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

Unethical scientists break the scientific code of ethics. They do not comply with any rule, rejecting articles and funding without supporting their claims with calculations, logical reasoning and scientific evidence. This shameful practice has disastrous consequences for us all, standing in the way of the discovery of inventions that can help all of humanity.

The following is a chronological list (most recent first) of emails exchange between Crosetto and the organizers, scientific advisory board of the PSMR2015 Conference, the Pro-Rector of Research of the University of Pisa and the Universities and Organizations who employ them.

From: volontari@blog.u2ec.org [mailto:volontari@blog.u2ec.org] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:20 AM
To: gloudos@teiath.gr; Jean-Claude.Juncker@ec.europa.eu; Frans.Timmermans@ec.europa.eu; Federica.Mogherini@eeas.europa.eu; Carlos.Moedas@ec.europa.eu; cab-moedas-contact@ec.europa.eu; antonio.vicente@ec.europa.eu; maria-da-graca.carvalho1@ec.europa.eu; keith.sequeira@ec.europa.eu; eveline.lecoq@ec.europa.eu; jose.mendes-bota@ec.europa.eu; rita.castro@ec.europa.eu; ivona.cervenanska@ec.europa.eu; claire.lombart@ec.europa.eu; sandra.duarte@ec.europa.eu; suzanne.maher-tastenhoye@ec.europa.eu; alfredo.sousa@ec.europa.eu; buonocore@apre.it; borgna@apre.it; bossi@apre.it; CAB-SEFCOVIC-WEB@ec.europa.eu; robert-jan.smits@ec.europa.eu; Christos.Stylianides@ec.europa.eu; themis.christophidou@ec.europa.eu; Vera.Jourova@ec.europa.eu; Renate.NIKOLAY@ec.europa.eu; Vytenis.Andriukaitis@ec.europa.eu; CAB-ANDRIUKAITIS-WEBPAGE@ec.europa.eu; Tibor.Navracsics@ec.europa.eu; CAB-NAVRACSICS-CONTACT@ec.europa.eu; Maros.Sefcovic@ec.europa.eu; Valdis.Dombrovskis@ec.europa.eu; Neven.Mimica@ec.europa.eu; CAB-MIMICA-WEBPAGE@ec.europa.eu; Philippe.Cupers@ec.europa.eu; Xavier.Prats-Monne@ec.europa.eu; Pilip.Van-Depoele@ec.europa.eu; Jens.Nymand-Christensen@ec.europa.eu; cristina.lambotte@europarl.europa.eu; giovanni.lavia@europarl.europa.eu; benedek.javor@europarl.europa.eu; dacianaoctavia.sarbu@europarl.europa.eu; pavel.poc@europarl.europa.eu; gilles.pargneaux@europarl.europa.eu; federico.cinquepalmi@miur.it; dagostino@apre.it; delorenzo@apre.it; dimaggio@apre.it; insogna@apre.it; schisani@apre.it; desole@apre.it; lucia.caudet@ec.europa.eu; mirna.bratoz@ec.europa.eu; denise.clarembaux@ec.europa.eu; erc-info@ec.europa.eu; info@ecdc.europa.eu; press@ecdc.europa.eu; jerzy.buzek@europarl.europa.eu; patrizia.toia@europarl.europa.eu; hans-olaf.henkel@europarl.europa.eu; miloslav.ransdorf@europarl.europa.eu; mortenhelveg.petersen@europarl.europa.eu; CAB-MOEDAS-ARCHIVES@ec.europa.eu; unitedtoendcancer@att.net; Maria-Jose.VIDAL-RAGOUT@ec.europa.eu; Minna.Wilkki@ec.europa.eu; Fredrik.Olsson-Hector@ec.europa.eu; Ruxandra.DRAGHIA-AKLI@ec.europa.eu; REA-INFO@ec.europa.eu; redazione@eunews.it; secretary.statesoffice@culture.gsi.gov.uk; Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov; Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov; Collinsf@od.nih.gov; grantsinfo@nih.gov; varmushe@mail.nih.gov; roderic.pettigrew@nih.gov
Cc: maria.miller.mp@parliament.uk; secretary.statesoffice@culture.gsi.gov.uk; TrustEnquiries@bbc.co.uk; trusteditorial@bbc.co.uk; Tony.Hall@bbc.co.uk; Tim.Davie@bbc.co.uk; Helen.Boaden@bbc.co.uk; James.Harding@bbc.co.uk; Paul.Ricon@bbc.co.uk; Palmer@bbc.co.uk; Pallab.Gosh@bbc.co.uk; oreilly@foxnews.com; nsb@nsbtalent.com; patrice_taddonio@wgbh.org; historydetectives@opb.org; charlierose@pbs.org; rockcenter@nbcuni.com; Dateline@nbcuni.com; 