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

Who are most responsible for evaluating and make recommendations for funding projects/approaches/inventions in early cancer detection with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost: Experts in particle detection, or Oncologists?

Because we have known for 68 years that early cancer detection can save 50% of deaths and the best medical imaging devices are based on particle detection, a significant improvement in early cancer detection, which means saving many lives, requires a breakthrough invention advancing the field of particle detection, increasing the efficiency in capturing good signals from radiation at the lowest cost per good signal captured.

A summary of the answer to the question above follows:

1.  WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE? (The following is an ordered list from the most responsible to the least responsible)

1.1  Experts in Particle Physics (If the named person is not responsible, please provide the reason and/or the name of those responsible)

•  CERN Director of Research (Sergio Bertolucci, Bertolucci@cern.ch);

•  S. Department of Energy, Office of High Energy Physics (James Siegrist, Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov);

•  European Commission, Department for High Energy Physics (First Last Name, email)

•  Chairmen and former Chairmen of IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conferences (2014 Anthony Lavietes, lavietes@ieee.org, lavietes@llnl.gov; Edward Lampo, e.lampo@ieee.org; Ingrid Gregor, ingrid.gregor@desy.de; Adam Bernstein, Bernstein3@llnl.gov; 2013 Hee-Joung Kim, hjk1@yonsei.ac.kr; Steve Meikle, steven.meikle@sydney.edu.au; Gyuseong Cho, gscho@kaist.ac.kr; Ikuo Kanno, kanno@nucleng.kyoto-u.ac.jp)

1.2  Government funding agencies (Click here for an extensive list of funding agencies)

•  U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science (Patricia Dehmer, Patricia.Dehmer@science.doe.gov)

•  U.S. National Institutes of Health – NIH Director (Francis Collins, Collinsf@od.nih.gov)

•  NIH-NCI Director (Harold Varmus, varmushe@mail.nih.gov) NIH-NIBIB Director (Roderic Pettigrew, pettigrew@nih.gov)

•  Texas State Senator Jane Nelson (nelson@senate.state.tx.us), leading the legislation of House Bill HB14, raising $3 billion and giving it to spend to the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), CEO Wayne Roberts, wroberts@cprit.state.tx.us

•  European Commission, Director for Innovation (DROELL Peter, Droell@ec.europa.eu); Commissioner for Education (Androulla Vassiliou, Yiannakis.ASIMAKIS@ec.europa.eu), PHC 11 – 2015: New diagnostic tools and technologies (Alexandru-Sorin Costescu, Alexandru-Sorin.Costescu@ec.europa.eu)

•  Delegates at CERN from member countries and from countries listed as Observers and the Minister of Research for these countries

1.3  Media providing journalism in the public interest

•  Media of the countries that are members or observers at CERN

•  Media who are advocates for cancer patients in fighting to reduce cancer deaths and cost

•  Katie Couric, journalist, TV personality, and well-known cancer advocate who raised $109 million on September 6, 2014, for cancer research: KatieCouricNewsletter@gmail.com, pr@omaze.com

1.4  Cancer organizations, philanthropists and responsible citizens who care about the future for themselves and their loved ones

•  List of cancer organizations

•  List of other associations who publicly express concern about fighting cancer

Throughout the past years, Crosetto was questioned by many people, including scientists, why he was addressing the issue of reducing cancer deaths and cost with scientists at CERN who are considered expert in particle detection. They claim he should address this issue with oncologists, doctors, decision-makers in healthcare, politicians etc., and leave in peace CERN scientists, who receive billions of tax-dollars to become knowledgeable in particle detection (and are now also asking for charitable donations). It is the opinion of these people who are questioning Crosetto, that his 3D-CBS innovative technology should be evaluated and recommended for funding by oncologists, doctors, etc., and not by physicists who do not have the responsibility of recognizing innovations that would save lives with early detection and recommend for funding.

However, if Crosetto were to describe to an oncologist, doctor, politician etc. how the 3D-CBS is efficiently detecting signals from the tumor markers (specifically 511 keV pair of photons and filtering all other radiation), although they would be able to understand the advantages of the basic concept of one of the 3D-Flow, one of Crosetto’s inventions, they would not have the knowledge to understand all details of  Crosetto’s approach in detecting particles which make it superior to the approaches of other scientists. If oncologists were responsible for evaluating and distinguishing which projects/approaches/inventions in particle detection were more powerful, efficient, and cost-effective, then oncologists should be working at CERN, and physicists should not take taxpayer money to learn how to become knowledgeable in particle detection.

Significant changes in defeating the most deadly and costly calamity in the world, CANCER, will come from a breakthrough that is key to making a difference in reducing cancer deaths and cost. We know many things about cancer. We have experimented decade after decade, investing billions of dollars mostly for a CURE when cancer has already a tight grip on the patient, and mostly unsuccessful because it was detected too late. On June 2, 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported that one of the best chemotherapy drugs, Avastin, after 10 years of use, prolonged life an average of only 4.4 months at a cost of over $10,000 per month. We have known for 68 years that early cancer detection can save 50% of deaths; we have in place the weapons (surgery, radiation therapy and drugs) to fight cancer when detected at an early stage; we do not have in place an EFFECTIVE early cancer detection tool.

