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

I came to the TotalBodyPET Conference in Ghent because I wanted to know why the organizing committee rejected my paper and because I have a concern for taxpayers and the humanity that this is a commercial propaganda of the PET Explorer, driving the industry in the wrong direction to create a new PET market that is not defeating cancer and is not benefitting taxpayers. Here is what happened on July 1st, 2018 at the TotalBodyPET Conference:

–          I asked permission to the Conference Organizers to distributed to the participants a paper-copy of the six pages of the attached document

–          I asked the following question to the first speaker, Joel Karp after his presentation: “Joel, you stated at the IEEE-MIC conference in Atlanta, Georgia, last year and confirmed again yesterday that the merit of a project is the ability by his author to convince an industry to build a prototype. Instead my vision is to discuss the scientific and cost-effective merit of one project with respect to another between scientists in a public forum without suppressing anyone in particular. When I asked the question to the industries why they build project A rather than project B, they answered to be OEM manufacturers and build the prototype for which they receive the money from the author. Because you, with your co-authors of the Explorer are using $15.5 million taxpayer money I invite you to discuss your project in a scientific forum and compare it with the scientific merits and cost-effectiveness for the taxpayers with other projects like mine instead. I invite you, Joel to discuss our projects that are based on particle detection with the experts of particle detection at CERN in Geneva, inviting also all manufacturers of components or of complete PET devices”. I did not receive an answer and Steve Meikle took the microphone after me.

–          Early in the day I asked Steve Meikle if he read the paper copy of my attached document that I gave him the day before or the email version I sent him the evening before about my paper submission and he answered he did not and that he was not involved in the rejection of my paper. I asked the same question to other people from the Conference Organizing Committee and Scientific Committee and no one took responsibility for the rejection of my paper, no one could provide a scientific reason for its rejection. I was told that the responsibility for its rejection was from the chief organizer Stefaan Vandenberghe who did not show up for the entire day because he was ill. When Meikle told me that he did not read my paper that he promised to read the day before, I reminded him that I received the same promised from him at the IEEE conference in 2014 In Seattle (WA), 2016 in Strasbourg (France) and 2017 in Atlanta (GE) and I never received any comment or opinion about my inventions and project. At that point I received from Steve Meikle statements a not very reassuring words to get the possibility to present anytime my invention at this conference or in the future. He started telling me that under his leadership of the 2018 IEEE Conference in Sidney, Australia, in the fall, I could not distribute inside the conference premises the article similar to the one I have distributed at the IEEE Conference in Atlanta or the attached six-page document as I am distributing inside the conference here at Ghent. In addition, he anticipated that if I did not write in my paper any measured or simulated values as he claimed he had not seen before, my paper would not be accepted. I replied that for the past ten years I provided measured and simulated values. These values are available in several documents. I provided in the year 2000 the steps of the real-time photon detection algorithm for a 3 x 3 and for a 5 x 5 matrix calculation of the local maxima, and all typical operations required for accurately detect and measure a 511 keV photon or any particle. Because my 3D-Flow parallel processing system is technology-independent and programmable with the capability to execute up to 26 operations in a single cycle, one can execute any algorithm most suitable for any type of detector and extract valuable information from BGO economical crystals that other projects cannot. In the year 2003 I have built this 3D-Flow system in Altera FPGA hardware running at 21 MHz, I paid Synopsys in 1998 to design the 3D-Flow ASIC with four processors in 350 nanometer technology that was running at 61 MHz. In 2016 I received two quotes from reputable industries that now can run the processors at 400 MHz with 40 nanometer technology. The chip with 64-processors is estimated to consume 4.3 Watt. I have the design of the boards, and crate with the calculated power consumption and performance. I have 59 quotes form reputable industries, at least two quotes from competing industries for each component. Meikle commented that the quotes are not significant as values to approve a paper, and I did not understand which values he considers valuable to accept a paper. Based on these premises, the rejection of my papers might continue for a long time if I will not have the opportunity to answer questions at a Conference like this or the one at IEEE in the fall, similar to those by Steve Mikle set forth in a short conversation on July 1st, 2018. My papers submitted during the past ten years, including the attached one at this conference provide in the abstract and in the references (including a detailed design in 271-page reference) the 3D-CBS more efficient at one tenth the cost of the Explorer. It is legitimate to request a reviewer as well as to Steve Meikle who is claiming the quote from industry are not valid data to support their rejection claim with a calculation or a scientific evidence.

–          Later I asked some questions to Simon Cherry after his talk: “What is the efficiency of 18.1 mm thick LYSO crystal?” answered to be 65% and who were the expert from the government who assigned him and his colleagues $15.5 taxpayer money and if he disclosed them alternative systems like mine and if he cited my work since the year 2000 when I gave him my technical-scientific book and presented two articles at the same 2000 IEEE Conference. Simon generically answered the $15,5 grant was assigned by a peer review, and later that he cited my work in an article on Nuclear Medicine that I did not find, however, he did not answer to the question if he informed the reviewers about alternative approaches like mine. In a short conversation Simon remarked that he was very upset that I am very critical at his work, mainly writing negative comments. I answered that in science one should not take a critical comment as an offense but reply refuting data and calculation with evidence of other data or calculations. Our work as scientists is not to support wrong calculations or a wrong direction of research of a colleague who is creating a new market going in the wrong direction that is not serving taxpayers who are paying the bill. On the other remark by Simon that I was very critical with the statement that influential people in the scientific community have been mobbing and bullying my work for more than one decade, I think it is legitimate to make these statements that are supported by facts and data and are damaging not only me as the inventor but mainly humanity.

–          I respectfully request Stefaan Vandenberghe as the person responsible of the organization of this TotalBodyPET conference to provide substantial scientific evidence to invalidate the content of my paper or if he cannot refute the staggering advantages of my inventions/approach to let me present it as he let present other projects which have fewer novelties or advantages. I just received a letter of appreciation for my inventions from Tsinghua University in Beijing where I gave a seminar on June 19, 2018 (goo.gl/7Kefay). This is a further proof that my work and inventions are appreciated and valuable to advance science in this field and it is responsibility of a University not to suppress it. Thank you, Kind Regards, Dario Crosetto

 

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 4:55 PM
To: Sent to ADCOM Board of Directors (see the list at the end of this document)
Subject: Why Ghent University in Belgium is organizing a commercial propaganda of the PET Explorer driving the industry in the wrong direction, suppressing alternative solutions and scientific forum to make scientific truth for benefit humanity emerge and prevail?

 

This evening Steve Meikle (member of the scientific committee of the June 30th, July 2nd, 2018, TotalBodyPET Conference who rejected my paper and General Chairman of the 2018 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Sidney, Australia, where I submit my abstract/summaries since 2002 and were all rejected with the exception from the acceptance by Ralph James in 2003 and in 2013), promised me to provide a scientific reason why my abstract/summary (see below or pages 5-6 of the attachment) to the TotalBodyPET was rejected from Ghent’s Conference and the outcome of my three submissions to the 2018 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference.

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 3:56 PM
To: Sent to all participants of the TotalBodyPET Conference in Ghent, Belgium and to, Stefaan.Vandenberghe@UGent.be,

Subject: Why Ghent University in Belgium is organizing a commercial propaganda of the PET Explorer driving the industry in the wrong direction, suppressing alternative solutions and scientific forum to make scientific truth for benefit humanity emerge and prevail?

 

Why Ghent University in Belgium is organizing a commercial propaganda of the PET Explorer driving the industry in the wrong direction, suppressing alternative solutions and a scientific forum to make the scientific truth for benefit humanity emerge and prevail?

 

Why Ghent University in Belgium is organizing a commercial propaganda of the PET Explorer driving the industry in the wrong direction, suppressing alternative solutions and a scientific forum to make the scientific truth for benefit humanity emerge and prevail?

