative journalists who should defend transparency in science and make the scientific truth emerge and prevail. This can be done by publishing my answers (goo.gl/yyJhFG) to opponents of my invention by asking them legitimate, pertinent questions to reveal the truth in defense of the interest of taxpayers.

Key questions should be asked to Andrew Lanford (ajlankfo@uci.edu), Joel Butler (joel.butler@cern.ch) and Nadia Pastrone (nadia.pastrone@cern.ch), 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, but never did.

Journalists can ask why they backed away from previous statements they made supporting transparency and the scientific truth, whereas my responses to them defend the public interest (Lankford goo.gl/EJpKyq; Butler goo.gl/k46ea6; or wavers on scientific truth and transparency like Pastrone, goo.gl/iEph5R).

The question should be asked to DOE Director of the Office of High Energy Physics, Dr. Jim Siegrist (Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov), why he promised I could present my invention to his colleagues who assign grants but later changed his mind. Likewise, when he should have clarified Crawford’s contradictory email, he responded with a cryptic email “I am not authorized to speak for the Secretary’s Office” sending a copy to me and the Secretary of Energy, Moniz.

Michael Lauer (Michael.Lauer@nih.gov), Director of NIH Extramural Research, should be asked why, after being informed about the merits of my 3D-CBS, he continues to give $3.3 million every year to the Explorer project, knowing it is less efficient and ten times as expensive.

And why was after Bill Moses, one of the authors of the Explorer, was willing to attend a meeting at NIH if Dr. Lauer would call for it, which would have compared the Explorer to the 3D-CBS and Dr. Lauer never called for it.

Stefan Ritt (stefan.ritt@psi.ch), President of IEEE-NPSS, and IEEE President Karen Bartleson (k.bartleson@ieee.org), should be asked why bureaucratic roadblocks continue against my articles and presentations at IEEE conferences, and why pertinent, scientific rebuttals to reviewers’ objections are not addressed.

Texas State Senator Jane Nelson (Jane.Nelson@senate.texas.gov) who raised $3 billion to eliminate cancer was among the first that I informed orally and in the year 2000 I gave her a copy of my book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) in occasion of a cultural exchange that I organized for ten years between Texas and my native town in Italy, should be asked to let me present my invention before her technical-scientific experts who assign grants.

A similar request should be made to Vice President Joe Biden who received $1.8 billion in December 2016 for his Cancer Moonshot project to advance in the fight against cancer.

Money and over 1 million lives were lost (see next page cell B45) because the scientific community did not organize a public forum for Crosetto to answer objections from the opponents to his inventions

 

Page 3D – Focus Daily News – October 22, 2017

The PLAN That Defeats Cancer
Cancer will continue to kill 8.2 million people per year expected to reach 13 million in 20 years at a cost of $1500 billion per year
OR The 3D-CBS can save 2 million lives per year (Table cell D58) at $350 billion per year (Table cell G58 at goo.gl/BnrUdc)

BY DARIO CROSETTO
Special to Focus Daily News

PUBLISHED OCTOBER 6, 2017 – (goo.gl/4vEEW6) I have created a table (in Excel at: goo.gl/BnrUdc and in pdf at: goo.gl/mgCJFq) to estimate the number of lives saved and the revenue by changing a few parameters in a table.

I realized that today I would have saved approximately one million lives (Table cell B45) and 16 million by 2030 if I had received funding for my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening), an advanced PET (Positron Emission Tomography) medical imaging device that I presented in two articles (goo.gl/kztmNb , goo.gl/61BukR) and detailed in one book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” available at ‘goo.gl/ggGGwF’, which I distributed (200) free of charge to the leaders in the field who attended the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Lyon, France.

Despite proving the concept of my invention is feasible and functional in hardware in two FPGA circuits in 2001, its feasibility and functionality to build electronic systems for detectors of any size in two modular boards in 2003 (goo.gl/iK6T5v), and winning the Leonardo da Vinci prize for the most efficient solution in particle detection targeted to early cancer diagnosis in 2011, my invention has never been funded.

Competitive Technologies
A google search of “cancer breakthrough” returns 50 million hits in 0.65 seconds. Although there have been advances in understanding and curing some specific cancers, like leukemia, results show that cures for the majority of cancers detected early work in most cases, while cures for cancers detected at a late stage usually are unsuccessful.