60m@cbsnews.com; press@freedomhouse.org; info@rvdj.be; office@cem.bg; info@rrtv.cz; sekr@pressenaevnet.dk; info@presserat.de; info@die-medienanstalten.de; ncrtv@otenet.gr; nfo@nmhh.hu; info@agcom.it; cvdm@cvdm.nl; raad@rvdj.nl; info@erc.pt; info.caa@juntadeandalucia.es; audiovisual@gencat.cat; po@po.se; info@ubi.admin.ch; evening@cbsnews.com; weekend@cbsnews.com; AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com; kelly@foxnews.com; americasnewsroom@foxnews.com; crosetto@att.net; bullsandbears@foxnews.com; pao@afne.army.mil; ChrisAddeo@ionmedia.com; vieweremail@ionmedia.com; O2.Online@nbcuni.com; press@pivot.tv; mario.calabresi@lastampa.it; segretcor@corriere.it; piero.bianucci@mailbox.lastampa.it; vittorio.zucconi@gmail.com; repubblicawww@repubblica.it; desk_repubblica.it@repubblica.it; larepubblica@repubblica.it; rubrica.lettere@repubblica.it; redazioneweb@ilfattoquotidiano.it; p.gomez@ilfattoquotidiano.it; ilfattoonline@gmail.com; segreteria@ilfattoquotidiano.it; stephen.engelberg@propublica.org; Jeff.Larson@propublica.org; Robin.Fields@propublica.org; Tracy.Weber@propublica.org; Jeff.Gerth@propublica.org; Charlles.Ornstein@propublica.org; Sebastian.Rotella@propublica.org; Marshall.Allen@propublica.org; Abraham.Lustgarten@propublica.org; Christie.Thomson@propublica.org; Olga.Pierce@propublica.org; Al.Shaw@propublica.org; Theodoric.Meyer@propublica.org; Minhee.Cho@propublica.org; Heather.Troup@propublica.org; unitedtoendcancer@att.net; crosetto@att.net; rtve.dircom@rtve.es; klantendienst@vrt.be; comunicare.corporate@tvr.ro; info@nrk.no; fornamn.efternamn@svt.se; arvid.andersson@svt.se; program@svt.se; JT13h@tf1.fr; JT20h@tf1.fr; telecran@telecran.lu; web-it@ruvr.ru; psmr2015@df.unipi.it; unitedtoendcancer@att.net; roberto.barale@unipi.it; gloudos@teiath.gr; n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de; srcherry@ucdavis.edu; lucia.lilli@pi.infn.it; belcari@df.unipi.it; fantacci@df.unipi.it; aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it; valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it; toncelli@df.unipi.it; giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it; gerald.antoch@uni-due.de; thomas.beyer@meduniwien.ac.at; rafael.torres@kcl.ac.uk; Christer.Halldin@ki.se; h.herzog@fz-juelich.de; koshino@ncvc.go.jp; Iita@ncvc.go.jp; jslee@ulsan.ac.kr; kslee@ulsan.ac.kr; paul.marsden@kcl.ac.uk; Bernd.Pichler@med.uni-tuebingen.de; j.van_den_hoff@hzdr.de; dimitris@univ-brest.fr; c.zaragoza.prof@ufv.es; s.ziegler@lrz.tum.de; sm4aa@virginia.edu; fernando.ferroni@roma1.infn.it; urp@postacert.istruzione.it; rettore@unipi.it; n.defrancesco@unipi.it; acarlesi@ec.unipi.it; dalcanto@ddp.unipi.it; ferragina@di.unipi.it; galanti@fls.unipi.it; aguidi@vet.unipi.it; m.guidi@unipi.it; paolo.mancarella@unipi.it; sandro.paci@ing.unipi.it; gino.santoro@med.unipi.it; tognetti@vet.unipi.it; ORExecutiveMgtAsst@ad3.ucdavis.edu; lewin@ucdavis.edu; cmkiel@ucdavis.edu; pdodd@ucdavis.edu; dpathak@ucdavis.edu; lkatehi@ucdavis.edu; rhexter@ucdavis.edu; sabine.zix@uni-due.de; guenter.van-den-boom@uni-due.de; rektor@uni-due.de; christa.sabotka@uni-due.de; kaiser.prorektor@uni-due.de; buero-universitaetsleitung@meduniwien.ac.at; vr_forschung@meduniwien.ac.at; chris.mottershead@kcl.ac.uk; jane.pearson@kcl.ac.uk; dean@kcl.ac.uk; d-rso@ntu.edu.sg; be.feldmann@fz-juelich.de; s.schmidt@fz-juelich.de; beate.weiss@uni-tuebingen.de; bernd.engler@uni-tuebingen.de; ingo.autenrieth@med.uni-tuebingen.de; iris.lumpp@med.uni-tuebingen.de; triantis@teiath.gr; plytras@teiath.gr; r.sauerbrey@hzdr.de; k.braun@hzdr.de; ordforande@ki.se; annika.andersson.100@gmail.com; anders.blanck@lif.se; lrzpost@lrz.de; crosetto@att.net; michela.tosetti@fsm.unipi.it
Subject: Audio proving the discussion was accurately transferred. Re: Report of the meeting with the Chairmen of PSMR2015 Conference. Pro-Rector of Research of Pisa University recognized irregularities in rejecting papers without providing scientific reasons

Dear Loudos and all,

Don’t you think we (citizens, scientists, funding agencies using taxpayer money to fund scientists) have a responsibility to help eliminate the inconsistencies responsible for many of the 7 million premature cancer deaths occurring every year and the cancer cost of over $800 per person per year to every citizen of industrialized countries, whether they have cancer or not (totaling $1.4 trillion per year)?

Loudos, you stated and agreed there is a need to eliminate inconsistencies, appreciating any effort to improve the procedure to evaluate and approve articles and the evaluation of proposals that should be funded for their highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. You know that I was not having a private conversation with you, and I have announced in several emails that I was talking to you on behalf of cancer patients and taxpayers to whom I report. I also informed you at the end of our conversation that I wished to share our conversation with the public and asked if you would confirm and repeat your statements made during our conversation. You confirmed that you would repeat the same things any time to anybody. This was also recorded to protect myself and others from untrue claims. Many police nowadays protect themselves and citizens by recording events, and likewise I record my conversations to accurately reflect the truth.

If you would like to hear our discussion verbatim, please click on the audio file at this link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5eWtXY3NDZ3BYNUE/view?usp=sharing

You will find that our discussion has indeed been accurately transferred.

Thank you,

Dario Crosetto

President of the “Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths”

 

From: George Loudos [mailto:gloudos@teiath.gr] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 8:05 AM
To: all

Subject: Re: Report of the meeting with the Chairmen of PSMR2015 Conference. Pro-Rector of Research of Pisa University recognized irregularities in rejecting papers without providing scientific reasons

Dear all,

I would just like to comment that before circulating part of a private conversation it is fair to confirm that the discussion has been accurately transferred. I am afraid that this is not the case.

Kind Regards

George Loudos
_________________________

Assistant Professor George Loudos,
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Ag. Spyridonos 28, Egaleo, 12210, Athens, Greece
Tel: 00302105385376, 00306947233203,
Fax: 00302105385302
e-mail: gloudos@teiath.gr
webpage: http://www.bme.teiath.gr/ni

 

On 21/5/2015 7:44 πμ, volontari@blog.u2ec.org wrote:

Subject: Report of the meeting with the Chairmen of PSMR2015 Conference. Pro-Rector of Research of Pisa University recognized irregularities in rejecting papers without providing scientific reasons

Dear Funding Agencies (European Commission, U.S. DOE, U.S. NIH-NCI-NIBIB, etc.) having the objective of maximizing advancement in science and the reduction of cancer deaths and cost using taxpayer and donation money please see the report of the events on May 19 at the PSMR2015 conference.

Report of May 19, 2015 at the PSMR2015 Conference held at the Hotel Hermitage, La Biodola, Italy.

Early morning, before the start of the conference, accompanied by Paul, a 5-year cancer survivor since the age of 12, his mother and his aunt, all originally from London, I went to the PSMR2015 Conference at the Hermitage Hotel to talk to the organizers and to distribute a two-page letter and a 36-page scientific article by 15 co-authors and 1,000 cosigners that was presented at the workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN on February 2-4, 2010, with questions addressed to Del Guerra that were never answered. (See 2-page letter at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5UlMzQTR6Z0Z0VUU/view?usp=sharing

and the 36-page article at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5djJtLUlrMW90UXc/view?usp=sharing

Before distributing the material we waited to talk to one of the three chairmen, Alberto Del Guerra, and I spoke to him just outside the entrance to the conference room, while those accompanying me, who were standing next to us, distributed the material to the participants who were entering the room.

Del Guerra did not provide any scientific reason supporting the rejection of my paper. When I asked for the rules they applied to evaluate a scientific work, he answered that there are no rules, no reference to any rule, code or law. I then asked if he should refer to the “laws of nature” and his answer was that perhaps he is “unnatural” (??). I found the answer inconsistent if his intent was serious and/or disrespectful to taxpayers and cancer patients if his answer was a joke to avoid answering. We waited for the coffee break to talk to the other two chairmen of the PSMR Conference and were informed that Jon Shah had cancelled and would not be coming. We found the third co-chairman, Georges Loudos, with whom I talked about 25 minutes.

His answers revealed how the review procedure of articles and proposals work which explains how this procedure offers plenty of room for corruption, misusage of funds and crushing innovations.

His information is useful to Funding Agencies and I informed him that next week we would be going to the European Commission in Brussels. I asked if I could share the information that I received from him with the public and whether he would be willing to repeat what he has told me to them and to the journalists. Loudos said that I can repeat his statements and that he would repeat them any time to others. I responded that with his viewpoint and mine we could inform the community and see if there is a better way to serve the citizens. Loudos stated that he would be happy to see the European Union improve the procedure to review proposals and appreciated my effort to have them improve it.

Here are some excerpts of the conversation with Loudos:

Loudos: …you have to accept the rules

Crosetto: please tell me the rules because that is what I am looking for…

Loudos: the rule is that the reviewer has his independent opinion.

Crosetto: “Science” is it an opinion? Or you refer to some rules?

Loudos: It is according to the scientific value the reviewer believes

Crosetto: You say “Believe”. Is “Science” a belief or you are referring to some calculation, scientific arguments…?

Loudos: This is how the scientific community works, your idea may be interesting but we cannot…

Crosetto: when you say that a photon is captured or is not captured by a certain detector, aren’t you referring to calculation, logical reasoning…?

Loudos: When I submit a proposal, I believe I have a strong argument, but some reviewers that I do not know, they may just reject it, they may be wrong, but I just have to accept their result, either resubmit the proposal or work in the industry

Loudos: …I think that there are so many people here who went through the same procedure, some were accepted, some were rejected

Crosetto: …there are many scientists who provide scientific arguments, scientific reasons supporting their statements. Isn’t that the way scientists should behave?

Loudos: But this is rub…(??). When you have proposals that are more important than articles, you may have rejection and I may disagree with the comments that the reviewer thinks but…

Crosetto: if you disagree, you will refer to some scientific arguments and he will refer to some scientific arguments. Do you think that disagreements can be resolved with an experiment?

Loudos: No, if for instance I propose to make a new machine that costs a few million dollars, my proposal is reviewed and is rejected and I don’t find this money to build this machine to see if it is wrong or it is correct. If the proposal is rejected and there is no money, so the machine will never be made, so we will never know who was wrong and who was correct.

Crosetto: If a reviewer has a strong scientific argument on the evaluation of a paper what is the problem to let the world know, because he is doing a service to the community, so what is the problem to let everybody know that he is competent that he can point out some inconsistency?

Loudos: Depends on the individual reviewer. The procedure is that we distribute the paper to some reviewers …

Crosetto: What is the reason of being an anonymous reviewer? Why should he say whatever he understands in science?

Loudos: because I have friends, I have enemies, if I knew who is reviewing my proposal …

Crosetto: so, you say that scientists have friends and enemies,

Loudos: ….if we are doing the same thing, we are both looking for the same funding, so, it will be me or you, so, in this case so if I revise a proposal that is similar to my proposal I would like people to be fair, but I know that people are not fair, so this is why there is more than one reviewer

Crosetto: …so, you don’t believe that a scientists should be honest and provide a reason that is scientific and forget about enemies and friends?

Loudos: there is always a litigation in a review, but there is also a psychology …

Crosetto: …why you do not provide a reason to reject an article?

Loudos: there are reasons

Crosetto: tell me

Loudos: “scientific opinions”

Crosetto: Here I provide two page summary [showing the pages] and 200 words abstract as you requested, where is your scientific opinion about any paragraph?

Loudos: reviewers provided a score

Crosetto: …what does that number mean?

Loudos: but this is the procedure. I will be happy to see the European Union improving the procedure, but I do not think that there is a way to leave the human outside. This is why there are a lot of reviewers… If you think this procedure needs to be revised, it is very good that you make the effort to have them improve it, but until then…

Crosetto: Thank you for your time.

Loudos: I will be happy to repeat my opinion to everybody, but I do not like journalists because they tend to make something very attractive but not necessarily the truth.

=========== End excerpt conversation with Loudos ===============

The document at this link describes some difficulties that have prevented the funding of my invention. The funding needed is very small compared to the benefits it can bring to a large population.

See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5c3lRWHpGUFFnbXM/view?usp=sharing
Dear Journalists or citizens working in the public interest, this is how you can support transparency in science to benefit mankind:

1. Publish on Media, Facebook, Twitter, email, etc. the legitimate respectful request at this link http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363 for a meeting with the leaders of the important PSMR2015 world conference, being held May 18-20 at La Biodola, Elba, Italy, to address their unethical actions breaking the scientific code of ethics crushing scientific evidence and innovations.

2. Sign the petition to STOP the shameful practice of funding unethical scientists https://www.change.org/p/office-of-science-and-technology-policy-stop-a-shameful-practice-stop-funding-unethical-scientists
Please find at these links more information about

The “Guesswork” vs. “Certainty of Results”: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5a0l3ajJnRUNtQWs/view?usp=sharing

my scientific credibility: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YldyRlI4V2VWNkU/view?usp=sharing

personal credibility: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RjdkTDA0WkU2aFk/view?usp=sharing and

the article presented at CERN in 2010 cosigned by 1,000 people https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5djJtLUlrMW90UXc/view?usp=sharing

Photo Crosetto and Loudos handshake: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RGJfemZLWFdycHM/view?usp=sharing

Photo Face Loudos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5aTQtOGJFMkxCSUU/view?usp=sharing

Photo participant taking a flyer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5c0c0MnNXUno4N0U/view?usp=sharing

Photo group picture: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5OTh1Q0xHOWZMMHM/view?usp=sharing

Photo Jenny Paul and Dawn distributing flyer and article: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5c0lBZUM3bmMxemc/view?usp=sharing

Photo Alberto Del Guerra talking to Crosetto: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YzJiVVgwN3VFY0k/view?usp=sharing

Photo Loudos talking to Crosetto: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5R0ZFZzF3a1pjVTA/view?usp=sharing

See previous email exchange on this issue at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363

Yours sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

President of the “Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths”

 

From: volontari@blog.u2ec.org [mailto:volontari@blog.u2ec.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:29 AM
To: ‘Jean-Claude.Juncker@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Frans.Timmermans@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Federica.Mogherini@eeas.europa.eu’; ‘Carlo.Moedas@ec.europa.eu’; ‘antonio.vicente@ec.europa.eu’; ‘maria-da-graca.carvalho1@ec.europa.eu’; ‘keith.sequeira@ec.europa.eu’; ‘eveline.lecoq@ec.europa.eu’; ‘jose.mendes-bota@ec.europa.eu’; ‘rita.castro@ec.europa.eu’; ‘ivona.cervenanska@ec.europa.eu’; ‘claire.lombart@ec.europa.eu’; ‘sandra.de-calazans-duarte@ec.europa.eu’; ‘suzanne.maher-tastenhoye@ec.europa.eu’; ‘alfredo.sousa@ec.europa.eu’; ‘buonocore@apre.it’; ‘borgna@apre.it’; ‘bossi@apre.it’; ‘CAB-SEFCOVIC-WEB@ec.europa.eu’; ‘maria.miller.mp@parliament.uk’; ‘secretary.statesoffice@culture.gsi.gov.uk’; ‘Siegrist@ovh.labellum.net; Jim’; ‘Crawford@ovh.labellum.net; Glen’; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’; ‘grantsinfo@nih.gov’; ‘varmushe@mail.nih.gov’; ‘roderic.pettigrew@nih.gov’
Cc: ‘TrustEnquiries@bbc.co.uk’; ‘trusteditorial@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Tony.Hall@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Tim.Davie@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Helen.Boaden@bbc.co.uk’; ‘James.Harding@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Paul.Ricon@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Palmer@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Pallab.Gosh@bbc.co.uk’; ‘oreilly@foxnews.com’; ‘nsb@nsbtalent.com’; ‘patrice_taddonio@wgbh.org’; ‘historydetectives@opb.org’; ‘charlierose@pbs.org’; ‘rockcenter@nbcuni.com’; ‘Dateline@nbcuni.com’; ’60m@cbsnews.com’; ‘press@freedomhouse.org’; ‘info@rvdj.be’; ‘office@cem.bg’; ‘info@rrtv.cz’; ‘sekr@pressenaevnet.dk’; ‘info@presserat.de’; ‘info@die-medienanstalten.de’; ‘ncrtv@otenet.gr’; ‘nfo@nmhh.hu’; ‘info@agcom.it’; ‘cvdm@cvdm.nl’; ‘raad@rvdj.nl’; ‘info@erc.pt’; ‘info.caa@juntadeandalucia.es’; ‘audiovisual@gencat.cat’; ‘po@po.se’; ‘info@ubi.admin.ch’; ‘evening@cbsnews.com’; ‘weekend@cbsnews.com’; ‘AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com’; ‘kelly@foxnews.com’; ‘americasnewsroom@foxnews.com’; ‘crosetto@att.net’; ‘bullsandbears@foxnews.com’; ‘pao@afne.army.mil’; ‘ChrisAddeo@ionmedia.com’; ‘vieweremail@ionmedia.com’; ‘O2.Online@nbcuni.com’; ‘press@pivot.tv’; ‘mario.calabresi@lastampa.it’; ‘segretcor@corriere.it’; ‘piero.bianucci@mailbox.lastampa.it’; ‘vittorio.zucconi@gmail.com’; ‘repubblicawww@repubblica.it’; ‘desk_repubblica.it@repubblica.it’; ‘larepubblica@repubblica.it’; ‘rubrica.lettere@repubblica.it’; ‘redazioneweb@ilfattoquotidiano.it’; ‘p.gomez@ilfattoquotidiano.it’; ‘ilfattoonline@gmail.com’; ‘segreteria@ilfattoquotidiano.it’; ‘stephen.engelberg@propublica.org’; ‘Jeff.Larson@propublica.org’; ‘Robin.Fields@propublica.org’; ‘Tracy.Weber@propublica.org’; ‘Jeff.Gerth@propublica.org’; ‘Charlles.Ornstein@propublica.org’; ‘Sebastian.Rotella@propublica.org’; ‘Marshall.Allen@propublica.org’; ‘Abraham.Lustgarten@propublica.org’; ‘Christie.Thomson@propublica.org’; ‘Olga.Pierce@propublica.org’; ‘Al.Shaw@propublica.org’; ‘Theodoric.Meyer@propublica.org’; ‘Minhee.Cho@propublica.org’; ‘Heather.Troup@propublica.org’; ‘crosetto@att.net’; ‘rtve.dircom@rtve.es’; ‘klantendienst@vrt.be’; ‘comunicare.corporate@tvr.ro’; ‘info@nrk.no’; ‘fornamn.efternamn@svt.se’; ‘arvid.andersson@svt.se’; ‘program@svt.se’; ‘JT13h@tf1.fr’; ‘JT20h@tf1.fr’; ‘telecran@telecran.lu’; ‘web-it@ruvr.ru’; ‘psmr2015@df.unipi.it’; ‘roberto.barale@unipi.it’; ‘gloudos@teiath.gr’; ‘n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de’; ‘srcherry@ucdavis.edu’; ‘lucia.lilli@pi.infn.it’; ‘belcari@df.unipi.it’; ‘fantacci@df.unipi.it’; ‘aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it’; ‘valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it’; ‘toncelli@df.unipi.it’; ‘giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it’; ‘gerald.antoch@uni-due.de’; ‘thomas.beyer@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘rafael.torres@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘Christer.Halldin@ki.se’; ‘h.herzog@fz-juelich.de’; ‘koshino@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘Iita@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘jslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘kslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘paul.marsden@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘Bernd.Pichler@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘j.van_den_hoff@hzdr.de’; ‘dimitris@univ-brest.fr’; ‘c.zaragoza.prof@ufv.es’; ‘s.ziegler@lrz.tum.de’; ‘sm4aa@virginia.edu’; ‘fernando.ferroni@roma1.infn.it’; ‘urp@postacert.istruzione.it’; ‘rettore@unipi.it’; ‘n.defrancesco@unipi.it’; ‘acarlesi@ec.unipi.it’; ‘dalcanto@ddp.unipi.it’; ‘ferragina@di.unipi.it’; ‘galanti@fls.unipi.it’; ‘aguidi@vet.unipi.it’; ‘m.guidi@unipi.it’; ‘paolo.mancarella@unipi.it’; ‘sandro.paci@ing.unipi.it’; ‘gino.santoro@med.unipi.it’; ‘tognetti@vet.unipi.it’; ‘ORExecutiveMgtAsst@ad3.ucdavis.edu’; ‘lewin@ucdavis.edu’; ‘cmkiel@ucdavis.edu’; ‘pdodd@ucdavis.edu’; ‘dpathak@ucdavis.edu’; ‘lkatehi@ucdavis.edu’; ‘rhexter@ucdavis.edu’; ‘sabine.zix@uni-due.de’; ‘guenter.van-den-boom@uni-due.de’; ‘rektor@uni-due.de’; ‘christa.sabotka@uni-due.de’; ‘kaiser.prorektor@uni-due.de’; ‘buero-universitaetsleitung@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘vr_forschung@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘chris.mottershead@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘jane.pearson@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘dean@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘d-rso@ntu.edu.sg’; ‘be.feldmann@fz-juelich.de’; ‘s.schmidt@fz-juelich.de’; ‘beate.weiss@uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘bernd.engler@uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘ingo.autenrieth@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘iris.lumpp@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘triantis@teiath.gr’; ‘plytras@teiath.gr’; ‘r.sauerbrey@hzdr.de’; ‘k.braun@hzdr.de’; ‘ordforande@ki.se’; ‘annika.andersson.100@gmail.com’; ‘anders.blanck@lif.se’; ‘lrzpost@lrz.de’; ‘crosetto@att.net’; ‘michela.tosetti@fsm.unipi.it’; Crosetto@att.net
Subject: Re: Obstacles to implement innovations. Respectfully requesting a meeting at the PSMR2015 Conference. Pro-Rector of Research of Pisa University recognized irregularities in rejecting papers without providing scientific reasons

Dear Funding Agencies (European Commission, U.S. DOE, U.S. NIH-NCI-NIBIB, etc.) having the objective of maximizing the reduction of cancer deaths and cost using taxpayer and donation money, the document at this link describes some difficulties that have prevented the funding of my invention. The funding needed is very small compared to the benefits it can bring to a large population
See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5c3lRWHpGUFFnbXM/view?usp=sharing

Dear Journalists or citizens working in the public interest, this is how you can support transparency in science to benefit mankind:

1. Publish on Media, Facebook, Twitter, email, etc. the legitimate respectful request at this link http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363 for a meeting with the leaders of the important PSMR2015 world conference, being held May 18-20 at La Biodola, Elba, Italy, to address their unethical actions breaking the scientific code of ethics crushing scientific evidence and innovations.
2. Sign the petition to STOP the shameful practice of funding unethical scientists https://www.change.org/p/office-of-science-and-technology-policy-stop-a-shameful-practice-stop-funding-unethical-scientists

Please find at these links more information about

The “Guesswork” vs. “Certainty of Results”: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5a0l3ajJnRUNtQWs/view?usp=sharing
my scientific credibility: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YldyRlI4V2VWNkU/view?usp=sharing ,
personal credibility: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RjdkTDA0WkU2aFk/view?usp=sharing and
the article presented at CERN in 2010 cosigned by 1,000 people https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5djJtLUlrMW90UXc/view?usp=sharing

See previous email exchange on this issue at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363