In the photo Crosetto, who presented the first detailed study of a PET with a long detector (FOV) the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) in the year 2000 at the IEEE-MIC Conference in Lyon in two articles [2, 3] and one book [1], is asking the author of the Explorer, Simon Cherry why he never wanted to discuss the objective of his 3D-CBS invention that has the capability to “accurately capture and measure all possible signals from the tumor markers at the lowest possible cost per valid signal captured” and has instead convinced the industry to go in the wrong direction of the Explorer that does not have this capability and cannot significantly reduce cancer deaths and healthcare cost because, it is built with over half a million expensive crystals, is working in list mode, etc. and it costs ten times more and is less efficient than the 3D-CBS?

Simon Cherry did not answer Crosetto’s question. It is expected that he will answer before the end of the conference.

 

See version in pdf at goo.gl/SmP788 or in Facebook at goo.gl/vwQHG2 or in HTML at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=2170

 

Two Decades of Mobbing and Bullying by the scientific community
prevented millions of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars from being saved

Dario B. Crosetto1*

1Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths, DeSoto, Texas, 75115, USA. *crosettodario@gmail.com – crosetto@att.net

 

The author’s technology-independent 3D-Flow invention that breaks the speed barrier in real-time application was recognized valuable and certified formally and officially by a panel of experts from prestigious universities, industries, and important world research centers in a major public scientific review held at Fermi National Laboratory on December 14, 1993 [4].

The panel recognized that Crosetto’s 3D-Flow architecture can satisfy the requirement of several Level-1 Triggers of several experiments and that “given this feature experimenters would probably think clever uses not now possible”.

This statement that Crosetto’s invention would make new applications possible was confirmed by several scientists in subsequent letters (e.g. FERMILAB Head of Computing Division, stating that Crosetto’s invention “…would benefit not only to the High Energy Physics community, but to several other application areas.”   CERN ECP Division leader stated “Crosetto’s proposal improves on previous PET techniques in three areas… …in short, the proposed system will drastically reduce the radiation to the patient, shorten the scanning time and produce an image of improved resolution”.

The committee assigned $150,000 during the closeout of the Superconducting Super Collider “…to complete the current development and leave the project in a state where it could be continued”.

Subsequently, Crosetto received approximately $1 million, to continue the development. He developed the simulator for a 3D-Flow system with thousands of processors, the assembler, the editor, test vectors and the software proving the feasibility in three FPGAs (Altera, Xilinx and Lucent Technologies) to execute complex algorithms on input data set for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data sets.

He then paid Synopsys, one of the leading industries creating tools to design Integrated Circuits and ASICs, to design the 3D-Flow ASIC with four 3D-Flow processors at 61 MHz in CMOS, 350 nanometer technology. Synopsys generated the “tapeout” data file to be sent to the silicon foundry for production.

The feasibility of the invention was further recognized valuable by peer-review of a scientific journal in a 45-page article in 1999 [5]. The proof of concept of the 3D-Flow was tested in FPGA hardware and presented at 2001 and 2003 [6] IEEE-NSS-MIC conferen-ces [4,5,6,7,8,9,12]. In 2016, the 3D-Flow OPRA [9] was proven feasible and cost-effective by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

 

Starting from 1999, some influential people of the scientific community have been mobbing (excluding, isolating) and bullying (use of a superior power or influence to intimidate or prevail on someone) the inventor preventing humanity from receiving the benefits of his invention.

The money to fabricate in silicon the 1998 Synopsys’ design of the 3D-Flow ASIC was never provided.

Instead, hundreds of millions of dollars went to alternative approaches that did not work and were trashed in 2016 because they did not go through an extensive public review, similar to the one Crosetto had at Fermilab in 1993 [4] which proved analytically that it has the capability to execute complex, programmable level-1 Trigger algorithms at the LHC bunch crossing speed and data rate.

Wesley Smith’s Level-1 Trigger for CERN-CMS experiment was one such alternative approach. He alone received $50 million, increasing to over $100 million by funding agencies of his collaborators. He and other colleagues prevented Crosetto from presenting his 3D-Flow invention at the 1999 Snowmass, Colorado, workshop of the electronics for LHC experiments.

In fact all the papers Crosetto submitted to the IEEE Conferences and journals in the field were rejected without cause with the exception of when Ralph James was Chairman of the IEEE conference in 2003 and 2013.

In the year 2000, IEEE senior scientist Aaron Brill appointed respected reviewers to review Crosetto’s paper that had been rejected by anonymous reviewers of Transaction in Nuclear Science (TNS) journal in 1999. Three named reviewers approved Crosetto’s paper for publication, however, two anonymous reviewers rejected it, claiming the 3D-Flow architecture was “flawed” and the TNS Editor never published Crosetto’s article.

Even though Crosetto had proved that the 3D-Flow architecture was functional and feasible with simulation and by testing it in hardware, and that it was providing a powerful tool to scientists at a fraction of the cost of alternative approaches, his papers continued to be rejected in 2002, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017.

Some senior scientists attempted to implement a public scientific review (in 2008) and to organize a meeting with those who oppose Crosetto’s inventions but they were not successful. In 2016, Crosetto discussed these rejections individually with all Chairpersons of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTDS Conference. They could not support the rejection claims of Crosetto’s abstracts/summaries by the IEEE reviewers, and could not invalidate the feasibility of his 3D-Flow system described in one figure for HEP application [9] and in one Figure for the 3D-CBS application [9], both supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

Rejection claims from reviewers could also not be supported by the 2016 and newly elected 2017 IEEE-NPSS Presidents [10] during an almost two-hour discussion on November 5, 2016, in Strasbourg, France. Newly elected 2017 IEEE-NPSS President Stefan Ritt made himself available to be a member of the panel for a public scientific review of Crosetto’s invention at CERN which was requested on February 7, 2017 by CERN Director General who appointed three scientists to organize one; however, a review was never organized.

Mobbing and bullying by the scientific community is further proven by the fact that colleagues never cited in their articles related to Level-1 Trigger the report by the official, formal, major scientific review held at Fermilab in 1993, which had representative from academia, universities, research centers, including a representative from CERN, and never cited Crosetto’s peer-review 45-page article published by Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research in February 1999 [5].

Currently the 3D-Flow invention has evolved to the 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithm) and improved over the years by using state-of-the-art technologies and processes, maintaining its competitiveness in higher efficiency and lower cost compared to alternative approaches at any given time since 1993.

The 3D-Flow OPRA system can replace hundreds of crates of electronics of the CERN-CMS level-1 Trigger containing 4,000 electronic boards [11], with one crate containing 9 of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA boards [9], providing higher performance at one thousandth the cost.

Fifty-nine quotes from reputable industries prove the feasibility of building a 3D-Flow OPRA system with over 10,000 channels in one 36 cm cube of electronics. This system would be 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.

A detailed proposal [9] for $13.5 million for five years can build the first 3D-Flow system for experiments in High Energy Physics (CERN) and the electronics for the first two 3D-CBS units.

Delivery of both systems can be expected two years after funding. A more aggressive plan could reduce the delivery time.

 

The author’s 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention that makes use of the 3D-Flow architecture is hundreds of times more efficient and more cost-effective than the existing over 10,000 PET devices, and more efficient, at one tenth the cost [1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12] of the current implemented Explorer project [13, 14, 15].

It was first presented by the author at the 2000 IEEE-MIC Conference in Lyon, France, in two articles [2, 3] and one technical-scientific book [1], distributed free of charge in 200 copies to the leaders in the field.

Its feasibility and functionality providing advantages in higher efficiency at a lower cost was proven superior to alternative approaches at any time during the past 18 years. For example:

  • In 2002, Crosetto’s discussed his book [1] at a meeting with leaders from Siemens Nuclear Medicine (President, Director of PET, Director of Advanced Research and Director of the Electronic group) which lasted one day.  They denied there was the possibility to significantly improve PET efficiency by improving the electronics (because they had built 31 prototypes and did not see a way to improve significantly PET efficiency by improving the electronics), but had to recant their statements before their own evidence published on their website five years later that claimed they had improved PET efficiency by 70% by improving the electronics. (Crosetto’s 3D-CBS would improve PET efficiency by 40,000%)
  • In 2003, it was certified feasible and functional in FPGA hardware (in two modular boards, each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors), proving the feasibility and functionality to build electronic systems for detectors of any size [6]. It was also certified by the public scientific reviews of the 3D-CBS innovative technology, held in Dallas, Texas (broadcasted live in English on the web). The review panel included the inventor of the pocket calculator, Jerry Merryman.
  • In 2008, it was certified by the public scientific review (broadcasted live with simultaneous translation Italian/English) of the 3D-CBS technology, held in Rome, Italy, from the Association Ordine dei Medici.
  • In 2011, it was certified by five hours of public scientific discussion (broadcasted live with simultaneous translation Italian/English) in a fierce competition for the “Leonardo da Vinci Prize for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis”, held at the University of Pavia, Italy. The 3D-CBS won the prize.
  • In 2013, it was certified by the presentation of the article and the poster [7] and the discussion with colleagues who could not refute the superiority in efficiency and low cost of the 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS systems compared to alternative approaches presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in Seoul, South Korea.
  • In 2015, it was certified to be feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries in the proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy to build the 3D-Flow OPRA and the electronics for the 3D-CBS. [9]
  • In 2016, it was certified by a discussion with the authors of the Explorer confirming that the values relative to the Explorer reported in the Table 1 were correct and they could not refute the lower efficiency and higher cost (about ten times higher) of the Explorer compared to the 3D-CBS.
  • In 2017, it was certified by a discussion with participants and leaders in the field at the 2017-IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference after Crosetto distributed 1,300 copies of an article [12] reporting the advantages of his inventions with references to the technical details and comparisons with alternative approaches.
  • In 2018, a seminar of Crosetto’s inventions followed by a discussion was presented to the PET experts at Tsinghua University, one of the most prestigious universities in China. No one could refute or invalidate Crosetto’s claims with scientific arguments, and when Crosetto asked questions on slide 6 regarding what they consider to be most important when designing a PET device, they could not deny the advantages or invalidate Crosetto’s choice which is different and in most cases opposite to alternative approaches used by other PET manufacturers.

 

Beginning in 2000, some influential people of the scientific community have been mobbing (excluding, isolating) and bullying (use of a superior power or influence to intimidate or prevail on someone) the inventor preventing humanity from receiving the benefits of his inventions which would save millions of lives and reduce healthcare costs. 

After studying and analyzing the history of PET since its invention in 1952, Crosetto realized fifty years later that it was not a very useful tool for healthcare providers because of the high radiation requirement for patients, the low efficiency and that it was not contributing significantly to reduce cancer deaths because the new market of 16 cm FOV PET created by Michael Phelps was going in the wrong direction by focusing on improving spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity.

When Crosetto submitted for nine years ten requests for funding his inventions (goo.gl/VHbacz) focused on enormously improving sensitivity, also by extending the length (FOV) of the PET detector to over 1 m to the National Institutes of Health and additional requests for funding to several other government agencies such as Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, etc., all proposals were rejected because the reviewers were always the same people, those influential in the field of medical imaging around the world. Reviewers rejected Cosetto’s claims by stating that a FOV longer than 16 cm was unnecessary because the largest organ in the body is approximately 15 cm and radiation is not important because the patient receives higher radiation during radiotherapy. Funding agencies wanted Crosetto to submit a proposal for an economical device (a short FOV) but Crosetto argued one should focus on a low examination cost by increasing the throughput of the patient with a longer FOV requiring shorter examination time. Reviewers requested Crosetto develop block detectors focusing on increasing spatial resolution and not sensitivity. Following are a few rejection claims by the reviewers of Crosetto’s proposals:

 

In addition to rejecting all Crosetto’s requests for funding his inventions, his papers and presentations at conferences were also rejected.

For example, after Joel Karp, General Chairman of the 2002 IEEE-MIC conference rejected all Crosetto’s papers on the 3D-CBS with a long FOV in 2002, he applied for a grant with his colleagues to NIH and received $15.5 million for the Explorer project for a long FOV, making many of the same claims that he had rejected in Crosetto’s application. Rejection of Crosetto’s papers continued in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018. In 2008, the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference attempted to receive a scientific reason to support rejection claims with calculations or scientific evidence but reviewers did not provide them. He also attempted to organize a public forum with the scientists who were opposing Crosetto’s inventions but they refused.

Unfortunately, leaders in the field who developed the Explorer [13, 14, 15], although recognizing the value of Crosetto’s invention and admitting in slides and presentations of their Explorer that it was not a new idea, citing Crosetto’s work [21, 24], did not mention these facts in their articles, thus are not searchable in scientific journals. Papers that Crosetto submitted at conferences and journals were rejected for non-scientific reasons [16], his answers to their rejection claims, questions, and doubts were not considered. The ethics of a scientist require a scientific reason be provided to reject 59 quotes from industries and the IEEE rejections in 2016 [8], and the recent rejection from the Conference “Total Body PET – From Mice to Men” on June 30 – July 2, 2018 in Ghent, Belgium cannot be justified in the scientific world.

Mobbing and bullying by the scientific community is also proven by the fact that colleagues never cited in their articles Crosetto’s two 2000 articles [2, 3], the 2003 article [6], the 2013 article [7] and the 2000 technical-scientific book [1], which is the most detailed study of a cost-effective PET with long FOV, clearly an invention that creates a paradigm change in biomedical imaging that the other work of 1990 cited in Simon Cherry’s presentation slide cannot claim.

 

Currently, Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention has evolved and improved over the years by using state-of-the-art technologies and processes, maintaining its competitiveness in higher efficiency and lower cost compared to alternative approaches at any given time since 2000.

The 3D-CBS is the best and most cost-effective tool to advance healthcare, opening new applications of the current PET as it can provide simultaneous accurate data captured from all over the body at the minimal cost and with very low radiation, allowing the detection and correlation of information related to biological processes in different organs of the body. Now the doctor is given the opportunity for the first time to see the function of the body as a whole and not limited to symptoms of individual organs. For example, the relation of symptoms from Amyloidosis affecting the heart, kidneys, liver, spleen, nervous system and digestive tract can be understood by verifying abnormalities in the Amyloid protein if this protein can be tagged with a radioisotope. Or the relation of symptoms from Parkinson’s disease such as pain, depression/anxiety, and behavioral changes in the brain can be understood by verifying a possible dysbiosis in the Gastrointestinal (GI) system (GI disturbances, GI motility, Constipation, Pain) that are connected to the brain through the vagus nerve, etc.

No one in academia or industry has been able to refute scientifically the superiority in higher efficiency and lower cost of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS technology compared to any alternative approach at any given time since the year 2000 when Crosetto wrote his first technical-scientific book [1].

As in the year 1998 when Michael Phelps created a market that could not provide a safe and powerful tool for health professionals and did not have the capability to significantly reduce cancer deaths and healthcare costs, now industries are on the verge of making a similar mistake in creating a PET market which does not address the ESSENCE of building a safe and powerful device to help healthcare professionals significantly reduce cancer deaths and healthcare costs.

Michael Phelps created a market of a 16 cm FOV PET device focusing on spatial resolution, now industries are on the verge of creating a PET market with a long FOV using more than 500,000 crystals made of rare material. In both cases they missed the answer to the questions: What does it reduce cancer death? Which results will I get when I will test it on a sample population?

The following page analyzes this aspect and provides the choice that the scientific community and PET manufacturers must face to hit the target and avoid making the same mistake of creating a new market for the PET with a long FOV not useful for defeating the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer.