In some cases drugs for late detection, with a global cost of trillion of dollars to develop, showed initial encouraging results, but then the cancer would develop a resistance to the drug. Now many hopes are placed on Genomics, immunotherapy, CICD (Caspase Independent Cell Death), etc. These studies must be continued.

We can study the most recent cancer breakthroughs, but they either benefit only a small number of types of cancers or do not provide cost-effective advantages that would have an immediate impact that can be presented in a table similar to the one in this article.

We are losing the war on cancer
The result is that we continue to lose the war on cancer as reported by the 2014 World Health Organization (WHO) report predicting that cancer deaths will increase from 8.2 million per year to 13 million per year in the next 20 years (goo.gl/gvcSih).

The 3D-CBS: the most competitive technology can defeat cancer
Experimental results show that early cancer detection combined with surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy works. Colon cancer caught early has a 91% survival rate versus 11% if caught late, breast cancer 98% vs. 27%, etc.

What is missing is a device effective for early cancer detection covering all organs of the body with a single safe examination.

This device is the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening), an advanced PET with a 1.5m detector covering all organs of the body (see trifold at “goo.gl/YcAJDy”, more details at “goo.gl/JMKyek” and video at goo.gl/tKGUjw) that shows competitiveness in results not only with all other technologies such as drugs for late detection, Genomic, Immunotherapy, CICD, etc., but also within all diagnostic medical imaging devices such as MRI, CT, Ultrasound, which measure tissue density and require many normal cells to change into cancerous cells before tissue morphological changes can be detected.

It is also hundreds of times more efficient and more cost effective than the existing over 10,000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography) working with the principle of detecting signals which show anomalies in biological processes before a morphological change occurs.

The 3D-CBS is also more efficient and cost-effective than the Explorer project ― a PET with a 2m detector that copied several of my ideas but is less efficient, cannot save many lives, and costs over ten times the 3D-CBS.

The 3D-CBS benefits cancer patients by ensuring all cancer cells are removed surgically, with radiation or chemotherapy and detects cancer early and effectively on asymptomatic people.

Logical layout of the 3D-CBS technology that makes use of the 3D-Flow system

Protecting the investment and saving lives
My patents are protecting investors who care to make a difference in the world. My basic inventions have been proven feasible and functional in hardware. My latest improvements give an additional advantage in lower cost and higher efficiency compared to my original design of the 3D-CBS from the year 2000.

My patented invention has the capability to accurately capture all possible signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured compared to alternative approaches.

Fifty-nine quotes from reputable industries prove enormous advantages of the 3D-CBS compared to the most advance PET with a long 2m detector, the Explorer. In addition to my previous granted patents, I filed for a new patent in 2016 and in 2017.

The differences are detailed in a comparison table (goo.gl/QLuA1n) with references to documents written by the respective authors.

My patent protects the investor with a large margin in competitivity which goes from the component costs to build my 3D-CBS to the component cost for the competitors to build their Explorer.

For example, the cost of the components for the 3D-CBS is less than $2 million, while for the Explorer cost is more than $20 million.

In the table I selected a selling price for the 3D-CBS of $3.5 million, which gives a reasonable profit to the investor; however, for a quicker return of the investment, the selling price can be set anywhere below the Explorer’s price which they would have to be set at over $20 million – their component cost – if they want to make a profit. The same criteria can be used for the examination cost that I selected as $400 but could be increased to over $1000 and still remain competitive.

These are good incentives to start a new market with the 3D-CBS to save lives and later the competition will lower the price of the goods.

A diligent work in determining the other values in the yellow cells of the spreadsheet will provide an estimate of revenues and lives saved.

Three 3D-CBS units located in different countries (USA, Canada, Italy) will constantly measure performance to confirm or modify the estimates in this table as follows: each unit screening 10,000 people in the age group 55 to 74 taken from a location where, in the previous 20 years, the mortality rate was constant (e.g. 0.5%) and reporting every year changes in the death rate.

See interactive Table in Excel at: goo.gl/BnrUdc and in pdf at: goo.gl/mgCJFq

There are no technical or economic reasons preventing the defeat of cancer, saving 16 million lives in 30 years and 50% thereafter.

Let’s be united against cancer, cooperate to enforce the rule of law and transparency in science which will remove roadblocks to receive benefits in a significant premature cancer deaths reduction that could already have been put into action 17 years ago.

