It was a success my distribution outside CERN of approximately one thousand copies of articles that I had published requesting transparency in science and reproducible results. I have been requesting these for years and these requests were also made in an article published by Scientific American in October 2018 (http://www.nature.com/articles/scientificamerican1018-52), and translated into Italian, published by “Le Scienze” in December 2018.For two days, I woke up at 6 am for the distribution in front of CERN for long hours, in sub-zero weather, possibly hazardous to the health, performing three shifts on Thursday 10 January for a total of 7 hours (entry in the morning, entry/exit at lunch and evening exit of CERN employees), and two shifts on Friday 11 January 2019 (entry in the morning, and from 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm), for a total of 6 hours. In the morning I stayed on the square between the tram stop 18 and the pedestrian entrance next to the reception in Building 33 with billboard in hand as shown in the attached photo, or placed leaning against the CERN fence when the wind increased speed; (however, several times the wind threw it to the ground even when it was leaning against the fence). In the afternoon and in the evening, I went to the CERN main car entrance breathing CO2 for a few hours, distributing copies of the articles to those who entered or exited CERN by car.
No one hindered me in this initiative to address scientific problems, perhaps because I had warned CERN days before, and told the city administration and the Mayor of Geneva (goo.gl/sDLsLt) and the Police (goo.gl/rx1oDp) who replied in writing that I did not need a permit to distribute papers. The Police did not show up at any time during the two days. Therefore, I have not received any type of obstruction to the distribution of scientific material.
The Security at CERN came the first day to take photographs of the billboard and to bring a copy to CERN management; someone in security initially asked me to remove the sign leaning against their fence, but a few minutes later the same security person returned almost running with a big smile on his face apologizing and telling me that he had received orders that I could keep the billboard leaning against CERN’s fence, next to the entrance.
At the tram stop, on the evening of January 10th, a young researcher told me that I was famous, that many people were talking about me, and that they had posted my photograph with the billboard on Facebook.
However, although I informed over 130 newspapers, television stations and journalists, many of whom confirmed reading my messages such as BBC’s London management, no international or national newspaper has published the news.
No journalist showed up at CERN or called me for an interview, asking me why I was distributing articles to scientists at CERN.
Does this mean that the problem of lack of transparency in science, lack of reproducibility of results, and the allocation of over 2 trillion dollars in research per year, concentrated in the hands of a few researchers who are not those having the best projects, but those having the best contacts, is not important or of vital interest to citizens? This problem has even been raised by Scientific American in their October 2018 article.
My articles provide irrefutable and accurate information of evidence that, to be resolved, require the responsibility of the most important research center in particle physics in the world, CERN, and of those who manage and have the responsibility to plan a solution to the calamity that reaps more victims and is the most expensive in the world, cancer.
While I was in front of CERN delivering the articles, some researchers stopped to chat, others came from their office to talk to me, such as a physicist who told me that he had worked with Wesley Smith, confirming that was a person who had access to many funds as I described in my article. Here is a practical example of what was stated in the journal Scientific American, October 2018, page 54: ” The investigators currently enjoying huge funding are not necessarily genuine superstars; they may simply be the best connected“. We then talked about the more or less scientific value of the projects made by Wesley Smith, which confirm the above, not only for not being the most valid, but for having wasted hundreds of millions of dollars, since there were more valid solutions that he was aware of, ignored and perhaps suppressed.
Some scientists passing by car, who knew me from when I worked at CERN, asked me to visit them in the office as in the old days. I asked them to ask the management if I would be allowed to enter. Among those who invited me to their office was a senior scientist who I have known for over 40 years, who holds executive positions and is also a reviewer of major international projects. At 3:30 pm. on Friday, January 11, 2019, after I finished my shift in front of the main entrance of CERN, I went to the reception at Building 33 and called this manager to greet him before going to catch the bus to return to Turin. This executive came down to greet me and asked for permission to let me enter CERN to go to the Cafeteria to take a coffee.
The permission was first denied but after a few minutes on the phone, he managed to remove all the red tape and I was given a permit to enter CERN as a Visitor, as shown in the attached photo.