The Explorer and the uExplorer based on the use of a detector with Lutetium which is rare in nature, cut in over 500,000 small pieces is undoubtedly costing more to purchase and to assemble compared to a detector made of fewer than 3,000 large crystals without Lutetium or other rare material. This development is again going in the wrong direction.

Seize the Essence to reduce cancer deaths and cost and provide a safe diagnostic tool to doctors

The 3D-CBS: the first true paradigm change in biomedical imaging

 

 

Level-1 translation of the above statement in technical terms for devices based on radiation

Accurately extract from radiation and measure all possible valuable signals related to the tumor marker at a lower cost per valid signal captured compared to alternative approaches

Level-2 translation in technical terms for PET devices

  1. a) Efficiently capture all possible 511 keV photons and accurately measure at the lowest possible cost:
  2. b) Photon’s total energy
  3. c) Photon’s arrival time
  4. d) Coordinates “x” and “y” of the incident photon
  5. e) Coordinate “z” (DOI) of the incident photon
  6. f) Efficiently filter out all background radiation

 

WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT?

 

  1. High Spatial Resolution
  2. Ultra-High Sensitivity
  3. TOF
  4. a) List mode DAQ or b) Front-End DSP processing DAQ
  5. Ideal crystal, expensive and rare in nature
  6. Non-ideal crystal, inexpensive, and abundant in nature
  7. a) > 500,000 small crystals or b) < 3,000 large crystals
  8. FOV 16 cm, 25 cm, 1 m, 1,5 m, or 2 m
  9. Low cost components

 

Choose the Essence to reduce cancer deaths and cost

 

 

HOW DO YOU VERIFY THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN THE ESSENCE?

“The proof will be to test your device on a sample population and compare the cost with other approaches.

For example, test your device every year on 10,000 people, ages 55-74, taken from a location where the mortality rate has been constant for the past 20 years.

A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the choices you have made in building your device.”

 

THE ESSENCE HAS BEEN MISSED FOR THE PAST 70 YEARS BECAUSE A DEVICE WHICH WOULD SHOW A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN CANCER DEATHS ON A SAMPLE POPULATION WAS NOT FUNDED

 

The new Explorer by Simon Cherry et al. and the uExplorer by United Imaging are going in the wrong direction. It can be proven analytically that the Explorer cannot compete on price or efficiency and it is based on crystals with Lutetium which has limited availability in nature. In essence, they have chosen: 1. High Spatial Resolution to the detriment of sensitivity, 4a. List mode DAQ; 5. Ideal crystals, expensive and rare in nature; 7a More than 500,000 small crystals; 8. FOV 2 m, wasting unnecessary detector components covering more than the organs of the body.

 

The patent pending (last filed on June 29, 2018) 3D-CBS is the first true paradigm change in biomedical imaging and the most competitive technology that can defeat cancer because it offers three advantages no other device can offer simultaneously a) an effective detection, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of diseases; b) a radiation dose that is 1% of current PET; c) a very low examination cost. This is achieved by the author’s design that makes use of the following components and techniques used in synergy to maximize the benefits for the highest efficiency at the lowest possible cost. The following priority choices have been made: 2. Ultra-High Sensitivity, 4b. Front-End DSP processing DAQ using the 3D-Flow invention, 6. Non-ideal crystals, inexpensive and easily available on the market; 7b. Less than 3,000 large crystals; 8. FOV approximately 1.5 m, covering all organs of the body; 9. Low cost components; 3. TOF only if it shows advantages in reducing the cancer death rate on a sample population.

Many lives could not be saved this past decade because the over 10,000 current PET devices used in healthcare facilities have low efficiency, require administering high radiation to the patient, have a high examination cost, and because the author’s inventions advancing this field have been suppressed from being discussed openly in a public scientific review similar to the one requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider in 1993 for Crosetto’s previous inventions, and because they have been suppressed from publication in scientific journals and from funding.

This has caused the needless loss of millions of lives because Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention, made available since the year 2000, has been continuously improved showing advantages at any time during the past 18 years (as reported in the 2016 comparison table between the 3D-CBS and the Explorer and the current comparison with the uExplorer by United Imaging) yet continues to be mobbed and bullied by the scientific community that denies transparency in science and denies a public forum where authors of different devices should defend their claims before other authors.

Such a public forum occurred on 01/20/2016, at the University of Turin, Italy (in Italian) before the Director and colleagues of the INFN of Turin. The Director has alone published over 750 articles in particle physics in scientific journals. Another public forum occurred on June 19, 2018, at Tsinghua University (in English), one of the most prestigious universities in China, before experts in building PET components and head-PET devices, no one could invalidate Crosetto’s claims. The superiority of his inventions compa-red to alternative approaches emerged clearly from his presentation and discussion that were video recorded in both places. (Links to the slides goo.gl/9nxino and video www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9bpxKOarhc of 01/20/2016 forum in Turin, Italy, and slides goo.gl/7Kefay and video from the 06/19/2018 forum in Beijing, China). Crosetto’s claim that PET efficiency is improved by improving the electronics was also proven correct in 2002 during the meeting with leaders from Siemens Nuclear Medicine who first denied it would be possible but had to recant their statements before their own evidence published on their website five years later.

uExplorer and other PET device manufacturers could lead the market of PET with a long FOV only until another company builds the patented 3D-CBS which has a lower component cost and higher efficiency which will place all these companies in the unsustainable position of having to sell their devices below their production cost in order to keep a slice of their market share.

Submitted to TotalBodyPET2018 Conference, 6/30 – 7/2, 2018, Ghent (Belgium). Rejected without cause so the mobbing can continue.

The 3D-CBS: the first true paradigm change in biomedical imaging held back by the scientific community

Dario B. Crosetto1*

1Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths, DeSoto, Texas, 75115, USA

*crosettodario@gmail.com or crosetto@att.net

The 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) is the first true paradigm change in biomedical imaging and the most competitive technology that can defeat cancer because it offers three advantages no other device can offer simultaneously: a) an effective detection and diagnosis of diseases such as cancer at a very early and highly curable stage on asymptomatic people, improving prognosis and monitoring of treatment ensuring all cancer cells are removed surgically with radiation or chemotherapy; b) a radiation dose that is 1% of current PET (Positron Emission Tomography); c) a very low examination cost covering all organs of the body in under two minutes that is less expensive than mammogram, PAP-smear, colonoscopy, PSA test, etc., combined.

Experimental results show that early cancer detection combined with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy works. For example, colon cancer caught early has a 91% survival rate versus 11% if caught late, breast cancer 98% vs. 27%.

The 3D-CBS provides the missing device making early detection cost-effective. It is an advanced PET with a 1.5m detector covering all organs of the body, first presented by the author at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in articles and a book [1,2,3] detailing inventions in the 3D-Flow electronics, detector assembly, coupling electronics with detectors, algorithms, etc. and improved with additional inventions in the following years protected with patents to incentivize funding for its development (Figure 1). The proof of concept of the 3D-Flow was tested in hardware and presented at 2001 and 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences [4,5,6,7,8,9,12].

The 3D-CBS project has been proven technically feasible and cost-effective by 59 quotes from 21 reputable component manufacturers. It shows competitive results not only with all other approaches such as drugs for late detection, Genomic, Immunotherapy, CICD, but also within all diagnostic medical imaging devices including MRI, CT, Ultrasound. It is hundreds of times more efficient and more cost-effective than the existing 10,000+ PET devices, and more efficient, at one tenth the cost [1,6,7,8,9,12] of the current implemented Explorer project (Table 1) [13,14,15].

The 3D-CBS passed several public scientific reviews, won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize, and when discussed with leaders at Siemens they were able to improve the efficiency of their PET by 70%. (See slides 17-22 of reference xx).

