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

Subject:  Respectfully, we ask for TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE using PUBLIC, OPEN WORKSHOPS and to STOP funding scientists who deny transparency.

Dear leaders of funding agencies of the European Commission, leaders of organizations with a Mission Statement  directed at relieving suffering and lowering the economical burden from calamities,  and the media who are responsible for reporting information in the public interest,

See printable version of this letter in two page, PDF format at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NENYcjVwNWtJRHM/view?usp=sharing

Respectfully, on behalf of taxpayers and humanity who are deprived of the benefits from advancements in science, we bring to your attention inconsistencies in science and in the use of research funds, and ask funding agencies to STOP FUNDING projects whose authors refuse TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE, and the media to disseminate these facts and data in the public interest.

There is a DISPROPORTION between huge investments in research and meager results because of a lack of accountability:

  1.    in the field of particle physics, by wasting taxpayer money on a project costing over $50 billion and 20 years of work by 10,000 scientists to build flawed instrumentations incapable of performing accurate measurements to identify new particles, while the 3D-Flow-OPRT breakthrough invention, officially recognized by academia at a formal scientific review in 1993 and in subsequent reviews, to efficiently identify new particles (because of its capability to execute object pattern recognition algorithms in a programmable form in real-time on data arriving from the detector at a billion collisions per second), was ignored, remains unfunded, and the author prevented from presenting his invention at scientific conferences. Now they are making the same mistake with FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), wasting an additional $30 billion during the next 10 years.
  2.    in the field of cancer research by wasting huge amounts of money in the economic cost of cancer of  $1.4 trillion per year implementing the flawed approach of mainly developing drugs and treatment of late detection (which experimental data has shown for more than half century to be incapable of significantly reducing premature cancer deaths because there are thousands of different types of cancer that now total 6.5 million deaths per year and is projected to double by 2030), even though (a) it has been known for 68 years that early detection and prompt treatment can avoid over 50% of cancer deaths and (b) the ultrasensitive 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technological breakthrough targeted to early cancer detection has been available for 14 years, based on previous inventions in particle detection, recognized in many public scientific reviews to be effective for early cancer detection of tumors in all organs of the body with a single examination, at low cost, and very low radiation dose, but remains unfunded.

 

The proof that CERN CMS and Atlas instrumentations are flawed, incapable of making accurate measurements to identify new particles, and that a solution has been available for 23 years, are supported by the following facts and data (additional proofs can be provided upon request):