I was pleased walking through the long corridors of CERN, seeing the library where it always had stood but noticing the many changes made over the last few years.
We took a coffee and I expressed my desire to collaborate, asking if he could act as an intermediary between me and those who oppose transparency in science. As written on page 2 of my article goo.gl/JGxKDk there is an imbalance between those who support transparency and those who suppress it, and unfortunately the latter currently have more power.
I would also like to address the other very important problem, which is current in the Scientific American article, proposing something concrete on the two specific topics of my articles, i.e. discussing A) how to deal with the reproducibility of results in a controlled environment for experiments at CERN, and B) how to achieve a significant reduction in premature cancer deaths on a sample population with a reduction in healthcare costs.
- A) The reproducibility of the results for the first problem is obtained by building a data logger costing about $40,000 (see ER/DSU -Event Recorder Detector Simulation Unit- described at pages 8, 12, 23, 32, 149-170 of gl/w3XlZ1), capable of reproducing the electrical signals in real time for 2 seconds, related to known recorded data, similar to those produced randomly by the apparatus composed by the LHC collider together with its CMS and ATLAS detectors.
Because this apparatus required twenty years of work by over 10,000 scientists at the cost of over $50 billion, it is justified to build the ER/DSU data logger costing only $40,000 to measure the efficiency of the Level-1 Trigger unit that has the task to find the best candidate events containing the rare particles.
Known data representing 100 events containing rare particles are then edited in the memory of the data logger, merged with the 2 seconds of background activity recorded from the LHC collider and its detectors. Different Level-1 Trigger Units designed by CMS, ATLAS, LHCB experiments, my 3D-Flow system and other trigger systems will receive at full speed (one event every 25 nanoseconds which is the bunch-crossing speed of LHC) the data from the data logger.
The scientific discussion should analyze different proposed Level-1 Trigger systems claiming high efficiency and low cost capable of filtering the background noise and find the highest number of the 100 events containing the rare particles. Projects supported by solid calculation, logical reasoning and simulation that no one can refute should be funded and then the best project would be determined experimentally by the number of rare particles found in a controlled environment as shown on the middle page of the article (goo.gl/G3pYEi) and at the bottom of my poster (goo.gl/dfAJnB) presented at CERN.
It is surprising that after designing the ER/DSU unit and providing three quotes from different reputable industries that could build it, no one plan to build such unit or an equivalent data logger. This confirms what is reported in the article by Scientific American, October 2018, page 54: “…they often discover that many top findings cannot be reproduced …” A scientist should always think how to verify experimentally in a controlled environment if his idea or theory is valuable. If there is resistance to this verification, one might think there is a reason of interest to fund wrong projects without verifying their efficacy because they are afraid to lose funding as reported on Scientific American, October 2018, page 55: “…We fund the wrong fields. Much like Mafia clans, some fields and families of ideas have traditionally been more powerful. Well-funded fields attract more scientists to work for them, which increases their lobbying research, fueling vicious circles …”
- B) The reproducibility of the results for the second problem is obtained by discussing which equipment for early diagnosis (non-existent), combined with an effective treatment of surgery, radiotherapies and/or chemotherapy (existing) or approach (vaccine, chemotherapy for one-stage tumors advanced, etc.) is able to maximize the reduction of premature cancer deaths at the lowest cost.
By focusing on the equipment for early diagnosis, the scientific discussion must focus on:
- i) measurements a), b) c), d), e) listed in the rectangle at the bottom center of the second page of the article (gl/G3pYEi), summarized at the center of the billboard (goo.gl/dfAJnB),
- ii) the best compromise between the characteristics of points 1 to 9 in the same article and in the rectangle in the center of the poster, under the previous rectangle (gl/dfAJnB). “These are the characteristics that the equipment must have in order to be able to accurately capture the largest possible number of signals from tumor markers, at the lowest cost for each valid signal captured compared to alternative approaches.”
The synergy and optimization of these design choices must minimize the radiation to be administered to the patient and obtain maximum efficiency in identifying the tumor at a very early, highly treatable stage.