Holding back the author’s invention by the scientific community for eighteen years needs to be addressed and corrected because it has damaged to the advancement in science and humanity in the needless loss of lives and taxpayers’ money [10,11].

 

Table 1. 3D-CBS features compared to the Explorer by Simon Cherry at al. Data for the Explorer reported in the table are derived from publications, slides [13] presentations and several press releases made by the authors of the Explorer [14,15] and from calculations based on the data reported in the articles. Data and feasibility of the 3D-CBS [1,6,7,8,12] is proven by the 3D-Flow innovative basic concept [4,5] proven feasible and functional in hardware in two modular boards [6], each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors and recently the 3D-Flow OPRA [9] proven feasible and cost-effective by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

Description EXPLORER 3D-CBS
Crystal Type Expensive LYSO 491,520 crystals Economical BGO <3,000 crystals
Number of electronic channels 1,920 2,304
Number of Channels per Board 16 256
Number of Detector Boards 120 9
Number of Crates housing the Detector Boards (the 3D-CBS crate is also housing the computer to process valid data and provide results) 12 1
Capability to acquire and process data daily 40 TB >40,000 TB
Daily hard drives size requirement 40 TB 1 GB
Number of racks containing computers to process acquired data 4 to 6 0
Power Consumption 40 to 60 kW 3 to 4 kW
Efficiency (number true divided by total gen.) Less than the 3D-CBS Ultra-Sensitive
Cost of the Device 20 to 30 times current PET 2 to 3 times current PET
Examination Cost

(what matters to the patient)

Higher than current cost because the throughput cannot be 20 to 30 times current PET Lower than current cost because the throughput can be higher than 2 to 3 times current PET
Potential to save millions of lives

(what should matter to humanity:
to solve the world’s most deadly calamity)

Cannot prove to save lives on a sample population because each day it cannot process 40,000 TB data from tumor markers Can prove on a sample population to save many lives because each day it can process cost-effectively over 40,000 TB data from tumor markers
Potential to reduce healthcare costs

(what should matter to politicians to solve the world’s most costly calamity)

Increases healthcare cost because of its exorbitant cost; losing many lives lowers productivity The lower examination cost saves many lives; those who live instead of dying return to be productive and are removed from healthcare bill

Figure 1. Logical layout of the 3D-CBS system.

References

  1. Crosetto D. Technical-scientific book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” 3D-Computing, 2000, ISBN 0-9702897-0-7. Library of U.S. Congress Data Card Number: 00-191510 (Available at www.amazon.com). Short URL goo.gl/ggGGwF. Full URL https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5WVFVWnJteENqMWc/view?usp=sharing
  2. Crosetto D. “A modular VME or IBM PC based data acquisition system for multi-modality PET/CT scanners of different sizes and detector types”. Conf. Rec. IEEE-NSS-MIC, Lyon, France, IEEE-2000-563.
  3. Crosetto D. “Real-time, programmable, digital signal-processing electronics for extracting the information from a detector module for multi-modality PET/SPECT/CT scanners”. Conf. Rec. IEEE-NSS-MIC, Lyon, France, 2000, IEEE-2000-567.
  4. FermiLab. Project Review Report on: “Digital Programmable Level-1 Trigger with 3D-Flow Assembly” Held at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993. Short URL goo.gl/zP76Tc. Full URL https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5amx4ZlN2OTJqMmM/view?usp=sharing
  5. Crosetto D. “LHCb base-line level-0 trigger 3D-Flow implementation”. NIM-Sec. A, vol. 436, (1999) pp.341-385. Short URL goo.gl/bqhD4R
  6. Crosetto D. “The 3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) Features and Implementation” Conf. Rec. IEEE-NSS-MIC, Portland, Oregon, IEEE 2003-M7-129. Short URL goo.gl/RiIn0B . Full URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RDQ2UURPeHBIYnc/view?usp=sharing
  7. Crosetto D. “Breaking the Speed Barrier in Real-Time Applications to Make Advances in Particle Detection, Medical Imaging and Astrophysics” Conf. Rec. IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, Seoul, South Korea, IEEE-2013, 32-page article, Short URL “goo.gl/qpnNxd , Full URL  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YXU0MW1QM1IzUW8/view?usp=sharing . Poster Short URL goo.gl/VbvY5c.
  8. Crosetto D. “3D-CBS: Breakthrough Invention Based on the 3D-FLOW System, Capable of Extracting ALL Valuable Information from Radiation with the Potential to Save Millions of Lives and Reduce Healthcare Costs”. Abstract submitted to 2016 IEEE-MIC conference, Strasbourg. Short URL goo.gl/6DS5oy Full URL  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5Z0VOTVJqZ21WamM/view?usp=sharing
  9. Crosetto D. Proposal detailing the 3D-Flow OPRA and the 3D-CBS projects: “Breakthrough Invention: 3D-Flow OPRA a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: advancing science, saving lives, fighting terrorism, …” Short URL goo.gl/w3XlZ1. Full URL https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MlpkbUpjbEIybUk/view?usp=sharing
  10. Crosetto D. Response to 2016 and 2017 Presidents IEEE-NPSS Short URL goo.gl/XPNHh7 Full URL https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5eWZabVlQSkk3dDg/view?usp=sharing
  11. Crosetto D. Response to CMS Spokesperson Joel Butler March 10, 2017 Short URL goo.gl/EU9qGQ, Full URL https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5c25sYmh1SnJTa00/view?usp=sharing . Published in FDN, on 8/9/17 goo.gl/k46ea6
  12. Johnson J, Crosetto D. “Scientist Dario Crosetto Battles For Transparency In Science”. Focus Daily News, October 22, 2017. Distributed 1,300 copies at the 2017 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conf. Short URL goo.gl/EJD9yU Full URL https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5U2pwTGdheDU3dVU/view?usp=sharing
  13. Cherry S. et al. “Explorer: An Ultra-Sensitive Total Body PET Scanner for Biomedical Research” Slides presented at the 2013 IEEE-MIC Conf. Seoul, S. Korea. Slide 5 title “Not a New Idea!” and is citing Crosetto’s article [6]. It also details parameters reported in Table 1. Short URL goo.gl/BpqjAj Full URL https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NVJyQWxOeFBKT2s/view?usp=sharing
  14. UC Davis & Berkeley. “UC Davis Granted $15.5 Million to Build World’s First Total-Body PET Scanner” Published on UC Davis website, details parameters reported in Table 1. Full URL http://research.ucdavis.edu/about-us/news-center/news-stories/total-body-pet-scanner/ . Short URL goo.gl/NpNNNr
  15. UC Davis “Building the World’s First Total-Body PET Scanner” Published on UC Davis website, details parameters reported in Table 1 about 40TB and 60Kw. Full URL  https://bme.ucdavis.edu/blog/building-the-worlds-first-total-body-pet-scanner/. See also Short URL goo.gl/W6cZ9Y.
  16. References to facts and data proving mobbing and bullying the 3D-Flow and the 3D-CBS inventions for two decades in 2000, 2002, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, excluding them from presentations to conferences, publications and from funding by influential decision makers who did not follow scientific procedures and did not provide calculations and scientific evidence supporting their rejection claims (goo.gl/VHbacz). Some senior scientists attempted to implement a public scientific review (in 2008) and to organize a meeting with those who oppose Crosetto’s inventions but they were not successful.