We know that the best weapon for early cancer detection is to identify the mutation of the very first normal cells into cancerous cells at the biological process level, before a morphological change of tissue takes place. This technique, known as Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is based on particle detection (specifically detecting 511 keV pair of photons) and was invented 60 years ago. However, due to its low efficiency (high radiation is required) it cannot be used for early cancer detection, so a breakthrough in this field based on particle detection is what is needed to make a significant advancement in early cancer detection.

The following analogy should leave no doubt whether it is the oncologists, doctors etc. or the physicists who know about particle detection who are indirectly responsible for the many deaths from cancer these past 14 years which is how long the 3D-CBS technology has been available but not funded:

Let’s take the tragedy of the Russian cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov who in 1967 lost his life returning from outer space as reported recently by the U.S. National Public Radio when they presented the book Starman (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/05/02/134597833/cosmonaut-crashed-into-earth-crying-in-rage).

In this case, the public has a clear idea of who was responsible for the death of the cosmonaut and who fixed the problem to avoid the loss of other cosmonauts. The book reports: “…Gagarin wrote a 10-page memo and gave it to his best friend in the KGB, Venyamin Russayev, but nobody dared send it up the chain of command. Everyone who saw that memo, including Russayev, was demoted, fired or sent to diplomatic Siberia…” A comment to the book by James Downing •states: “…in this particular case there was open knowledge of problems which would endanger the cosmonaut’s life, and they were blatantly swept under the rug for the sake of national pride and fear of retribution. His final anxious words unmistakably stand as an eerie testament and reminder to the truth behind this incident and all the implied lessons which follow…”

Clearly the chain of command from high ranking government officials, to the KGB, to the management of the space project were responsible of Komarov’s death by denying transparency in science and for ignoring the evidence of 203 structural problems — serious problems found by Gagarin and some senior technicians who inspected the Soyuz 1 – that would make this machine dangerous to navigate in space.

It should also be clear now, in the event it was not clear to some leaders in the chain of command for that project in 1967, that Gagarin, the engineers and technicians could not be accused of harassment  when they pointed out the 203 structural problems of the Soyuz 1, but were standing up for what was right, for science, for the life of another human being.

The problem of antennas not opening in space, of parachutes failing to open, and all the other numerous structural and technical problems that existed in 1967 were ultimately fixed, but not by politicians, the KGB, or the management of the space project.  No, these technical problems were fixed by allowing scientists, engineers, and technicians to talk openly and question each other to find the most solid scientific answers to prevent the loss of future cosmonauts.

Now consider the following: the failure of CERN to detect most of the 100,000 Higgs boson-like particles, the official 2013 CERN document stating that TT Level-1 Trigger needs replacing with OPRT Level-1 Trigger to improve particle detection, the failure to significantly reduce cancer deaths with the over 5,000 current inefficient PET devices, and most recently the construction of the highly sensitive EXPLORER by many of the same people who obstructed Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention, but is ten times more expensive and less sensitive than the 3D-CBS.  In all these cases THERE WAS OPEN KNOWLEDGE that had TRANSPARENCY in science been in place, would have resulted in a better, more agreeable outcome.   For example, there was open knowledge of problems in the past that wasted millions and has caused CERN to rethink the Level-1 Trigger, problems in the future which will waste an additional $30 billion and 10 years with the FPGA-OPRT Level-1 Trigger because it is inferior in efficiency and more costly than the 3D-Flow at discovering new particles, and it is open knowledge that early cancer detection saves lives and yet the Government Funding Agencies chose to fund the EXPLORER and to ignore Crosetto’s superior technology and build one for research purposes only that would be economically unviable for early cancer detection through a low cost screening for a large population.

All these failures and shortcomings prove that those who have the power are responsible for the deaths of millions because they were aware of Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention from 22 years ago that greatly improves particle detection and the additional 3D-CBS invention of 14 years ago that would greatly improve early cancer detection to save millions of lives and reduce health care costs, but these innovations “were blatantly swept under the rug” for the sake of money and power.

Crosetto has submitted grant applications to NIH, NSF, DOE, CPRIT, etc., for more than a decade.  His applications always request funding to improve PET sensitivity at a lower examination cost in order to reduce cancer deaths and reduce healthcare costs, yet each time his application was rejected. Various reasons for the rejections were given, none of them scientific, but the majority had a common thread citing the need to improve PET spatial resolution; but this would mean a detriment to sensitivity which would not reduce cancer deaths and would only increase costs. He has had extensive correspondence with leaders of NIH, CPRIT and other government and private organizations such as ACS, UICC, etc., many stating that he should not pursue early cancer detection, that he should not pursue screening with low radiation, high sensitivity and low examination cost. He also met with the NIH Director Elias Zerhouni at one of his Medical Imaging press conferences in Washington, and had a one-on-one meeting in Dallas about ten years ago with Jo-Ann Goodnight, Program Manager for NIH SBIR, the program that assigns grants to small businesses. Crosetto’s request to these leaders and government officials is always for transparency in science to have the possibility of discussing scientific issues with the reviewers. He exercised every form of appeal that the NIH grant procedure offers; however, reviewers continue to request an improvement in spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity, and reject his objective to reduce cancer deaths and cost using the 3D-CBS diagnostic device which offers a very sensitive, low radiation, low cost screening at the molecular level.