        1. CMS 125.3 GeV and Atlas 126.5 GeV energy measurements of the same phenomenon in nature of the Higgs boson-like particle. As you would not give money to a shop knowing their scales are not calibrated (balanced), you should not give money to scientists who deceive you and the public by publishing results with uncalibrated instruments. The justification given by Anthony Lavietes, the General Chairman of the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, one of the most important scientific conferences in the field attended by 2,000 scientists, to Crosetto’s question about the discrepancy on the two measurements by CMS and Atlas, was that even on the same instrument measurements can be different to the 15-digit decimal point due to differences in atmospheric pressure, temperature, tides caused by the moon, etc. This answer is not satisfactory because the difference between 125.3 and 126.5 is 0.91% error, which is 100 trillion greater than the error Lavietes indicated. Funding agencies should request a public hearing between Crosetto and leaders in the field responsible for the direction of research to address similar scientific inconsistencies before assigning taxpayer money.
        2. Finding 40 Higgs boson-like particles out of 100,000 generated, clearly shows that the billion-dollar instrumentation was inadequate to perform the job it was designed for. The justification given to Crosetto’s question at the plenary meeting of the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference by the keynote speaker Olga Botner, who was on the committee that assigned the 2013 Nobel Prize was the following. She stated that the efficiency of CMS and Atlas instruments was very good, they were very well tested and that the low rate is due to natural phenomena and not due to inefficiency of the instruments. Her statement was contradicted by the answers Crosetto received from the other speakers at the trigger session who specialize in the CMS and Atlas detector and electronics of Level-1 Trigger who admitted the inefficiency of their system as not having the capability to capture data for three to four collisions when a possible Higgs boson-like candidate was detected. Additional proof that Botner’s justification is not scientifically correct is confirmed in the CMS 2013 Trigger Upgrade Technical Design Report which states that the Level-1 trigger electronics must be replaced with OPRT (Object Pattern Recognition Trigger) capabilities because the current trigger was inadequate. Funding agencies should request a public hearing between Crosetto and leaders in the field responsible for the direction of research to address similar scientific inconsistencies before assigning taxpayer money.
        3. Wesley Smith, who received over $50 million to develop the CMS Level-1 Trigger and who wrote in his Biographical Sketch that he was responsible for the design and implementation of the CMS trigger and the selection of the data claiming the discovery of the Higgs boson, recanted many of the rejection statements he made to Crosetto during the past 22 years. The most significant was Crosetto’s invention of the 3D-Flow-OPRT providing programmability at Level-1 Trigger at a data rate from thousands of channels at a billion events per second. Smith rejected it stating that programmability al Level-1 Trigger was not needed. During the last meeting between Crosetto and Smith at CERN on August 27, 2008, Smith admitted to having implemented several of Crosetto’s techniques that he had previously rejected, and also admitted the advantages of others that have still not been implemented but would increase efficiency and reduce the cost of High Energy Physics experiments. Funding agencies should request a public hearing between Crosetto and Wesley Smith and other leaders in Level-1 Trigger responsible for the direction of research that led to the waste of $50 billion and 20 years of work by 10,000 scientists, and address similar scientific inconsistencies before assigning additional $30 billion of taxpayer money for the next 10 years.

The proof that cancer research targeted to the development of drugs and treatments of late detection is flawed, incapable of significantly reducing cancer deaths and cost, and that a solution for a cost-effective early cancer detection that can save lives and reduce healthcare costs has been available for 14 years, is supported by the following facts and data (additional proofs can be provided upon request):

              1. On June 2, 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported a study on Avastin, one of the most important chemotherapy drugs on the market. It sold $6.3 billion in 2012, yet, analyzing data for the previous 10 years, it shows prolonging life on average only 4.4 months at a cost of over $10,000 per month.
              2. During the past 50 years, the cost of treating cancer at a late stage in the U.S. increased 100 times while reduction of cancer mortality was only 5%. In the same period, mortality rate reduction for stroke was 74%, 64% for heart disease, and 58% for flu and pneumonia as reported by the New York Times on April 23, 2009. Experimental data gathered by Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) over several decades show that early cancer detection saves lives, with a survival rate of 90% to 98%. Data reveal NO difference in the mortality rate from cancer in countries which spend or do NOT spend money in an effort to eliminate cancer.
              3. Instead of funding the ultrasensitive 3D-CBS technology, existing for the past 14 years, for early detection of cancer in all organs of the body in a single, very low radiation dose and low examination cost, which combined with existing prompt treatment could reduce mortality by 50% and greatly reduce healthcare costs, funding was given for the development of new PET modules for medical imaging that have defects akin to making a bullet-proof vest that is too thin and has holes like Swiss cheese. The request for the development of these PET modules to measure spatial resolution rather than sensitivity is functional to measure only the shrinkage of the tumor that increases drugs sales by creating hope for the patient’s survival. However, reality shows that for more than half century, the life of a cancer patient has been prolonged on average just a few months at a high cost in suffering and money. High sensitivity instead will save lives with early detection.

If there is a real intention to solve the cancer problem, funding agencies and scientists should agree to TRASPARENCY in SCIENCE in the implementation of OPEN, PUBLIC scientific procedures to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail, and ask all those who are raising and spending money to fight cancer to estimate the reduction of cancer deaths and costs they expect to attain with their project and how they plan to measure results on a sample population. For example, to test results on a sample population of 10,000 people ages 55-74 taken from a location where the mortality rate has been constant for the past 20 years. A difference or no difference in mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution.

Dario B. Crosetto, President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths (www.U2EC.org)

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: Inglese

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *