This document is available in pdf at: http://bit.ly/2FeNfgF
Dear CERN Director General, Prof. Fabiola Gianotti,
My intention here is to provide you with scientific evidence to save CERN from leaders driving science in the wrong direction, thereby preventing innovations from reaching humanity which will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, save lives, and advance science.
That science is broken is a known problem in the scientific community and confirmed in the October 2018 article published on page 54 in Scientific American entitled “HOW TO FIX SCIENCE” subtitled “Rethinking Funding. The way we pay for science does not encourage the best results”. It states: “…more than $2 trillions are invested annually in research and development. …Funding is largely concentrated in the hands of a few investigators” who “are not necessarily genuine superstars; they may simply be the best connected. …many top findings cannot be reproduced. … We Fund the Wrong Fields. Much like Mafia clans, some fields and families of ideas have traditionally been more powerful. …Some entrenched fields absorb enormous funding even though they have clearly demonstrated limited yield or uncorrectable flaws” (http://www.nature.com/articles/scientificamerican1018-52). These statements can be substantiated with specific names of people ,and large amounts of wasted taxpayer money, and denied/suppressed benefits from inventions to humanity.
Scientific American confirms the disease of corruption in science; however, it does not provide the names of scientists who drive science in the wrong direction or specific cases of misuse of taxpayer money that would help stem this corruption.
2. Creating awareness by forwarding this document and placing pressure on leaders can fix broken science
The damage from a few unethical scientists who abuse the trust they receive from the public is so severe as to affect this and future generations. Therefore, this message is being sent to leaders, journalists and concerned citizens, asking them to help create awareness by publishing and forwarding this message. Although the subject may be too technical for some, everyone should be able to understand the unprofessional and uncivil and unethical behavior and injustice that has lead to inconsistencies that damage us all, and the need to place pressure on those in the field who are in a position to address and resolve the scientific, economic and social inconsistencies.
As reported in the slide (http://bit.ly/2ZjGtxv), the ATTRACT Media reached an estimated monthly audience of 347 million through its website traffic, 165,556 tweets, 58,320 Facebook posts and 10,226 LinkedIn messages in less than six months from August 1st, 2018, to January 15th, 2019. They also reported in slide (http://bit.ly/31uXEhJ) that they had an impact in prominent media of the most widely spoken languages, including:
- FT FINANCIAL TIMES: “A spikier world for innovative start-ups beckons”.
- Le Monde: “Les «perles cachées» de l’innovation technologique européenne”.
- FAZ.NET Frankfurter Allgemeine: “Europa auf der Suche nach der Welt von morgen”.
- Expansión: “Aprenda a sacar partido de su proyecto cientifico”.
- Scuola24: “Ricerca, dalla Ue 17 milioni per l’innovazione a tutto campo”.
I invite all members of the ATTRACT Consortium to read the Facts & Figures of this document, reflect and compare their vision with a wider, global vision of the meaning of Open Science and Open Innovation and how it can be achieved through public, open, transparent scientific procedures to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge.
I invite everyone (every reader, not just ATTRACT members) to express what their conscience considers professional, ethical, scientific, fair, civil, and lawful, and overall the behavior they think is best to teach to their grandchildren and future generations to create a safe, prosperous, wealthy world for everyone who is a guest on this planet, for most of us less than 100 years.
Facts & Figures reported in this document prove the ATTRACT statement “From Open Science to Open Innovations. Developing breakthrough Technologies for Science and Society” is a false advertisement. It is important, therefore, to provide readers who were misinformed by prominent media outlets and those reporting on the CERN-ATTRACT competition to receive a balanced view as given in the main Facts & Figures of this document.
It is vital that everyone understand the information reported in detail at the end of this document regarding the scientific community’s awareness for more than twenty years that:
- hundreds of millions of dollars could have been saved in the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet at CERN with my 3D-Flow invention, officially and formally recognized a breakthrough in 1993 (goo.gl/zP76Tc);
- the cost per life saved from the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, could have been reduced from the current $10 million per life saved to $250,000 per life saved; and most importantly, that millions of lives could have been saved using an effective early cancer detection device, the 3D-CBS, described in my book published in the year 2000 (goo.gl/ggGGwF) that continues to go unfunded.
Below I include a modest list of a few thousand addresses of journalist (compared to CERN millions of contacts), newspapers, prominent people in science from CERN, IEEE, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, politicians, entrepreneurs, philanthropists etc., that you are invited to contact directly.
Although my list of contacts is much shorter than the audience of 347 million reached monthly by CERN-ATTRACT Media with their false advertisement, with everyone’s effort to forward (because as part of the suppression of truth, my email has been blocked by some recipients, including CERN) and disseminate these Facts & Figures, so the public will be able to receive a balanced view of the information to be on the side of science.
Science is revealed when I am allowed to present my inventions at CERN before the top-experts in “Detection and Imaging technology”, asking them to express what they agree/disagree with my calculations showing how they save taxpayers money and lives and then I should have the opportunity to answer their questions at an open public meeting at CERN.
B. FACTS & FIGURES PROVING SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN’S CLAIMS THAT WE NEED TO FIX CORRUPTION IN SCIENCE ARE CORRECT
One recent example of scientific inconsistencies preventing advancement in science to defeat the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, that is consistent with the article in Scientific American, can be found at the CERN-ATTRACT Competition on “Detection and Imaging technology” which awarded 17 million EUROs of taxpayer money at CERN on May 20-21, 2019, to 170 projects out of the 1211 submitted. One protagonist of this event is Sergio Bertolucci, Chair of the ATTRACT R&D&I, member of the PAC, Former CERN Director of Research. Details and a little history follow.
1. Facts & Figures case 1: 2010, Bertolucci uses CERN credibility to get funding by assigning himself a prize
In 2010, Bertolucci, then CERN Director of Research, and his friends created a competition within the “Physics for Health” workshop where he assigned the first prize to his own Axial-PET detector module project that was less efficient (the efficiency was only 28% of current PET) and more costly than the PET detector modules commercially available at that time (see video at http://bit.ly/2IZmHma and page 2 of http://bit.ly/2vvBMDW). Using CERN’s credibility, he deceived other universities and research centers who joined the project, and he deceived the Association Madame Curie and other funding agencies that gave money to the Axial-PET project that was abandoned nine years later because its concept was flawed. Simple calculations could have proved scientific and economical inconsistencies of the Axial-PET project back in 2010.
2. Facts & Figures case 2: 2018-20, Bertolucci and his friends use CERN credibility to gain power by distributing 17 million EUROS of taxpayer money to their friends
Now, Bertolucci and his friends have distributed 17 million EUROS of taxpayer money to projects such as the WPET which claims to be an effective device for early cancer detection. It consists of a wearable PET (WPET), weighing between 350 kg and 700 kg to be worn for 24 hours straight to screen for cancer (http://bit.ly/2EPRXks). This award winning proposal states: “The WPET will allow the use of a lower dose radioactive tracer, 24 hour scan, and thus make possible preventive screening” (slide: http://bit.ly/2JWsxG2), abstract: http://bit.ly/2Mv27gN).
Besides being less efficient, more costly, and having difficult to solve technological challenges, the WPET proposal’s weight and how long it must be worn make it nonviable. It is impractical and absurd to wear over 350kg for 24 hours. The heaviest Spacesuit and Diving suit weigh less than 20 kg.