Projects that offer greater guarantees in calculation, logical reasoning and simulation must be funded and then the best project will be determined experimentally.
First, the test of the proposed medical imaging device must be performed on a “phantom” (model or manikin) consisting of a 27 cm diameter water cylinder, 110 cm long (the length of a human torso), which contains all the organs and is mainly composed of water. First a point radiation would be introduced in the cylinder as shown in the center at the bottom of page 2 of my article (goo.gl/G3pYEi), and then a 110 cm long bar would be inserted inside the cylinder containing the radiation dose intended to be administered to the patient.
This experiment will be able to determine the imaging device better able to capture accurately and at a lower cost the highest number of 511 keV photon pairs emitted by the point source or by the radioactive bar of 110 cm.
The next test will be performed on a sample population aged between 55 and 74 taken from a location where cancer mortality has been constant over the last twenty years. The measurement of the reduction of cancer death will accurately quantify the effectiveness of not only the device compared to the others, but also the efficiency of the hospital in organizing the examinations, the expertise of the medical and paramedical staff in using the equipment, and the prompt treatment when the cancer is at an early stage; it can also be compared to other approaches to eradicate cancer.
Since cancer costs us globally more than $1,400 billion a year and continues to reap over 8.2 million lives a year, with the number of deaths expected to double in the next twenty years, it is imperative to tackle this problem of reproducibility of results.
It is imperative that the media, including newspapers and television stations give space to this topic by interviewing the science luminaries who claim that my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions, associated with timely therapy, are not able to save over 50% of the lives claimed by me, also asking them to report more efficient alternative approaches to my inventions in the early detection of cancer. The media should then have to give space to my scientific answers and it will be the responsibility of everyone to fund my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions to experimentally verify, first on a “phantom” (dummy) and then on a sample population the merits of my claim supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries that demonstrate the feasibility of my inventions at a fraction of the cost of alternative approaches. Journalists can play an important role to accelerate the transfer of the benefits from my inventions to the bed of the patient by interviewing the science luminaries and myself about my inventions and create a dialogue on this important issue.
My 3D-Flow invention for the pattern recognition of objects from data arriving at a very high speed from thousands of sensors also useful for creating powerful tools in the discovery of new particles has been officially recognized by a formal scientific review (goo.gl/zP76Tc) as a revolutionary discovery. Because it is technology-independent, it is nowadays competitive. My 3D-CBS invention (3-D Complete Body Screening) using the 3D-Flow technology enables an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases.
I received a million dollars in research grants, I demonstrated my inventions to be feasible and functional, they were also recognized in a scientific peer-review article published by one of the most prestigious scientific journals (goo.gl/bqhD4R). These inventions have been recognized officially and formally valuable in several international public scientific reviews; 3D-CBS won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for the most efficient solution in particle detection targeted to early cancer diagnosis and the innovative concept has been proven feasible and functional in hardware circuits.
To avoid continuing the waste of taxpayer money amounting to hundreds of millions of euros and losing millions of lives that could have been saved because I do not receive scientific answers, I decided to inform scientists directly at the main scientific conferences and at CERN, distributing articles published by me and indicating page 2 (goo.gl/a9Uwii) where one of the concepts of my inventions is described in a way that can be understood by middle school students. All this, in order to accelerate the benefits of my inventions to humanity.
I hope that my scientific discussion does not stop at the coffee that I consumed with the Cern executive in CERN’s cafeteria, but that the topics discussed, which are concrete and important, which are recognized as such by Scientific American, about problems that must be addressed and solved by science, would not be ignored, but they receive the right attention from newspapers, television and social media.
Support Transparency in Science to make emerge the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity in reducing premature cancer deaths and costs by more than 50%. You can support it by making a donation to Crosetto foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths, a non-profit 501(c3), tax-exempt organization. Your tax-deductible donations can be made to ABA: 114000093 – SWIFT: FRSTUS44 – Account: cc. 96-2079895. Or electronically with credit card or PayPal at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?page_id=185
This post is also available in: Italian