Recently, Crosetto was given the opportunity to meet one-on-one with NIH Program Manager, Greg Evans, after attending his seminar in Austin, Texas, on the subject of the NIH grant application process for 2014.  Crosetto showed him a 5” stack of grant applications that he had submitted to NIH over many years, as well as all correspondence he’d had with them. Crosetto renewed his request to discuss technical-scientific issues to reduce both cancer deaths and healthcare costs – Without these issues being addressed, a resubmission would have less chance of approval than winning the lottery. However, Evans recommended what other NIH employees had recommended in the past – to submit a new application -claiming that now the review process used to assign grants had changed. Hoping for the best, that finally he could discuss technical-scientific issues with some experts, Crosetto asked what had changed in the review process. Evans replied, believing his answer would reassure Crosetto, that the scientific reviewers no longer have the same weight as in the past. Instead, Crosetto was hoping to hear that scientific reviewers would have more accountability so that more weight would be given to scientific evidence.  With power now moving away from science and towards managers who have even less ability to understand technological breakthroughs than scientific reviewers, it is like going from the frying pan into the fire.

What Crosetto has been requesting for the past 14 years is the same request as past (and future) victims of cancer would have made if they died (or will die) needlessly because they were deprived of the benefits of the 3D-CBS.  The request is for Crosetto to have a face-to-face public video recorded meeting with Craig Levin, Georges Elfakhri, Katia Parodi, Michael Phelps, Bill Moses, Steve DeRenzo, Joel Karp, Simon Cherry and all those who have rejected his articles or requests for funding, where he may question them about their own projects, or their claims that PET spatial and time resolution need to be improved which can be demonstrated scientifically that is to the detriment of higher sensitivity and lower cost. The public should hear their answers as they could Bertolucci’s response. It will also be an opportunity for Crosetto to present them with some logical reasoning, calculations and scientific evidence.  Craig Levin has built a “block detector” having millimeter spatial resolution that when used to build a 3D position-sensitive device with a 140 cm FOV, would require 31,539,200 crystals of 1x1x1 mm3, 492,800 connectors and 492,800 Sensors (APDs). This would be outrageously expensive, have high radiation dose, low sensitivity incapable to find tumors at an early stage, and unable to reduce cancer deaths; Simon Cherri, Joel Karp, Bill Moses, Terry Jones are building the EXPLORER project which uses half a million LSO 3.1×3.1x20mm crystals – again, outrageously expensive and not designed to reduce cancer deaths; and Moses and DeRenzo claim that a TOF-PET can increase efficiency, which is not true because it will be to the detriment of lower sensitivity and higher cost.  If Crosetto cannot convince them with scientific evidence and calculations, they should agree to a test on a sample population and be convinced by experimental results.  No matter what, they should be supportive of transparency in science and stop promoting spatial resolution and TOF because it is fashionable; a test will show that it cannot significantly reduce cancer deaths but will only increase the money and power of a few.

Crosetto would also like to understand why Georges Elfakhri, elfakhri@pet.mgh.harvard.edu   and Katia Parodi, katia.parodi@lmu.de, changed several times their rules to submit and approve proposals for workshops at the 2014 IEEE-MIC Conference. First they asked to submit a proposal by Sunday, May 11, 2014, because Katia Parodi stated that they were going to meet on Monday, May 12, 2014 to evaluate all proposals for workshops. Later they extended the submission date of proposals for the workshops from mid May until June 1, 2014, stating that all applicants will be notified about the acceptance/rejection of their proposals by July 1, 2014.

However, Parodi added that there would be no time for discussion or re-evaluation of the decision because of time constraints. July 1, 2014, passed and no notification was received, neither were the workshops posted on the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC website. Finally, Crosetto received the notification of the rejection of his proposed workshop for transparency in science on September 22, 2014. However, the other workshops were not posted on the IEEE-NSS-MIC website. Not until October 6, 2014, did Dora Merelli inform all participants that the program of the workshops was available on the IEEE-website.

This course of events was very different than in previous years when the workshop program was made available in mid-May, inviting participants to submit abstracts for the workshops by mid-June. The denial for transparency in science and the fact that Craig Levin agreed last year to support Crosetto’s workshop implementing transparency in science, clearly indicate a deliberate decision by the organizers to deny transparency in science. Crosetto’s proposed workshops were foreseeing a discussion among scientists who could debate the trend of medical imaging. For example, to improve TOF-PET time resolution from 600 picoseconds to 200 picoseconds and determine the important issue of whether this would provide substantial benefits to the patient.

Share it!Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

This post is also available in: Italian

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Site Overview
Please visit our
Site Overview for help in navigating the site.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

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