In the WPET abstract (http://bit.ly/2Mv27gN), the authors state: “In this project we’re proposing to use the latest development in scintillators, photon detector, electronics, …” As it is intuitive to understand that a thicker bullet proof vest of a policeman stops more bullets, a 30 mm thick scintillator crystal among the latest development such as the LSO, LYSO, etc., stops 98% of the photons emitted by the radiotracer inside the patient’s body in a PET exam, while a 15 mm thick crystal provides an efficiency of approximately 48%. A high school student can calculate the volume of the jacket in the picture with 30 mm thick crystals to be approximately 100,000 cm3. The density of LSO, LYSO, etc. crystals is 7.1 gr/cm3. Therefore, the weight of the WPET Jacket calculates to be over 350 kg.
3. Facts & Figures case 3: Criteria used for evaluating projects are flawed: do not require measurable results, no accountability for scientific merit
The discretional evaluation criteria (http://bit.ly/2HqR1Vz) used by Bertolucci and his friends in the CERN-ATTRACT competition have proved themselves flawed when absurd projects such as WPET passed their criteria. They required no accountability in scientific merit for the applicant or for the reviewer in “measurable results” (http://bit.ly/2WeaCl0), that should be supported by calculations and scientific evidence at the time of submission of the proposal and by experimental results after funding.
4. Facts & Figures case 4: Distrust of scientists who believe the review process is not scientific and is not fair and see it as “pure luck”, like a lottery
While seated in the CERN auditorium on May 21, 2019 for the 17 million Euro award ceremony, researchers sitting next to me who were sharing some of the award told me that it was “pure luck” they were receiving an award. It is disheartening to witness the distrust in the procedures implemented by the scientific community where even some winners of an award believe pure luck and not scientific merit was responsible for their win.
5. Facts & Figures case 5: Distrust of scientists when reviewers approve articles and fund applicants who have copied ideas/inventions
This distrust in science is even greater when leaders having the responsibility to implement fair, public, professional, ethical, transparent, scientific procedures for the benefit of humanity, approve articles of those who they know are not the original authors of an invention, idea, or pioneer work, who do not recognize or cite the original work of their colleagues; even worse when these leaders suppress and deny funding to the original inventor while funding those who steal their ideas. As this practice continues among the scientific community and those who break these ethical rules are not discredited for their unprofessional behavior, young scientists will have a harder time to transfer their breakthrough ideas to benefit humanity, and so humanity will suffer.
6. Facts & Figures case 6: Bertolucci and his friends have funded applicants who advertise (& copy) another scientist’s ideas/inventions which were proven feasible and functional more than 20 years ago and still await funding
A significant example of this unethical practice occurred at the 2019 CERN-ATTRACT “Detection and Imaging Technology” competition organized by Sergio Bertolucci and his friends. In 1993, a major scientific review (which included a representative from CERN), was held at FERMILAB for my 3D-Flow breakthrough invention, where it was recognized (goo.gl/zP76Tc) as solving the problem of detection and imaging technology for the most demanding requirements in physics experiments that later proved to be advantageous in Medical Imaging and other applications. Using $1 million in grants I received from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1995, I provided the tapeout files to fabricate an ASIC in 1998 that was created by Synopsys, one of the leading companies designing ASICS, but funding to pay the Silicon Foundry to manufacture the ASIC was not provided. In 2001, using my own money, I made a proof of concept of my invention in FPGA hardware circuits and built an industrial modular board in FPGA proving my 3D-Flow invention could solve the “Detection and Imaging Technology” of any detector size and input data speed for any application in physics experiments, medical imaging applications, or other detection and imaging applications; however, the 3D-Flow ASIC continued to go unfunded.
In 2010, Bertolucci, was well aware of my solution at his “Physics for Health” competition when he awarded the Prize to his own Axial-PET detector module for PET which was later abandoned. In 2011, I had a ninety-minute meeting with him addressing the flaws of his Axial-PET project that could never be competitive in the PET market because of its conceptual flaws.
In 2015, I was asked by the U.S. DOE to make a feasibility study for a complete 3D-Flow system useful for several applications in physics experiments, medical imaging, and other applications. I prepared a 271-page detailed study (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) supported by 59 quotes form 21 reputable industries proving the feasibility of my 3D-Flow system. The study showed the performance of the 3D-Flow system to be superior at 1/1000th the cost of the CERN-CMS L-1 Trigger (subsequently trashed in 2016 because it proved to be ineffective). The study also proved the feasibility to build my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) innovation for early cancer detection, more efficient at 1/10 the cost of the Explorer project which is the PET having the longest (2 meters) FOV detector in the world. In 2016, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Strasbourg, France, I showed Bertolucci my 271-page proposal (goo.gl/w3XlZ1), going over the important points of the projects, and showing the 155-page report of the 59 quotes from 21 reputable industries proving its feasibility.
At least two other people among the CERN-ATTRACT R&D&I reviewers (https://attract-eu.com/committees/) were aware of my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions. One was Cinzia De Via who was the editor of the 2017 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD proceedings. I asked her if she would include my contribution in the proceedings after I proved its scientific merits by refuting with scientific evidence the claims made by reviewers who had rejected it. Da Via refused my request without providing scientific reasons. I met Da Via again at the 2018 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Sydney, Australia, together with Dimitra Darambara, another CERN-ATTRACT reviewer. I informed both about my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS breakthrough inventions and made myself available to discuss Detection and Imaging Technology with them to help identify the most cost-effective solution; however, they refused.
Bertolucci, Da Via and Darambara went on to fund WPET despite all being aware of my inventions in Detection and Imaging Technology recognized officially and formally as being superior to other approaches, proven functional in hardware and feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to build 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS systems for different applications. Still my 3D-Flow ASIC was blocked from funding. There is no feasibility study of the WPET; instead it makes claims using words similar to my solid claims of creating a “system that will improve the procedure used in the chain of preventive screening becoming a valid alternative for scanning a large number of patients with family history or simply in the age group more at risk to develop the disease while limiting the use of a radiotracer and consequent absorbed dose…” However, Manchester University and the company Caen in Italy, author of the WPET project, used the above words as an advertisement to obtain funding for their absurd claims: “This would be possible by populating entirely the wearable jacket with detectors … The WPET will allow the use of a lower dose radioactive tracer, 24 hour scan, and thus make possible preventive screening” (slide: http://bit.ly/2JWsxG2), abstract: http://bit.ly/2Mv27gN).
7. Facts & Figures case 7: Stephen Watts from the University of Manchester and the Italian company CAEN were aware of my inventions and used my ideas/claims without citing my work, apparently to receive funding for their nonviable WPET
Its Principal Investigator, Stephen Watt from Manchester University, was aware of my inventions as I informed him after his presentation at previous IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conferences while he was showing work related to my earlier inventions without citing my work. CAEN, the other partner in the WPET project, was also informed as they were one of the 21 industries who provided the quotes in 2015 to build my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS project. We had exchanged several emails; we had a meeting at their headquarter in Viareggio, Italy on January 8, 2016, they signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA); they agreed to pursue funding to collaborate with me on the project.
CAEN even provided me links to the European Commission Horizon 2020 R&D funding program (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html) suggesting I start with ERC, (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.html) Future and Emerging Technologies (FET), Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Health, demographic change and wellbeing, Secure societies .
It was a surprise to read that CAEN was proposing a claim I made regarding my 3D-CBS project (“to screen a large population for preventive screening”) for the WPET project – except the WPET requires a 24-hour exam wearing a jacket weighing over 350 kg which cannot compete for scientific merit with my 10-second exam at less than 1/12th the cost of WPET. One possible explanation for CAEN’s preference of the absurd WPET project vs. my feasible 3D-CBS project, is that scientific merit and feasibility are not important to obtain funding. Perhaps it was enough to know that Bertolucci has always awarded funding to projects other than mine (including his own Axial-PET), even though he knows my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS are superior for Detection and Imaging Technology, or that Cinzia Da Via from the University of Manchester rejected the publication of my paper in 2017.