 

Sent to all participants of the TotalBodyPET Conference in Ghent, Belgium, June 30th, July 2nd, 2018

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 3:56 PM
To: ‘fkotasidis5@gmail.com’ <fkotasidis5@gmail.com>; ‘ivan.duran@bordet.be’ <ivan.duran@bordet.be>; ‘diana.almeida@manchester.ac.uk’ <diana.almeida@manchester.ac.uk>; ‘richard.deyhle.jr@sckcen.be’ <richard.deyhle.jr@sckcen.be>; ‘irs3012@gmail.com’ <irs3012@gmail.com>; ‘peter.van.loon@hermesmedical.com’ <peter.van.loon@hermesmedical.com>; ‘c.bernard@chu.ulg.ac.be’ <c.bernard@chu.ulg.ac.be>; ‘ashishmaheshwari2100@gmail.com’ <ashishmaheshwari2100@gmail.com>; ‘ergibufasi@hotmail.com’ <ergibufasi@hotmail.com>; ‘giovanni.tosi@humanitas.it’ <giovanni.tosi@humanitas.it>; ‘thomas.beyer@meduniwien.ac.at’ <thomas.beyer@meduniwien.ac.at>; ‘msc.mehmetkaya@gmail.com’ <msc.mehmetkaya@gmail.com>; ‘gulaydurmusaltun@gmail.com’ <gulaydurmusaltun@gmail.com>; ‘magdy_khalil@hotmail.com’ <magdy_khalil@hotmail.com>; ‘uanazodo@lawsonimaging.ca’ <uanazodo@lawsonimaging.ca>; ‘svoccia@anmi.be’ <svoccia@anmi.be>; ‘paul.de.keyser@sckcen.be’ <paul.de.keyser@sckcen.be>; ‘gsmith23@ph.ed.ac.uk’ <gsmith23@ph.ed.ac.uk>; ‘dimitra.darambara@icr.ac.uk’ <dimitra.darambara@icr.ac.uk>; ‘jorge.cabello@tum.de’ <jorge.cabello@tum.de>; ‘michael.soussan@aphp.fr’ <michael.soussan@aphp.fr>; ‘speede445@yahoo.com’ <speede445@yahoo.com>; ‘yannick.berker@dkfz.de’ <yannick.berker@dkfz.de>; ‘gbwang@ucdavis.edu’ <gbwang@ucdavis.edu>; ‘vvisw@seas.upenn.edu’ <vvisw@seas.upenn.edu>; ‘bkk5a@virginia.edu’ <bkk5a@virginia.edu>; ‘palmeida@fc.ul.pt’ <palmeida@fc.ul.pt>; ‘hidehiro.iida@tyks.fi’ <hidehiro.iida@tyks.fi>; ‘intan.apriliani@sci.ui.ac.id’ <intan.apriliani@sci.ui.ac.id>; ‘shabnamshahzadkhan@gmail.com’ <shabnamshahzadkhan@gmail.com>; ‘k.ziemons@fh-aachen.de’ <k.ziemons@fh-aachen.de>; ‘brigli@live.com’ <brigli@live.com>; ‘eel.mex@gmail.com’ <eel.mex@gmail.com>; ‘antonio.maldonado.md@gmail.com’ <antonio.maldonado.md@gmail.com>; ‘Luispirex@gmail.com’ <Luispirex@gmail.com>; ‘jorgeschalch@yahoo.com’ <jorgeschalch@yahoo.com>; ‘d.meyrick01@gmail.com’ <d.meyrick01@gmail.com>; ‘chantalblairvacq@me.com’ <chantalblairvacq@me.com>; ‘frank.cheng.wu@hotmail.com’ <frank.cheng.wu@hotmail.com>; ‘brwei@fudan.edu.cn’ <brwei@fudan.edu.cn>; ‘taiy@wustl.edu’ <taiy@wustl.edu>; ‘iijima@hepl.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp’ <iijima@hepl.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp>; ‘a.t.m.willemsen@umcg.nl’ <a.t.m.willemsen@umcg.nl>; ‘h.w.a.m.dejong@umcutrecht.nl’ <h.w.a.m.dejong@umcutrecht.nl>; ‘meysamdadgar10@gmail.com’ <meysamdadgar10@gmail.com>; ‘yitterbeek@hamamatsu.be’ <yitterbeek@hamamatsu.be>; ‘jellevanriet@me.com’ <jellevanriet@me.com>; ‘sushil.sharma.uj@gmail.com’ <sushil.sharma.uj@gmail.com>; ‘azhar2932@gmail.com’ <azhar2932@gmail.com>; ‘janecekm@gmail.com’ <janecekm@gmail.com>; ‘pierre.carbonez@cern.ch’ <pierre.carbonez@cern.ch>; ‘aldosari-ad@moh.gov.sa’ <aldosari-ad@moh.gov.sa>; ‘dagan.feng@sydney.edu.au’ <dagan.feng@sydney.edu.au>; ‘vdgraaf@nikhef.nl’ <vdgraaf@nikhef.nl>; ‘filipe.castro@ri-te.tech’ <filipe.castro@ri-te.tech>; ‘abjeer@yahoo.fr’ <abjeer@yahoo.fr>; ‘jim.telfer@hilger-crystals.co.uk’ <jim.telfer@hilger-crystals.co.uk>; ‘kshah@rmdinc.com’ <kshah@rmdinc.com>; ‘lurutilae@gmail.com’ <lurutilae@gmail.com>; ‘mabbas@physicist.net’ <mabbas@physicist.net>; ‘joao.veloso@ua.pt’ <joao.veloso@ua.pt>; ‘thyssen.charlotte@gmail.com’ <thyssen.charlotte@gmail.com>; ‘kuangyu.shi@insel.ch’ <kuangyu.shi@insel.ch>; ‘ekleung@ucdavis.edu’ <ekleung@ucdavis.edu>; ‘Mariele.Stockhoff@UGent.be’ <Mariele.Stockhoff@UGent.be>; ‘Roman.Shopa@ncbj.gov.pl’ <Roman.Shopa@ncbj.gov.pl>; ‘mdefrise@vub.be’ <mdefrise@vub.be>; ‘c-chen@uchicago.edu’ <c-chen@uchicago.edu>; ‘tniknejad@lip.pt’ <tniknejad@lip.pt>; ‘florian.mueller@pmi.rwth-aachen.de’ <florian.mueller@pmi.rwth-aachen.de>; ‘rbugalho@petsyselectronics.com’ <rbugalho@petsyselectronics.com>; ‘sushil.sharma@uj.edu.pl’ <sushil.sharma@uj.edu.pl>; ‘grzegorz.korcyl@uj.edu.pl’ <grzegorz.korcyl@uj.edu.pl>; ‘Tom.Werner@uphs.upenn.edu’ <Tom.Werner@uphs.upenn.edu>; ‘abass.alavi@uphs.upenn.edu’ <abass.alavi@uphs.upenn.edu>; ‘Thibaut.Merlin@univ-brest.fr’ <Thibaut.Merlin@univ-brest.fr>; ‘scmoore1@pennmedicine.upenn.edu’ <scmoore1@pennmedicine.upenn.edu>; ‘eberg@ucdavis.edu’ <eberg@ucdavis.edu>; ‘ewelina.kubicz@doctoral.uj.edu.pl’ <ewelina.kubicz@doctoral.uj.edu.pl>; ‘anjanik2003@rediffmail.com’ <anjanik2003@rediffmail.com>; ‘Paulo.Caribe@UGent.be’ <Paulo.Caribe@UGent.be>; ‘renqsh@coe.pku.edu.cn’ <renqsh@coe.pku.edu.cn>; ‘qiuhuang@sjtu.edu.cn’ <qiuhuang@sjtu.edu.cn>; ‘twj2417@163.com’ <twj2417@163.com>; ‘mjlee8695@kaist.ac.kr’ <mjlee8695@kaist.ac.kr>; ‘szymon.niedzwiecki@uj.edu.pl’ <szymon.niedzwiecki@uj.edu.pl>; ‘info@3d-computing.com’ <info@3d-computing.com>; ‘stan.majewski@gmail.com’ <stan.majewski@gmail.com>; ‘daperezb@pa.uc3m.es’ <daperezb@pa.uc3m.es>; ‘york.haemisch@directconversion.com’ <york.haemisch@directconversion.com>; ‘yang.lv@united-imaging.com’ <yang.lv@united-imaging.com>; ‘agonzalez@i3m.upv.es’ <agonzalez@i3m.upv.es>; ‘Maya.AbiAkl@UGent.be’ <Maya.AbiAkl@UGent.be>; ‘joelkarp@pennmedicine.upenn.edu’ <joelkarp@pennmedicine.upenn.edu>; ‘srcherry@ucdavis.edu’ <srcherry@ucdavis.edu>; ‘Stefaan.Vandenberghe@UGent.be’ <Stefaan.Vandenberghe@UGent.be>
Subject: Why Ghent University in Belgium is organizing a commercial propaganda of the PET Explorer driving the industry in the wrong direction, suppressing alternative solutions and scientific forum to make scientific truth for benefit humanity emerge and prevail?