 

Page 4D – Focus Daily News – October 22, 2017

Crosetto Summarizes To MIT And Harvard Experts The Essence Of The Disruptive Advantages Of His Inventions

BY DARIO CROSETTO
Special to Focus Daily News

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 8, 2017 – (goo.gl/4Nn2jS) – Crosetto has summarized to MIT and Harvard experts the essence of the disruptive advantages of his inventions as follow:

I have invented a revolutionary electronic technology-independent architecture/instrument proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to build using 2015 technology a 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithms) system with 8,192 channels, in 36 cm (15 inch) cube of electronics capable of sustaining over 1.3TB/sec input data rate, and execute with zero dead-time on the input data, complex programmable real-time Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) at a production cost of approximately $100,000 (compared to the cost of over $100 million of the less efficient CMS Level-1 Trigger at CERN).

In the same volume of 36 cm cube of electronics, it is feasible to build a 3D-Flow OPRA system with 20,000 channels capable of sustaining over 20TB/sec input data rate. Larger systems can be built by linking several similar cubes of electronics.

It overcomes the limitations of Moore’s law
It can provide disruptive advantages in several applications in making computers more capable overcoming since 1992 the limits of Moore’s laws that is now dead (goo.gl/2CLTsP).

 

Computers are made more capable by the 3D-Flow basic invention at goo.gl/NQ8Cck
1. extracting all valuable information from radiation to identify rare particles from ultra-high data rate that cannot be stored on hard drives because in one day will fill all hard drives of the planet,
2. extracting all valuable information from radiation to identify all valuable signals related to tumor markers for an effective early cancer detection requiring a very-low radiation to the patient,
3. in industrial quality control, etc..

Proven feasible by a major public scientific review and by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

 

My basic 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture summarized in one page at ‘goo.gl/NQ8Cck’, recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers at a major official, formal, international scientific review, held at Fermilab in 1993 (goo.gl/zP76Tc), proven feasible and functional in FPGA hardware, when in synergy with the implementation in its different parts using 2015 technology is summarized in two pages at ‘goo.gl/AoszvQ’ and detailed at ‘goo.gl/w3XlZ1’.

The combination of these two elements provided the inventive step of the new 3D-Flow OPRA technology with unprecedented advantages. (See details about the essence of the advantages of the 3D-Flow OPRA at goo.gl/dYGusD).

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 the 3D-Flow system could have replaced the hundreds of crates containing 4,000 electronic boards of CERN CMS L-1 Trigger Experiment:
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.

 

Using 2015 technology can replace hundreds of crates of electronics (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) 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 (summarized in two pages at goo.gl/AoszvQ detailed at goo.gl/w3XlZ1).

One crate 3D-Flow OPRA system (top in figure) summarized in two page at goo.gl/AoszvQ detailed at goo.gl/w3XlZ1

Results can be measured using the ER/DSU unit
These claims can be proven analytically and ultimately by experimental results showing which system can find more sought particles within real LHC data at a very high luminosity in a controlled environment where it is known how many sought particles are memorized in the ER/DSU unit, will prove which system is the best.

The ER/DSU unit (Event Recorder Detector Simulation Unit described on pages 8, 12, 23, 32, 149-170 of ‘goo.gl/w3XlZ1) costing only $40,000 would be able to record raw data from the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) apparatus and then replay the same data to the 3D-Flow OPRA system and to the CMS Level-1 Trigger (or other trigger system) proving their enormous difference in efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Used in the 3D-CBS, provides the first true paradigm change in biomedical imaging

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 providing for the first time a true paradigm change in biomedical imaging.

(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).

Sincerely, Dario Crosetto.
MIT TLO Director, Lesley Millar-Nicholson, on behalf of MIT President Rafael Reif, answered my letter without pointing out any flaws in my invention/technology, with the recommendation to contact the Venture capital community, citing our 2015 Business Wire Press Release as a good source of information.

Although the recommendation to contact Venture Capitalists is helpful, telling them it was the suggestion of MIT President and Director of TLO – because Venture Capitalists and the public trust MIT competence in electronics, computing, and physics, they would be expecting a more in-depth discussion between myself and MIT experts. Therefore, I wrote back to MIT as reported here: goo.gl/8oRkGc.

The 3D-CBS Presented To Siemens, GE, Philips, etc.

At the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon, France, I presented two articles (goo.gl/kztmNb, goo.gl/61BukR) detailed in one book available at ‘goo.gl/ggGGwF’, which I distributed (200 copies) free of charge to the leaders in the field, including representatives from GE, Philips and Siemens.