8. Facts & Figures case 8: proving Scientific American’s claim that funding is concentrated in the hands of investigators who are not superstars in science but are the best connected
Whatever the reason for the absurd, unrealistic concept of the WPET, CAEN perhaps understood the award system of the scientific community that they would have a better chance if they partnered with the University of Manchester, as they realize the importance to have the right connection to receive funding… Isn’t this underline the words used in the October 2018 article in Scientific American “Funding is largely concentrated in the hands of a few investigators” who “are not necessarily genuine superstars; they may simply be the best connected”?
9. Facts & Figures case 9: proving that taxpayers money awarded to build the component described in the proposal instead is used almost for anything, even to copy someone else idea that was not funded
Not only is the scientific community’s practice and system to award research money broken, but the implementation is unethical as they do not request or require that the awarded taxpayer money be used to build the components or the service described in the proposal that received the award. Instead, the money can be used to build almost anything they want.
I also know of examples which demonstrate this unethical practice. One such example was revealed at the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in Strasbourg, France. The Explorer project, through friends, received $15.5 million of taxpayer money administered by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The authors were not requested to use the money awarded to build the electronic components implementing the concept they described in their proposal that had been declared advantageous with respect to other approaches.
Another example is the WPET project awarded by ATTRACT Competition in 2019, when the author actually said at his presentation on May 21, 2019, that he would use the money to build an ASIC. Both cases are detailed in the next two chapters. Details of these examples follow.
10. Facts & Figures case 10: The authors of the Explorer project convinced the NIH reviewers to award them $15.5 million of taxpayer money to build their electronics they claimed to be superior but instead used the money to build their colleagues’ concepts
On October 31, 2016, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Strasbourg, France, when I showed William Moses, co-author of the Explorer that received $15.5 million of taxpayer money, the table comparing the 3D-CBS to the Explorer showing how it is more efficient and one-tenth the cost, he said that they were not going to build the electronics submitted in the proposal; instead, saying that they could use the money for almost whatever they wanted, even if it was not implementing the concept described in their proposal, as long as they were not using it for “dancing girls”.
11. Facts & Figures case 11: The authors of the WPET project convinced the ATTRACT reviewers to award them taxpayer money to build their flawed concept and then said at their presentation they will use the money to build an ASIC while their colleague has requested funds for 22 years to build an ASIC
A similar situation occurred with the WPET project when its Principal Investigator, Stephen Watts, revealed during his two-minute presentation on May 21, 2019, that he would use the money to build an ASIC.
Is this a fair and ethical practice? I have been waiting for 22 years to receive funding to build an ASIC implementing my 3D-Flow invention concept that has shown to be superior during the past 26 years than any other approach. In 1997, I proved my concept feasible in three types of FPGA (Altera, Xiling and Orca technologies). In 1998, using the $1 million grant received from DOE, I paid Synopsys to design the 3D-Flow ASIC in 350-nanometer technology. Synopsys created the tapeout files to build the ASIC, but funding agencies never provided funding to pay the Silicon Foundry to build the ASIC. In 2001, I proved my 3D-Flow concept in FPGA hardware circuits, and in 2003, I proved it in two modular boards. In 2015, I migrated the 3D-Flow design to 40-nanometer technology showing it to be 13 times faster, consuming 1/10 the power and costing 1/200 the cost of the 2003 design.
For 22 years, no one has ever presented a concept or innovation that can handle a large quantity of data arriving at ultra-high speed for “Detection and Imaging technology” that can perform programmable object pattern recognition algorithms in real-time in a cost-effective manner that can compete with my 3D-Flow invention.
12. Facts & Figures, case 12: Unfair practice of assigning research funds to projects without comparing with other projects more efficient and less expensive, without checking their feasibility, without checking if it is someone else’s idea/invention
Is the current system which assigns research funding using taxpayer money, where it is not even necessary to discuss and compare projects to show advantages in the conceptual design, feasibility and cost-effectiveness, fair? Is the current system that allows research funds to be assigned to the most absurd, unrealistic projects where the award money can then be used to implement almost whatever the authors want, fair? Is the current system where copying ideas and inventions of colleagues without going through a professional, ethical process to discuss and compare features that justify the assignment of grant money to the inventor rather than those who copy it, fair?
13. Facts & Figures, case 13: Polite and respectful response providing evidence of unqualified ATTRACT reviewer who told me to “shut up”
On May 22nd, 2019, I politely and respectfully responded to one of the ATTRACT’s reviewers, Andrea Cuomo, who invoked the law and the rules of the European Commission to deny scientific answers that are part of his job (that he freely accepted as a reviewer) when, in fact it is the responsibility of everyone (CERN, ATTRACT, EU Horizon 2020, etc.) to assure the implementation of scientific procedures at CERN as advertised to the world by prominent media and by 347 million monthly website traffic.
Following the ATTRACT competition at CERN on May 20-21, 2019, I wrote an email to CERN Director General, requesting a meeting with the intent to find an honorable solution for science, therefore for CERN, when ATTRACT reviewer Andrea Cuomo intervened. When I asked him if he could provide a reference to a more performant, flexible, lower cost system to compare to my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS systems, he replied with the following email invoking European laws and rules to deny scientific answers:
“I am sorry to intervene, but I believe it is my duty for the ATTRACT part. The CERN is not involved in evaluating projects. The ATTRACT Independent Evaluation Board makes its decisions in accordance with Horizon 2020 rules. Therefore, if you believe your project has been unfairly evaluated, you are most welcome to challenge the outcome. There is a procedure, as in any Horizon 2020 programme, and you should apply following the rules. Otherwise please shut up.” (http://bit.ly/2IgsvH9).
“It is ATTRACT Consortium’s responsibility as well as CERN, Horizon2020 responsibility and the responsibility of any funding agency in this field using taxpayer money to fund the most efficient, flexible, versatile, programmable, scalable and less expensive “Detection and Imaging Technology” project, suitable for several applications.
I am sorry to have to repeat that [my request to receive scientific answers, based on calculations and scientific evidence]:
is in the interest of taxpayers,
is for the advancement in science”
I have a lot of respect for the reviewer Andrea Cuomo as it takes a lot of talent and knowledge to successfully lead a company the size of ST Microelectronics; however, I have not seen any articles or documents in his resume (http://bit.ly/31A7gYk or http://bit.ly/2wV0lLf) reporting on the work he has done in data acquisition, electronics, parallel processing, detectors, algorithms, etc. There is no shame in declining to review a paper or a project because one is not competent in a specific field such as Detection and Imaging Technology.
Every reviewer of a scientific paper is asked to state first if he/she is competent in a specific field. I have turned down requests to review papers when I did not have the expertise in a particular field. However, since the late eighties, I was considered one of the top experts in the use of Digital Signal Processors (DSP) for High Energy Physics (HEP). See more information in Section C.2. of this document.
14. Facts & Figures case 14: Wesley Smith, without going through an open public scientific review similar to mine in 1993, received over $50 million to build a L-1 Trigger that was trashed in 2016 because it was ineffective, while funding was stopped on my 3D-Flow invention that was recognized a breakthrough
After my 3D-Flow invention was recognized at a formal, official, public, major scientific review in 1993 (goo.gl/zP76Tc) as a breakthrough, solving the problem of detection and imaging technology for the most demanding requirements in physics experiments that later proved advantageous in Medical Imaging and other applications….
After I successfully completed my $1 million grant research in 1999, paid Synopsys to create the tapeout file to build the 3D-Flow Integrated Circuit (ASIC)….