 

Sent to all IEEE-NPSS AdCom Board of Directors

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 4:55 PM
To: IEEE-NPSS AdCom Board of Directors
Subject: Why Ghent University in Belgium is organizing a commercial propaganda of the PET Explorer driving the industry in the wrong direction, suppressing alternative solutions and scientific forum to make scientific truth for benefit humanity emerge and prev

 

 

David Abbott
Jefferson Lab
F268 Cebaf Center, Jefferson Ave., MS 12B3
Newport News, VA  23606
AdCom 2021 (CANPS)
Phone: +1 757 269-7190
Email:  abbottd@jlab.org

Janet M. Barth
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (Emeritus)
PO Box 281
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
Awards Chair, Vice-Chair RE
Phone: +1 301 602-3706
Email:  jbarth@ieee.org

Lee A. Berry
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired)/ XCEL Engineering
P156 Newport Drive
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Liaison: Coalition for Plasma Sciences
Phone : +1 865 483-6646
Cell : +1 865 405-9215
Email: leeaberry223@gmail.com

Jeffrey Black
Sandia National Laboratory
PO Box 5800 MS 1072
Albuquerque, NM 87115
AdCom 2021 (REC)
Phone: 505-844-5020
Email: jefblac@sandia.gov

Monica Blank
Microwave Power Product Div.
811 Hansen Way
CPI- Communications and Power Ind., M/S B-450
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1031
AdCom 2019 (PSAC)
Email: Monica.Blank@cpii.com

Christian Bohm
University of Stockholm
Department of Instrumentation Physics Stockholm, Sweden
Chair: Transnational Committee (2020)
Phone: +468 5537 8696
Cell: +46 7054 36935
Fax: +468 5537 8601
E-mail: bohm@physto.se

Randy Brill
1161 21st Av. South
Radiology Dept, Mcn-S-1314
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Nashville, TN 37232-0012
Liaison: NCRP
Email: Aaron.brill@vanderbilt.edu

Peter N. Clout
Vista Control Systems, Inc.
2101 Trinity Square, Suite Q
Los Alamos, NM 87544-4103
Chair: Communications Functional Committee
Liaison: ICALEPCS
TAB Finance Committee
Phone: 505-662-2484
Home: 505-988-5169
Cell: 505-450-7810
Fax: 505-662-3956
Email: p.clout@ieee.org
Web: http://www.vista-control.com

Cinzia Da Via
Professor
Schuster Building-7.29
The School of Physics and Astronomy
The University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL UK
Liaison: WIE
Phone: +44 161 306-6492
Email: Cinzia.DaVia@manchester.ac.uk

  1. Kenneth Dawson
    TRIUMF
    4004 Wesbrook Mall
    Vancouver, BC, CANADA, V6T 2A3
    Newsletter Quips and Quotes and Editor Emeritus
    Phone: 604-222-7455
    Home: 604-738-6701
    Fax: 604-222-7307
    Email: k.dawson@ieee.org

Christopher Deeney
516 Pinnacle Heights Lane
Las Vegas, NV 89144-0812
AdCom 2021 (PSAC)
Phone: 301  956- 9757
Email: AIFLIN2412@msn.com

 

Paul Dressendorfer
Sandia National Laboratories (retired)
11509 Paseo del Oso NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
Editor-in-Chief TNS
Chair: Publications Functional Committee
Phone: 505 292-5965
Cell: 505 331-5344
Email: p.dressendorfer@ieee.org

Ralf Engels
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich, Germany
NPSS Treasurer
Phone: +49 2461 61 2878
Cell: +49 175 2296 883
Email: r.engels@fz-juelich.de

 

Lorenzo Fabris
Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O.2008
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Chair: Radiation Instrumentation
Phone: +1 865 576-2474
Email: Fabrisl@ornl.gov

 

Daniel M. Fleetwood
Vanderbilt University
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
P.O. Box 92, Station B
Nashville, TN 37235
Chair: Distinguished Lecturer Program
Liaison: IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Program
Phone: 615 322-2771
Cell: 615 480-2808
Fax: 615 343-6702
Email: Dan.Fleetwood@vanderbilt.edu

Harold L. Flescher
8124 159th Court North
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
IEEE Finance Committee
Phone: 561 741-4804
Cell: 561 512-9644
Fax: 561 741-4804
flescher@bellsouth.net
Email: h.flescher@ieee.org

Steven J. Gitomer
US Civilian Research and Development Foundation
Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
1428 Mirracerros Loop South
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Editor-in-Chief TPS
Phone & Fax: 505-988-5751
Cell: +1 505 660-6155
Email: sgitomer@aol.com
Web: ieee-npss.org/publications/transactions-on-plasma-science/

Brendan Godfrey
3 Little Leaf Ct.
Missouri City, TX 77459
AdCom 2020 (PSAC)
Liaison: IEEE-USA R&D Policy Committee
Phone: +1 281 778-1517
Cell: 832-808-0882
Email: brendan.godfrey@ieee.org

 

Steven H. Gold
Naval Research Lab (retired)
6203 Westbrook Dr.
New Carrollton, MD 20784-3512
Chair: Chapters and Local Activities
AdCom 2017 (PSAC)
Phone: +1 301-459-7106
Cell: +1 202-716-1070
Email: steeve@ieee.org

Martin Grossmann
Paul Scherrer InsXtute
5232 Villigen PSI, Schweiz
Chair: Computer Applications in Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Technical Committee
Phone: +41 56 310 36 33
Email: martin.grossmann@psi.ch

 

Frank Hegeler
Naval Research Lab
6752 Code, 4555 Overlook Ave SW
Washington DC 20375-0001
AdCom 2021 (PPST)
Phone: +1 505-853-4707
Email: frank.hegeler@nrl.navy.mil

 

Susan Heidger
AFRL/RDHP
3550 Aberdeen Ave. SE
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117
Chair: Pulsed Power Technical Committee
Phone: +1 505-853-4707
Email: susan.heidger@us.af.mil

 

Christoph J. Ilgner
Ministry for Agriculture and the Environment
State of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
Chair: Young Professionals Functional Committee
Phone: +49 391-567-3270
Cell: +49 163-811-4858
Email: Christoph.Ilgner@cern.ch

 

Allan H. Johnston
308 Marine Drive
Coupeville, WA 98239
Chair: Radiation Effects Technical Committee
Phone: 818-588-0919
Email: johnstonAH25@gmail.com

 

Ronald M. Keyser
Software & Information Services
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
NPSS Assistant Treasurer
Cell: +1 865 607-2608
Fax: +1 865 435-1600
Email: RonKeyser@ieee.org

 

Mike King
Department of Radiology
University of Massachusetts Medical School
55 Lake Ave North
Worcester, MA 01655
Liaison: Transactions in Medical Imaging
Phone: 774 442-4255
Fax: 508 856-6363
Email: Michael.King@umassmed.edu

 

Michael Kong
Batten Endowed Chair in Bioelectrics and Professor of Electrical Engineering
Frank Reidy Research Center for Bioelectrics
Old Dominion University
4211 Monarch Way
Norfolk, Virginia 23508, USA
Chair: Plasma Science and Applications
Phone: +1 757 683 7047
E-mail: mkong@odu.edu