In regard to the Explorer project, a senior expert and leader at GE commented that it is nothing new, just more of everything; however, they were interested to see the measurements from a PET with a longer detector.

One-day meeting with Siemens
A more in-depth discussion took place with Siemens President of Nuclear Medicine, Michael Reiterman, and the Director of the PET group Vilim Simcic who came to see me on November 6, 2002 for a meeting that lasted an entire day, followed with conference calls during the following days with Siemens Director of Advance Research and Director of the electronic group.

They attended the meeting because they doubted that it was possible to improve the efficiency of their PET by improving the electronics.

Prior to our meeting, all participants agreed to record it; they did not find any flaws in my 3D-CBS invention.
At the meeting Siemens stated repeatedly that PET efficiency could not be improved by improving the electronics because they built 31 prototypes “believing they were making a very appropriate trade-off of light collection and information extraction and the efficiency of their PET was not limited by the electronics”.

However, they had to recant their statement after I explained to them how it could be improved. Five years after our meeting, Siemens announced on their website an “Ultra-fast detector electronics that improves count rate performance, image quality, signal-to-noise ratio, lesion detectability and patient scanning time”. (However, if I could have implemented all my innovations at once, with a 1.5m 3D-CBS detector, I would have achieved an improvement of 40,000% and made a substantial difference in effective early cancer detection).

Although Reiterman and Simcic at the end of our meeting on November 6, 2002, were convinced that we could work together on my 3D-CBS design with a detector longer than 1m, this was not the marketing plan of the company and a few days later I received a letter stating it.

Continuing communication with GE

Charles Stearns from GE continues to tell me that they believe the market is not ready for a PET longer than 1m, and I continue to claim that people are ready to have their lives saved with an effective early cancer detection.

I continue to ask Charles Stearns to give me the opportunity to present my 3D-CBS invention to their experts in technology and marketing so I can answer their objections that will prove the competitive, cost-effectiveness of my 3D-CBS compared to the current over 10,000 PET devices that have a 16 cm or 25 cm detector. I tell him it is time to start the market on my 3D-CBS with a 1.5m detector because, besides being a great business opportunity, it has the potential to save many lives as shown in the table goo.gl/4vEEW6, and my patents would protect their investment from competitors in developing this new product line of the 3D-CBS PET.

3D-CBS Receives The 2011 Leonardo Da Vinci Award

In 2011, the 3D-CBS in won the “Leonardo da Vinci Prize for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis” (goo.gl/2ZhGyk).

The competition was well publicized through public announcements, including two Press Releases (PR) by Business Wire – one on May 12, 2011 to 400 media outlets, and another on May 26, 2011 to 6,000 media outlets.

To be fair to everyone, the rules of the competition were targeted to maximize benefits to cancer patients in identifying the project with highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs, and were crafted through a public procedure receiving comments via web with contributions by several scientists, including scientists from CERN, specifically in a meeting with Andrew Lankford at CERN.

The competition was held at the University of Pavia on its 600-year anniversary. The Prize was assigned after a fierce competition during a five-hour public, transparent examination of all projects, reviewed by a local committee, broadcasted live in English and Italian via internet with the possibility to receive questions and comments from anywhere in the world in real-time.

 

The 3D-CBS can claim for the first time a true paradigm change in biomedical imaging because it has the capability to capture and accurately measure all possible signals from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured compared to alternative approaches and thus can offer at the same time the three advantages of:

1. an effective detection of diseases such as cancer at a very early and highly curable stage, and improved diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of treatments,
2. a radiation dose that is less than 1% of current PET
3. a very low cost examination lasting less than 4 minutes that covers all organs of the body.
Hence, screening of specific organs currently performed by a mammogram, PAP-test, colonoscopy, and PSA would be unnecessary.
Award ceremony of the Leonardo da
Vinci Prize to Crosetto for the 3D-CBS
Held at the University of Pavia at its
600 years anniversary.

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; experimental data over 50 years has proven this, and is confirmed by major cancer organizations. I am claiming the 3D-CBS can achieve the three goals listed above, which no other device or approach can demonstrate as achievable, and that it will create a paradigm change in biomedical imaging enabling an effective early cancer detection which is what saves lives.

See the complete list of articles at: goo.gl/XtMkJc

Dario Crosetto,
900 Hideaway pl.
DeSoto, TX 75115,
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