After the results were published in a 45-page peer review scientific journal (goo.gl/9nTxy4)….
After I distributed free of charge 200 copies of my book (goo.gl/ggGGwF) to leaders at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon, France, where I presented two articles (goo.gl/zBBSRC, goo.gl/dCa1r2)….
After I proved my 3D-Flow innovative concept feasible and functional in hardware in FPGA in 2001 and in 2003… my 3D-Flow ASIC was never funded. Instead, over $50 million went to my competitor, Wesley Smith, (See pages 12 to 16 of Smith’s curriculum vitae goo.gl/NkDW25). Smith’s colleagues, without going through a public, scientific review similar to mine in 1993, were able to convince their funding agencies to give an additional $50 million to build the CERN-CMS L-1 trigger.
Wesley Smith’s trigger failed and was trashed on February 26, 2016, because it was ineffective as stated in the article of his collaborators (goo.gl/JMoczz). If Smith would have gone through a public, scientific review like I did, over $100 million and an enormous amount of time could have been saved because calculations would have revealed the limitations of his project before construction. Despite this failure, and Wesley Smith’s and Peter Sharp’s refusal to allow me to present my 3D-Flow invention at the 1999 workshop of electronics for LHC experiments at Snowmass, Colorado, where they were co-chairpersons, I maintained a professional relationship with them, often visiting them at CERN – the last time in 2008.
Year after year, mistakes were made in assuming FPGA, GPU, Intel core 128, or similar components could solve the most demanding Detection and Imaging Technology applications such as for CERN L-1 triggers. Systems using these components were built but were later trashed because they were ineffective. Now the ATTRACT Consortium is making a competition on “Detection and Imaging Technology” using 17 million EUROS of taxpayer money to fund projects like the WPET and others that are less efficient and more costly than my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS systems.
15. Facts & Figures case 15: 2011 Bertolucci states he is incompetent in detectors for medical imaging, however; awards himself a prize and all his claims turn out to be wrong
This waste of taxpayer money occurred because reviewers were rejecting my papers and funding other projects that were less efficient and more expensive, and I was not allowed to publicly answer their rejections with calculations and scientific evidence.
During the presentation of Christian Joram, first prize winner of Bertolucci’s Axial-PET project at the Workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN on February 4th, 2010, I attempted to question him after he stated the Axial-PET module was intended to be used on PET detectors for humans; however, the microphone was taken away from me and I was silenced. I had wanted to explain the inappropriateness of using such a detector module on a human as it would make the device less efficient and more hazardous as it would require a higher radiation dose, and more expensive than current devices, thus detrimental to the health of the patient and to the pocket of taxpayers. I was, however, able to interview Joram after his presentation where he states that the Axial-PET that received a prize as the best PET detector module for cancer detection, in fact was not for cancer. Here is the actual interview: http://bit.ly/2IZmHma).
I had a chance to address this a year later with CERN Director of Research, Sergio Bertolucci, in his office on January 12, 2011. Cardio Surgeon, Dr. Vincenzo Vigna, from Pavia, was also present.
Many things during this meeting surprised me. I was not so much outraged listening to Bertolucci say 33 times the word f*** (profanities, audio goo.gl/fS49gA, transcript goo.gl/gJYmXB) as I was even more shocked and outraged to hear his statements regarding his intent to use GPU processors found inside Playstations or 128 core Intel processors for the Level-1 Trigger.
During this meeting on January 12, 2011, Bertolucci did not take notice of what I had to say, instead he dismissed my claims and calculations, stating that there were over 50 processors like my 3D-Flow, and claimed the Intel with 128 core and the GPU processors would solve the L-1 Trigger and other applications in detection and imaging technology such as PET in medical imaging.
The claims made by Bertolucci and other reviewers who did not allow me to present publicly my 3D-Flow invention and answer their questions to clarify their doubts were proved wrong when the L-1 Trigger systems costing hundreds of millions of dollars had to be trashed because they were ineffective. Also The Explorer, costing over a hundred million dollars, was recently built using ideas from my book published in the year 2000; for example, The Explorer is the first PET machine built using a long Field of View which I detail in my 2000 book (goo.gl/ggGGwF), but this idea was rejected as the wrong approach at the time. Although several of my ideas have been copied by the Explorer, it is still less efficient and over ten times more costly than the 3D-CBS that I describe in detail in my 2000 book, and for which I have provided 59 quotes from reputable industries in 2015 which show its feasibility in higher efficiency and a much lower cost.
To fix science, magazines and newspapers should not only report generic statements found in the October 2018 issue of Scientific American (http://www.nature.com/articles/scientificamerican1018-52), but report on specific cases like the ones I have experienced and reported here.
We should then fix the broken science starting with guaranteeing transparency in science by holding open and public scientific reviews similar to the one I was subjected to with my 3D-Flow on December 14th, 1993. There I made a 90-minute presentation in the auditorium of FERMILAB (when FERMILAB had Tevatron, the most powerful accelerator in the world), followed by a one day question and answer session from reviewers, where I responded satisfactorily, received a written report recognizing my breakthrough invention, and given $150,000 “…to complete the current development and leave the project in a state where it could be continued”.
However, after receiving a subsequent $1 million grant in 1995 that I used to develop a simulator and paid Synopsys for the design of the ASIC, funding was not provided to build it, instead over $50 million was given to Wesley Smith who did not pass an open, public scientific review similar to mine. See Section B.14. of this document for more details.
Starting in late 1999, after I had the design of the 3D-Flow ASIC from Synopsys, the path taken by the decision makers in my field in the scientific community has been to silence me. That is the year my papers, articles, and presentations to conferences where colleagues were presenting their projects competing for funding began being rejected.
Outrageously, before it became evident to me and others that I was being prevented from publishing and speaking at conferences controlled by the circle of friends of scientists who compete for funding in this specific field, scientists used the excuse that I did not have any scientific publications later than my masterpiece 45-page peer review article published by the prestigious scientific journal Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research in 1999, Sec. A, vol. 436, pp. 341-385 (goo.gl/bqhD4R).
This is simply not true; it was made up to prevent me from speaking at CERN, or publish and present my work and inventions at conferences controlled by the circle of friends who were splitting the big cake of taxpayer money for funding research (over $2 trillion per year for all research as reported on page 54 in the October 2018 article in Scientific American http://www.nature.com/articles/scientificamerican1018-52).
2. Facts & Figures case 17: The best solution comes with expertise and inside-out knowledge of each component to know which is more suitable to achieve the global result and the best way to connect/interface them in synergy to optimize high performance at the lowest possible cost
Because I had worldwide recognition as a top expert in the use of DSP for HEP, in particular for Detection and Imaging Technology, I was invited to give a lecture at CERN School of Computing in 1990 (http://bit.ly/2WB3Vti) where I compared the internal architecture of different processors, CISC (window register from Berkley), MIPS (from Stanford), DSP (from Harvard) comparing the DSP from Texas Instrument to Motorola; having used both, I was in the position to compare the pros and cons of each processor and what they were best suited for.
I could describe the architecture of the Transputers and the Microcontrollers. For ten years (from 1980 to 1890), I was part of the team from CERN that taught microprocessors for one month to over one hundred senior PhD physicists and engineers at Colleges on Microprocessors in third world countries.
We chose to teach them how to build computer hardware and operating systems/software based on the 6809 microprocessor from Motorola costing just a few dollars. This was because, different from the Z80 or the 6502 microprocessors used by Apple, the 6809 microprocessor had a classical instruction set similar to an IBM mainframe which was more appropriate for teaching formal instructions/operations.