Heiko Koerte
N.A.T. GmbH
Konrad-Kuse-Platz 9
Bonn, Germany  53227
Vice Chair Industry: Membership Functional Committee
Phone: +49 228 965 864 0
Email: heikort@nateurope.com

 

Richard T. Kouzes
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PO Box 999, MS K7-36
Richland, WA 99352
Web Master
Nuclear Power Initiative
Phone: 509 372-4858
Cell: 509 430-0873
Email: rkouzes@ieee.org

Susanne Kuehn
CERN
1211-Geneva-Switzerland
Conferences Chair
Email: Susanne.Kuehn@cern.ch

 

 

Alberta M. Dawson Larsen
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
MS64
2575 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
NPSS Secretary
Newsletter Editor
Phone: 650-726-3236
Cell: +1 650 888-8897
Fax: 650-726-0368
Email: a.m.larsen@ieee.org

Raymond S. Larsen
MS50
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
2575 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Liaison: Social Implications of Technology
Liaison: IEEE Smart Village, PES, IEEE HAHC SIGHT Committees
Phone: 650-926-4907
Home: 650-726-3236
Fax: 650-926-3570
Email: larsen@slac.stanford.edu

Paul Lecoq
CERN Dept: PH/CMA 1211
Geneva, Switzerland
AdCom 2018 (RI)
Phone: +41 22 767 6558
Cell: +41 76 487 0268
Fax: +41 22 767 8930
Email: Paul.Lecoq@cern.ch

Patrick Le Du
8 ALL Capitainerie des Chasses
94800 Villejuif Cedex, France
Chair: Radiation Instrumentation Technical Committee
Liaison: International Conferences
Cell: +33 6 81 20 12 08
Email: patrickledu@me.com

Jae Sung Lee
Dept. of Nuclear Medicine
Seoul National University College of Medicine
103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu
Seoul 03080, Korea
Chair: Nuclear Medical and Imaging Science Technical Committee
Cell: +82-2-2072-2938
Email: jaes@snu.ac.kr

Jane M. Lehr
University of New Mexico
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
MSC01 1100
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
Vice-Chair: Fellow Candidate Evaluation Functional Committee
Phone: 505 277-0298
Home: 505 867-1402
Cell: +1 505-385-1831
Fax: +1 505 277-1439
Email: jmlehr@unm.edu

Jean-Luc Leray
CEA, bat 447
91191 GIF-SUR-YVETTE cedex
France
Vice Chair Europe: Membership Functional Committee
Phone: +33 1 69 26 4273
Email: jlorange33@orange.fr

 

Steve McClure
NASA Jet Propulsion Lab.
California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, CA 91011
AdCom 2018 (RE)
Phone: 1-818-269-5426
Email: steven.s.mcclure@jpl.nasa.gov

Steve Meikle
Professor of Medical Imaging Physics
Brain and Mind Research Institute
The University of Sydney
Sydney, Australia
AdCom 2018 (NMISC)
Phone: +61 2 9351 0847
Fax: +61 2 9351 0852
Email: steven.meikle@sydney.edu.au

Stephen Milton
Colorado State University College of Engineering
1373 Campus Delivery
Fort Collins, CO 80523
AdCom 2018 (PAST)
Phone: +1 970 491-8742
Fax: +1 970 491-2249
Email: milton@engr.colostate.edu

Charles Neumeyer
Princeton University, Plasma Physics Lab
Forrestal Campus, U.S. Route #1 North at Sayre Drive
P.O. Box 451
Princeton N.J. 08543
Chair: Fusion Technology Technical Committee
Phone: 609 243-2159
Mobile: 609 313-4738
Email: neumeyer@pppl.gov

Bryan V. Oliver
Sr. Manager, 1340 Radiation Effects Science and Applications
Sandia National Laboratories, MS-1168
Albuquerque, NM 87185
AdCom 2019 (PPST)
Phone: 505-284-7868
Fax: 505 844-8467
Email: bvolive@sandia.gov

Fulvia Pilat
Research Accelerator Division Director
Spallation Neutron Source
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Chair: Particle Accelerator Science and Technology
Phone: +1 757 269-7839
Email: pilatfc@ornl.gov

Sal Portillo
Electrical Engineering
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87111 USA
Chair: Membership Functional Committee
Phone: +1 505 417-9822
Email: sportil@unm.edu

Martin L. Purschke
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Physics Department Bldg 510 C
Upton, NY 11973-5000
Liason: Social Media
Phone: +1 631-344-5244
Email: purschke@bnl.gov

Stefan Ritt
Paul Scherrer Institute
CH-5232 Villigen PSI
WBWA/140
Switzerland
NPSS President
Phone: +41 56 310 3728
Fax: +41 56 310 2199
Email: stefan.ritt@psi.ch
Web: http://midas.psi.ch/~stefan

Ned Sauthoff
Director, U.S. ITER Project Office
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2008
1055CM, MS: 6483
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6483
Chair: Fellow Candidate Evaluation Functional Committee
Phone: (865)-574-5947
Email: sauthoffnr@ornl.gov

Edl Schamiloglu 
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
MSC01 11001
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
Liaison: EAB Education Committee
Phone: 505 277-4423
Fax: 505 277-1439
Email: edls@unm.edu
Web: http://www.ece.unm.edu/faculty/edl

Stan O. Schriber
1605 N. Estancia Pl.
Eagle, ID 83616
Liaison: PAC OC
Liaison: APS-DPB
Phone: +1 208-939-6136
Cell: +1 208-631-8208
Email: schriberstan@gmail.com

Ron Schrimpf
Orrin Henry Ingram Professor of Engineering
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science Department
5635 Stevenson Center
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37235
AdCom 2019 (RE)/NPSS President-elect
Phone: 615-343-0507
Web: http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~schrimpf/

 

Vesna Sossi
Professor
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
University of British Columbia
6224 Agricultural Rd., Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1
AdCom 2020 (NMISC)
Phone: +1 604 822 7710
Email: vesna@physics.ubc.ca

John Verboncoeur
Dept. Electrical and Computer Engineering
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1226
Past-President
Chair: Nominating Committee
Phone: 517 355-5133
Cell: 517 755-0636
Email: johnv@msu.edu

Dimitris Visvikis
22 avenue Camille Desmoulins
Faculty of Medicine
University of Brest
Brest, France 29200
Editor-in-Chief TRPMS
Phone: +33 298018114
Cell: +33 622 401 229
Email: Dimitris@univ-brest.fr

Craig Woody
Physics Dept. Bldg. 510C
Brookhaven National Lab
Upton, NY 11973
AdCom 2020 (RI)
Phone: +1 631-344-2752
Email: woody@bnl.gov

 

Dennis L. Youchison
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O.2008
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
AdCom 2020 (Fusion)
Phone: +1 865 574-0208
Email: youchisondl@ornl.gov

 

 

 

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

July 2018
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
June 25, 2018 June 26, 2018 June 27, 2018 June 28, 2018 June 29, 2018 June 30, 2018 July 1, 2018
July 2, 2018 July 3, 2018 July 4, 2018 July 5, 2018 July 6, 2018 July 7, 2018 July 8, 2018
July 9, 2018 July 10, 2018 July 11, 2018 July 12, 2018 July 13, 2018 July 14, 2018 July 15, 2018
July 16, 2018 July 17, 2018 July 18, 2018 July 19, 2018 July 20, 2018 July 21, 2018 July 22, 2018
July 23, 2018 July 24, 2018 July 25, 2018 July 26, 2018 July 27, 2018 July 28, 2018 July 29, 2018
July 30, 2018 July 31, 2018 August 1, 2018 August 2, 2018 August 3, 2018 August 4, 2018 August 5, 2018
Recent Comments