My worldwide recognition in this field resulted in an invitation to present my work at the most important workshop for future colliders in Aachen in 1990 (http://bit.ly/2I6ufT6), share one presentation/article with other experts in the field of Detection and Imaging Technology (n. Ellis, G. Mornacchi, J. Strong at http://bit.ly/2IwSrwU) and later an invitation to join the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) Project in Texas to design the L-1 Trigger for the half-billion dollar GEM experiment (http://bit.ly/2F56rwY).
After the cancelation of the SSC by the U.S. Congress, my 3D-Flow invention was adopted by the LHCb collaboration for the L-0 Trigger (equivalent to the L-1 in other experiments) at the LHCb experiment as reported in the Letter Of Intent – LOI (http://bit.ly/2RcnfqS), in the Technical Proposal TP (http://bit.ly/2WCTcd4) and in the article (goo.gl/bqhD4R). I had already designed the Level-2 Trigger for the Delphi experiment at CERN. (See references 18, 21, 28, 30 and 46 and pages 283, 284, 286-289 of http://bit.ly/2WB3Vti).
My experience in knowing the type of algorithm necessary to identify particles lead me to improve the performance of the L-1 Trigger to the point where it could execute algorithms that before could only be executed at the L-2 Trigger.
Many years of experience in the field and inside-out knowledge of the different processors led me to design the very powerful 3D-Flow processor, most suitable for executing real-time programmable algorithms for object pattern recognition in very demanding applications such as billion-dollar high energy physics experiments to cope with data arriving at a very high speed impossible to save on a hard drive. It was also suitable in medical imaging applications to reduce radiation to patients, and the ability to use economical crystals with a processor capable to execute in real-time complex, sophisticated algorithms.
To maximize performance in Detection and Imaging Technology requires more knowledge than the microprocessors or the electronics; it requires knowledge of all the components of the system: the detectors, sensors, coupling of the detectors with the sensors and the electronics, detector assembly, processors, computer architecture, real-time algorithm, detector occupancy, input data rate, data reduction, channel reduction, etc.
3. Facts & Figures case 18: The claim that I did that I did not published after the year 2000 is false
In fact, I have been invited to speak at several other kinds of conferences; for example, at the 2008 International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, at the E. Majorana Center for Scientific Culture in Erice, Italy, before Nobel Laureates, where my work was published in a book by World Scientific (goo.gl/MpTD77).
I presented my research work at several ICATPP conferences in 2003, 2005, 2007 who also published my work each year in a different book by World Scientific.
In 2015, I was invited to present my research at an Energy Challenges and Mechanics conference in 2015, in Aberdeen, Scotland, and I passed several public, scientific reviews broadcasted via internet in real-time allowing interaction with participants from anywhere in the world with simultaneous translation into English and Italian. And in 2011, after five hours of fierce public discussion with reviewers, I won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis that was held at the University of Pavia in Italy at its 600 anniversary.
4. Facts & Figures case 19: Examples where I have been silenced from asking legitimate questions and providing calculations and scientific evidence
I have been silenced from conferences controlled by scientists who split the taxpayer money for research in the specific field of “Detection and Imaging Technology”, even silenced from asking questions to the speakers at these conferences. On several occasions, including at the CERN auditorium at the 2010 “Physics for Health” workshop and at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conferences in following years, the microphone was physically taken away from me when I attempted to ask the speaker a question.
These episodes have been reported in several documents and websites. The most recent episodes occurred at the Total Body PET conference held in Ghent, Belgium, on July 1-2, 2018, and at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in Sydney, Australia, in November 2018, where all my papers were rejected as in previous years at both conferences without providing any scientific arguments or evidence to support the rejections.
At the Total Body PET workshop in November 2018 in Sydney, all participants witnessed the convener, Ramsey Badawi, one of the authors of the Explorer project, deliberately prevent me from asking the speakers any questions. The clear, unequivocal suppressive action for transparency in science, and the suppression of scientific procedures to allow technical questions and respond with scientific arguments, came after Joel Karp’s talk at 5:00 pm at the workshop in Sydney on November 17, 2018.
I was sitting on the right side of the room in the first row a few feet from the desk of the moderator Ramsey Badawi, also next to the staff person who held the microphone to be made available to the person asking a question. During the applause, right before the moderator asked if there were any questions, I raised my hand, then stood up with my hand in front of the moderator; however, Badawi ordered the staff person next to me to walk to the middle of the room to give the microphone to another person, and I was never allowed to ask Joel Karp my question.
Badawi and Karp are the authors of the Explorer project that received $15.5 million of taxpayer money to implement ideas many of which were copied from my articles and details of my 3D-CBS PET project which could be found in my 2000 book (goo.gl/ggGGwF).
Not only did they not cite my original work of the year 2000, which is patented, but they also silenced me at conferences.
I was silenced also by the EMCEE of the CERN-ATTRACT award ceremony, Markus Nordberg, after I spoke for just 20 seconds, while all other speakers were allowed 2 minutes. I wanted to inform the audience that a solution to the “Detection an Imaging Technology” problem for the most demanding application of analyzing billions of data arriving at millions frames per second from the LHC apparatus, was recognized as officially and formally solved 26 years ago with my 3D-Flow invention.
Also on May 20, 2019, Nordberg did not let me ask the speaker, Luisa Alemany from ESADE, a question. She had given a talk on commercialization and Venture Capitalists (VC), while more than 15 other participants were given the opportunity to ask questions.
5. Facts & Figures case 20: Superiority of my invention recognized by a world prestigious university commented that those who copied it ten years later made a much more complex implementation
The superiority of my programmable 3D-Flow system for Level-1 Triggers during the past two decades was also recognized by participants at my seminar held on June 19, 2018 (goo.gl/5Zhqmi), at Tsinghua University, one of the most prestigious universities in Beijing, China (See FDN article at goo.gl/Nqoyua).
In addition to the verbal support I received, Guanghua Gong, Associate Professor of the Department of Engineering and Physics, who was leading the group wrote: «…Crosetto’s 3D processing structure is an innovation in electronics, the similar ideas we can only see 10 years later and with much complex implementation».
Gong was comparing my 3D-Flow system with the FTK AM (Associative Memory) system that received considerable funding but is more complex and less efficient. A more in-depth study of the 2013 CERN-ATLAS TDR https://cds.cern.ch/record/1552953/files/ATLAS-TDR-021.pdf reveals that they have copied, without citing my work, several ideas from my original concept recognized a breakthrough in 1993 (goo.gl/zP76Tc) and published in 1999 in the NIM peer-reviewed journal (goo.gl/bqhD4R).
Although they received funding to develop the FTK system similar to mine (Data-Driven, De-randomizing input FIFO, one source to one destination connection, etc.) as Prof. Gong noticed, their system developed ten years later copied my original idea but was a much more complex implementation.
There is plenty of evidence to show that my inventions, recognized officially and formally as breakthroughs, have been copied, that my work including publications and funding have been suppressed, that the microphone has been taken from me while I am asking a question to colleagues, and that these actions have been continuing for more than 20 years.
6. Facts & Figures case 21: Burning scientific evidence for scientists, politicians, investors, and everyone
Despite some scientists who still continue to use the excuse that they do not let me present at CERN and discuss my inventions and research work with colleagues publicly because they claim I do not have publications after the year 2000 (the result of their boycotting and silencing me for twenty years), there are still FACTS & FIGURES which offer burning scientific evidence of the comparison costs and benefits of different approaches that address big projects and the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, that I have published, not only in World Scientific, but in magazines and daily newspapers. These Facts & Figures should not only raise the eyebrows of scientists who care about professional ethics and scientific integrity, but also the eyebrows of journalists working in the public interest, funding agencies, politicians, investors, economists and above all taxpayers who should be outraged as their money is wasted by unethical scientists who are driving science into the ditch.
D. BURNING FACTS & FIGURES WHICH PROVE WE CAN SAVE TAXPAYERS BILLIONS WHILE SAVING MILLIONS OF LIVES
1. Facts & Figures case 22: Hundreds of millions of dollars could have been saved in physics experiments
My 3D-Flow system for CERN-CMS L-1 Trigger was proven feasible by 59 quotes from industries (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) to replace 4,000 CERN electronic boards (goo.gl/mPHw5Y) with 9 boards (goo.gl/OTkH4z) at 1/1000 the cost for replicated units with 8,192 channels that would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars and provided a powerful tool to discover the unknown.
2. Facts & Figures case 23: 3D-CBS exam last 10 seconds, 1% radiation of current PET, more efficient and 1/10 the cost of the Explorer
My 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) system for an effective early cancer detection can reduce the radiation of current PET to 1% and provides images appearing to be of diagnostic quality with a 10-second examination time that is more efficient and 1/10 the cost of the Explorer device.
Calculations that I presented at the ICATPP conference in 2007 and published by World Scientific in 2008 (see page 14-15 of http://bit.ly/2IM0EjE) show the current cost of over $10 million per life saved from dying of cancer.
4. Facts & Figures case 25: WPET cancer screening cost: $13 million per life saved. Estimated to save 326,000 lives in 30 years
Calculations using the interactive table at http://bit.ly/2wTtRkK (see pdf http://bit.ly/2XMC4ms) with the estimate to save 45% of lives after 10 years of screening with a WPET device (Wearable PET) costing $28 million per unit, $10,000 per exam, 250 examinations per year — which is however unviable because it requires wearing a jacket weighing more than 350 kg for 24 hours (assuming 15 mm thick LYSO crystals with 48% efficiency are used), if it would be feasible, show it would have the potential to save 326,000 lives over a period of 30 years, at a cost of $13 million per life saved.
5. Facts & Figures case 26: Explorer cancer screening cost: $2.7 million per life saved. Estimated to save 13 million lives in 30 years
Calculations using the interactive table at http://bit.ly/2WFMh2G (see pdf http://bit.ly/2Kjn2BE) with the estimate to save 45% of lives after 10 years of screening with an Explorer device costing $20 million per unit, $4,000 per exam, 10,000 examinations per year, with 18.1 mm thick LYSO crystals providing 56% efficiency, show it has the potential to save 13 million lives over a period of 30 years at a cost of $2.7 million per life saved.
6. Facts & Figures case 27: 3D-CBS cancer screening cost: $225,000 per life saved. Estimated to save 16.5 million lives in 30 years
Calculations using the interactive table at http://bit.ly/2IG6nVB (see pdf at http://bit.ly/2WBmKaZ) with the estimate to save 58% of lives after 10 years of screening, with 30 mm thick BGO crystals providing 98% efficiency, with a 3D-CBS device costing $3.5 million per unit, $400 per exam, 10,000 examinations per year, has the potential to save 16.5 million lives over a period of 30 years at a cost of $225,000 per life saved.
These Facts & Figures cannot be refuted by silencing me for another twenty years, rejecting my papers, taking away the microphone at conferences or not allowing me to ask questions to the speakers. They cannot be refuted with the off-hand statement of an authoritarian reviewer such as Bertolucci that there are over 50 processors like the 3D-Flow, without being able to provide references, showing that he does not know the difference between the internal architecture and functionality of a GPU processor, an Intel 128 core processor, FPGA, etc., each one suitable for some types of applications and not for others, nor can they be refuted by Cinzia De Via by suggesting I submit a paper to a different conference or a different journal after being rejected from one journal (science is not a lottery, rejection claims must be supported by calculations and scientific evidence). They cannot be refuted by a CERN-ATTRACT reviewer such as Ralf Kaiser who deleted all six of my emails before reading them, or by the rude, authoritarian statement by the CERN-ATTRACT reviewer Andrea Cuomo who wrote that I should “shut up”.
We cannot make the same mistake of suppressing evidence as in the famous case in 1847 (goo.gl/EJD9yU), therefore, we must let science happen!
List of articles in magazines & newspapers (goo.gl/XtMkJc) provide answers to concerned citizens on the long standing problem of how to fix science referring to specific Facts & Figures before the October 2018 article in Scientific American.
Technology” problems of the most demanding applications that could save hundreds of millions of dollars in High Energy Physics experiments, that could provide a more powerful tool to discover the unknown and could save millions of lives and reduce healthcare costs, have the duty to respond with calculations and scientific evidence when they counter my claims which are supported by calculations, technology, simulations, functional proof of the concept tested in hardware circuits, 59 quotes from reputable industries proving feasibility of large systems.
Anyone disagreeing with the estimates made in the table should provide their assumptions and reasonable claims, not just a generic statement that screening cannot be proposed because it will make healthcare costs more expensive. This is the type of statement that I have had to deal with these past 20 years; while I agree they could be true if using screening techniques that are ineffective, I continue to insist that claims must be supported by data and calculations.
This is what I insisted on in a conversation I had with the General Chairman of the 2017 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference, John Aarsvold, on April 16, 2019, which lasted 5 hours. Sometimes the conversation became heated reflecting passion on both sides. I was pleased that this time Aarsvold asked for calculations to prove that an effective early detection device like my 3D-CBS technology, 400 times more efficient than current over 10,000 PET, requiring 1% of the radiation, and having an examination cost of approximately $400, could reduce significantly cancer deaths and healthcare costs.
I told Arsvold that I presented a paper at the ICATPP conference in 2007 and published a paper in World Scientific in 2008 reporting on pages 14-15 of http://bit.ly/2IM0EjE the calculations and providing the source references. Aarsvold has told me over the phone that my calculations sound reasonable and the references were attainable. My calculations show that the current cost to save a life from cancer is approximately $10 million per life saved, and that with my 3D-CBS device for early cancer detection it will drop to $250,000 per life saved.
Prof. Gianotti, please forgive me for writing you this open letter with the hope of creating awareness to the entire population of this planet that we have the possibility to significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost and create more powerful tools to discover the unknown that would also save taxpayer money used for research. However, this should be a wakeup call for all of us to change our attitude and method in addressing this issue in a scientific manner because the stakes for humanity are too high. Allow me to make a presentation at CERN before the top-experts in Detection and Imaging technology, asking them first to express what they disagree or agree with in the assumptions and results of the six items above, and then I should be allowed the opportunity to answer their questions in an open public meeting at CERN.
I wish I could have had more time to speak with you at the CERN cafeteria on May 21, 2019, had I known that you were participating at the annual CERN relay race on Thursday May 23, 2019, http://bit.ly/2RdcYLb or at https://m.facebook.com/CERNjobs/#!/CERNjobs/photos/pcb.2342279572497141/2342279182497180/?type=3&source=49&__tn__=EH-R.
I would have participated too in order to steal a few moments to discuss this important issue with you. I was still in Geneva until Saturday, May 25. In fact, for the previous three days I was standing for approximately 7 hours per day in front of the Palace of the United Nations informing about the need to fix science to save taxpayer money and to save lives, to thousands of people from the 194 delegations from different countries participating to the WHA72 (World Health Assembly) organized by the World Health Organization (WHO).
I was informing those people at WHO (http://bit.ly/2ILKyEe) as I did on May 20-21 before the CERN entrance (http://bit.ly/2KV47wr) with the two large panels (1 mt x 1.6 mt.) and distributing thousands of copies of the document http://bit.ly/2WSHI65, and the 4 page article published on 5/1/2019, by FDN, also available at http://bit.ly/2vvBMDW.
I received many encouragement comments for the people taking my article and one page document, such as: “You are doing a fantastic job!” “Thank you for your hard work” “Good Job”, “How can I help?” Some people gave me their business card, one offering free translations. Two groups, one from a delegation from Africa and the other from Eastern Country made a video interview to broadcast to their country.
I would have been glad to interrupt my distribution of newspapers and could easily reach your office or the field where this relay competition was being held to discuss this important issue with you.
Unfortunately, your office did not set an appointment as you told me at the cafeteria they would; in fact they hung up on me when I called.
It has been more than two years since you sent me an email appointing three people Joel Butler, Andrew Lankford and Nadia Pastrone to organize a scientific discussion at CERN on my inventions, but this meeting has never happened despite my many efforts to contact them with emails and phone calls.
Now, on May 21, 2019 I had the chance meeting you in CERN’s cafeteria when you promised that your assistant before the end of the day would sent me an email setting a date for a meeting. My requests related to my breakthrough inventions in particle physics to the major research center in particle physics in the world, CERN spending over $2 billion per year to advance in particle physics that I submitted during all these years that are summarized below were legitimate, scientific, in the interest of the advancement of science and of taxpayer:
- Do the CERN experts in “Detection and Imaging Technology” know any project more flexible, efficient, scalable, programmable, offering the capability to execute desired experimenters real-time complex algorithms for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data set and capture all possible valid data set at a lower cost per valid input data set captured compared to my 3D-Flow technology-independent system?
- Can Joel Butler, former Head of Computing Division at FERMILab and former spokesman for the billion-dollar CERN-CMS experiment, for any project he knows at CERN or for any experiment in the world write the statement he wrote for my 3D-Flow invention at goo.gl/ZJh0Kg “…As for applications to High Energy Physics, at present the 3D-Flow project is the only detailed study demonstrating the feasibility of executing several level-1 trigger algorithms of different experiments, I would like to strongly endorse funding…” which in his opinion shows more flexibility, efficiency, scalability, programmability, performance, offering the capability to execute desired experimenters real-time complex algorithms for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data set and capture all possible valid data set at a lower cost per valid input data set captured compared to my 3D-Flow technology-independent system? After a one-hour discussion on May 20, 2019, Joel Butler was not able to provide the reference to any project(s) for which he could write the statement he wrote for my 3D-Flow invention so we can compare performance and price.
Don’t you think the right word to call the behavior that has been going on “Stonewalling”?
Because of the importance of the entire world to address professionally and scientifically this issue, I hope that the stonewalling will stop so that we can finally address the issues in an open, public meeting at CERN where I can present my inventions and answer questions from those who express doubts. (See figure below at http://bit.ly/2HUvcOg).
Table of Contents
- INTENTION & GOAL. 1
- Scientific American is correct in stating that current science is broken and needs to be fixed. 1
- Creating awareness by forwarding this document and placing pressure on leaders can fix broken science. 1
- FACTS & FIGURES PROVING SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN’S CLAIMS THAT WE NEED TO FIX CORRUPTION IN SCIENCE ARE CORRECT. 2
- Facts & Figures case 1: 2010, Bertolucci uses CERN credibility to get funding by assigning himself a prize. 2
- Facts & Figures case 2: 2018-20, Bertolucci and his friends use CERN credibility to gain power by distributing 17 million EUROS of taxpayer money to their friends. 3
- Facts & Figures case 3: Criteria used for evaluating projects are flawed: do not require measurable results, no accountability for scientific merit. 4
- Facts & Figures case 4: Distrust of scientists who believe the review process is not scientific and is not fair and see it as “pure luck”, like a lottery. 4
- Facts & Figures case 5: Distrust of scientists when reviewers approve articles and fund applicants who have copied ideas/inventions. 4
- Facts & Figures case 6: Bertolucci and his friends have funded applicants who advertise (& copy) another scientist’s ideas/inventions which were proven feasible and functional more than 20 years ago and still await funding. 4
- Facts & Figures case 7: Stephen Watts from the University of Manchester and the Italian company CAEN were aware of my inventions and used my ideas/claims without citing my work, apparently to receive funding for their nonviable WPET. 5
- Facts & Figures case 8: proving Scientific American’s claim that funding is concentrated in the hands of investigators who are not superstars in science but are the best connected. 6
- Facts & Figures case 9: proving that taxpayers money awarded to build the component described in the proposal instead is used almost for anything, even to copy someone else idea that was not funded. 6
- Facts & Figures case 10: The authors of the Explorer project convinced the NIH reviewers to award them $15.5 million of taxpayer money to build their electronics they claimed to be superior but instead used the money to build their colleagues’ concepts. 6
- Facts & Figures case 11: The authors of the WPET project convinced the ATTRACT reviewers to award them taxpayer money to build their flawed concept and then said at their presentation they will use the money to build an ASIC while their colleague has requested funds for 22 years to build an ASIC. 6
- Facts & Figures, case 12: Unfair practice of assigning research funds to projects without comparing with other projects more efficient and less expensive, without checking their feasibility, without checking if it is someone else’s idea/invention. 7
- Facts & Figures, case 13: Polite and respectful response providing evidence of unqualified ATTRACT reviewer who told me to “shut up”. 7
- Facts & Figures case 14: Wesley Smith, without going through an open public scientific review similar to mine in 1993, received over $50 million to build a L-1 Trigger that was trashed in 2016 because it was ineffective, while funding was stopped on my 3D-Flow invention that was recognized a breakthrough. 8
- Facts & Figures case 15: 2011 Bertolucci states he is incompetent in detectors for medical imaging, however; awards himself a prize and all his claims turn out to be wrong. 8
- FACTS & FIGURES PROVING HOW TO FIX CORRUPTION IN SCIENCE. 9
- Facts & Figures case 16: Beginning 1999 my research has been suppress. 9
- Facts & Figures case 17: The best solution comes with expertise and inside-out knowledge of each component to know which is more suitable to achieve the global result and the best way to connect/interface them in synergy to optimize high performance at the lowest possible cost. 10
- Facts & Figures case 18: The claim that I did that I did not published after the year 2000 is false. 11
- Facts & Figures case 19: Examples where I have been silenced from asking legitimate questions and providing calculations and scientific evidence. 11
- Facts & Figures case 20: Superiority of my invention recognized by a world prestigious university commented that those who copied it ten years later made a much more complex implementation. 12
- Facts & Figures case 21: Burning scientific evidence for scientists, politicians, investors, and everyone. 12
- BURNING FACTS & FIGURES WHICH PROVE WE CAN SAVE TAXPAYERS BILLIONS WHILE SAVING MILLIONS OF LIVES 13
- Facts & Figures case 22: Hundreds of millions of dollars could have been saved in physics experiments. 13
- Facts & Figures case 23: 3D-CBS exam last 10 seconds, 1% radiation of current PET, more efficient and 1/10 the cost of the Explorer. 13
- Facts & Figures case 24: Current cancer cost: Over $10 million per life saved. 13
- Facts & Figures case 25: WPET cancer screening cost: $13 million per life saved. Estimated to save 326,000 lives in 30 years. 13
- Facts & Figures case 26: Explorer cancer screening cost: $2.7 million per life saved. Estimated to save 13 million lives in 30 years. 13
- Facts & Figures case 27: 3D-CBS cancer screening cost: $225,000 per life saved. Estimated to save 16.5 million lives in 30 years. 13
- Facts & Figures case 28: Responsibility to respond with calculations and scientific arguments. 14
- Facts & Figures case 29: Evidence of stonewalling. 15
See related documents at:
Tis document is available in pdf at: http://bit.ly/2FeNfgF and in HTML at:
Partial list of those who I am sending this document to:
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Aaron.email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Adamw@caltech.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Agostino.LANZA@pv.infn.it; agostino.vallini@VicariatusUrbis.org; Aideen.McGinley@bbc.co.uk; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Alberto.J.Verme@citi.com; email@example.com; Alberto.Valmaggia@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; Aldo.Reschigna@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Alessandro.Benvenuto@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Alfredo.Monaco@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; alo@MIT.EDU; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Andrea.Appiano@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Andrea.RAPPOLDI@pv.infn.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; Andreas.email@example.com; Angela.Lombardi@utsa.edu; Angela.Motta@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Antonio.Ferrentino@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; APyle@usatoday.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Augusto.Ferrari@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Berutti@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Bradf@caltech.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Brockett; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Canada.comHelp@postmedia.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Carlo.CARLONI@pv.infn.it; Carlo.DEVECCHI@pv.infn.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; ChrisAddeo@ionmedia.com; email@example.com; Christoph.Ilgner@cern.ch; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; citibusinessThankYou@info.citibank.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Claudia.Porchietto@cr.piemonte.it; Claudio.Conta@pv.infn.it; email@example.com; Claudio.MONTANARI@pv.infn.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; Collinsf@od.nih.gov; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; cosman@SHORE.NET; firstname.lastname@example.org; Council.Secretariat@cern.ch; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Crosettoguido@gmail.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Dan.Fleetwood@vanderbilt.edu; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Daniela.Ruffino@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Daniele.Valle@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Dateline@nbcuni.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Davide.Bono@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; Davide.Gariglio@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Deepak.Sharma@citi.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Diego.Sozzani@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Domenico.Ravetti@cr.piemonte.it; Domenico.Rossi@cr.piemonte.it; DomenicoValter.Ottria@cr.piemonte.it; Don.Callahan@citi.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Eckhard.Elsen@cern.ch; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Elvio.Rostagno@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Enrica.Baricco@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Fabiola.Gianotti@cern.ch; Fabrisl@ornl.gov; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Fabrizio.Manca@istruzione.it; fbehr@Central.UH.EDU; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Federico.Ravotti@cern.ch; Federico.Valetti@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Francesca.Frediani@cr.piemonte.it; Francesco.Balocco@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; Francesco.Graglia@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; FundingAgenciesandPhilanthropists; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Gabriele.Molinari@cr.piemonte.it; Gabriella.GAUDIO@pv.infn.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Giacomo.POLESELLO@pv.infn.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Gianluca.RASELLI@pv.infn.it; GianLuca.Vignale@cr.piemonte.it; Gianna.Gancia@cr.piemonte.it; Gianna.Pentenero@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Gianpaolo.Andrissi@cr.piemonte.it; Gilberto.PichettoFratin@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Giorgio.Bertola@cr.piemonte.it; Giorgio.Ferrero@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Giovanna.Lehmann@cern.ch; email@example.com; Giovanni.Corgnati@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; GiovanniMaria.Ferraris@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Goentoro@caltech.edu; email@example.com; GOLOVCHENKO@physics.harvard.edu; Golwala@caltech.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; GrouchoReviews@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Hajimiri@caltech.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; HDunn@cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Helen.Boaden@bbc.co.uk; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Henrik.Kaufholz@pol.dk; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Hitlin@caltech.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Hufnagel@embl.de; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; IGHOTLINE@hq.doe.gov; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; info(at)die-medienanstalten.de; firstname.lastname@example.org; info@?presserat.de; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Info@atlaszo.hu; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; James.A.Forese@citi.com; James.Harding@bbc.co.uk; Jan.Gunnar.firstname.lastname@example.org; Jane.Fraser@citi.com; Jane.Nelson@senate.texas.gov; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Jean-Philippe.Ceppi@tsr.ch; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; John.C.Gerspach@citi.com; email@example.com; johnstonAH25@gmail.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Justin@africanpress.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Lawrence.Tabak@nih.gov; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Leila@cin.ba; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Lorenzo.Brancaleon@utsa.edu; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; LowyD@mail.nih.gov; Lpachter@caltech.edu; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; lucicale@UTMB.EDU; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Luispirex@gmail.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; lwinslow@MIT.EDU; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; m.hayne@Lancaster.ac.uk; email@example.com:firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Marco.Grimaldi@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Marco.RONCADELLI@pv.infn.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; MariaCarla.Chiapello@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Mariele.Stockhoff@UGent.be; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Mario.Giaccone@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Mark.HUNTER@insead.edu; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; MarkusMeister; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Mary.McDowell@citi.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Marzio.Nessi@cern.ch; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Massimo.Caccia@uninsubria.it; Massimo.ROSSELLA@pv.infn.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Maurits.vanderHeiden@TNO.nl; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Mauro.Laus@cr.piemonte.it; MauroWillem.Campo@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Maya.AbiAkl@UGent.be; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Meister@caltech.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Michael.King@umassmed.edu; Michael.L.Corbat@citi.com; Michael.Lauer@nih.gov; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Mihai.firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Monica.Blank@cpii.com; Monica.Cerutti@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Nadia.Conticelli@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Newman@caltech.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org.; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; nicholas.Chadwick@bio-nano-consulting.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Nino.Boeti@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; O2.Online@nbcuni.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Paco.Ybarra@citi.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Pallab.Gosh@bbc.co.uk; firstname.lastname@example.org; Palmer@bbc.co.uk; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Paolo.Allemano@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; PaoloDomenico.Mighetti@cr.piemonte.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Parviz.Famouri@mail.wvu.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Paul.Lecoq@cern.ch; firstname.lastname@example.org; Paul.Ricon@bbc.co.uk; email@example.com; Paulo.Caribe@UGent.be; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; pless@MIT.EDU; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; President@caltech.edu; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; President@rockfound.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.orgPhysics; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; R.Victorjones@seas.harvard.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Raffaele.Gallo@cr.piemonte.it; Ralf.Kaiser@glasgow.ac.uk; firstname.lastname@example.org; Ramesh; email@example.com; Rana@caltech.edu; RanaAdhikari; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; redazione.re@gazzettadiReggio.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; redazione@ilgiornalediVicenza.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Refael@caltech.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Richard.Ayre@bbc.co.uk; email@example.com; Richard.Evans@citi.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Roberto.FERRARI@pv.infn.it; Roberto.Ravello@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Roger.Carr@bbc.co.uk; firstname.lastname@example.org; Roman.Shopa@ncbj.gov.pl; RonKeyser@ieee.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Jane.Nelson@senate.texas.gov; Sergio.Bertolucci@cern.ch; email@example.com; Sergio.Chiamparino@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Silvana.Accossato@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; sll@CSEM.ch; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Stefaan.Vandenberghe@UGent.be; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Stefania.Batzella@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Stephen.Bird@citi.com; email@example.com; Stephen.Volk@citi.com; Stephen.firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Susanne.Kuehn@cern.ch; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Techbridgeone@gmail.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Teodoro.Bottiglieri@BSWHealth.org; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov; Thibaut.Merlin@univ-brest.fr; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Thorsten.Lux@ifae.es; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Tim.Davie@bbc.co.uk; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Toddzickler@seas.harvard.edu; Tom.Werner@uphs.upenn.edu; email@example.com; Tony.Hall@bbc.co.uk; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; TrustEnquiries@bbc.co.uk; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Valentina.Caputo@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; Valerio.VERCESI@pv.infn.it; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; verak@MIT.EDU; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Vikram.Pandit@citi.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Vittorio.Barazzotto@cr.piemonte.it; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;