Yours sincerely,

Dario Crosetto
From: 3D-Computing, Inc. [mailto:info@3d-computing.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:39 AM
To: ‘Jean-Claude.Juncker@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Frans.Timmermans@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Federica.Mogherini@eeas.europa.eu’; ‘Carlo.Moedas@ec.europa.eu’; ‘antonio.vicente@ec.europa.eu’; ‘maria-da-graca.carvalho1@ec.europa.eu’; ‘keith.sequeira@ec.europa.eu’; ‘eveline.lecoq@ec.europa.eu’; ‘jose.mendes-bota@ec.europa.eu’; ‘rita.castro@ec.europa.eu’; ‘ivona.cervenanska@ec.europa.eu’; ‘claire.lombart@ec.europa.eu’; ‘sandra.de-calazans-duarte@ec.europa.eu’; ‘suzanne.maher-tastenhoye@ec.europa.eu’; ‘alfredo.sousa@ec.europa.eu’; ‘buonocore@apre.it’; ‘borgna@apre.it’; ‘bossi@apre.it’; ‘CAB-SEFCOVIC-WEB@ec.europa.eu’; ‘maria.miller.mp@parliament.uk’; ‘secretary.statesoffice@culture.gsi.gov.uk’; ‘Siegrist, Jim’; ‘Crawford, Glen’; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’; ‘grantsinfo@nih.gov’; ‘varmushe@mail.nih.gov’; ‘roderic.pettigrew@nih.gov’
Cc: ‘TrustEnquiries@bbc.co.uk’; ‘trusteditorial@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Tony.Hall@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Tim.Davie@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Helen.Boaden@bbc.co.uk’; ‘James.Harding@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Paul.Ricon@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Palmer@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Pallab.Gosh@bbc.co.uk’; ‘oreilly@foxnews.com’; ‘nsb@nsbtalent.com’; ‘patrice_taddonio@wgbh.org’; ‘historydetectives@opb.org’; ‘charlierose@pbs.org’; ‘rockcenter@nbcuni.com’; ‘Dateline@nbcuni.com’; ’60m@cbsnews.com’; ‘press@freedomhouse.org’; ‘info@rvdj.be’; ‘office@cem.bg’; ‘info@rrtv.cz’; ‘sekr@pressenaevnet.dk’; ‘info@presserat.de’; ‘info@die-medienanstalten.de’; ‘ncrtv@otenet.gr’; ‘nfo@nmhh.hu’; ‘info@agcom.it’; ‘cvdm@cvdm.nl’; ‘raad@rvdj.nl’; ‘info@erc.pt’; ‘info.caa@juntadeandalucia.es’; ‘audiovisual@gencat.cat’; ‘po@po.se’; ‘info@ubi.admin.ch’; ‘evening@cbsnews.com’; ‘weekend@cbsnews.com’; ‘AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com’; ‘kelly@foxnews.com’; ‘americasnewsroom@foxnews.com’; ‘crosetto@att.net’; ‘bullsandbears@foxnews.com’; ‘pao@afne.army.mil’; ‘ChrisAddeo@ionmedia.com’; ‘vieweremail@ionmedia.com’; ‘O2.Online@nbcuni.com’; ‘press@pivot.tv’; ‘mario.calabresi@lastampa.it’; ‘segretcor@corriere.it’; ‘piero.bianucci@mailbox.lastampa.it’; ‘vittorio.zucconi@gmail.com’; ‘repubblicawww@repubblica.it’; ‘desk_repubblica.it@repubblica.it’; ‘larepubblica@repubblica.it’; ‘rubrica.lettere@repubblica.it’; ‘redazioneweb@ilfattoquotidiano.it’; ‘p.gomez@ilfattoquotidiano.it’; ‘ilfattoonline@gmail.com’; ‘segreteria@ilfattoquotidiano.it’; ‘stephen.engelberg@propublica.org’; ‘Jeff.Larson@propublica.org’; ‘Robin.Fields@propublica.org’; ‘Tracy.Weber@propublica.org’; ‘Jeff.Gerth@propublica.org’; ‘Charlles.Ornstein@propublica.org’; ‘Sebastian.Rotella@propublica.org’; ‘Marshall.Allen@propublica.org’; ‘Abraham.Lustgarten@propublica.org’; ‘Christie.Thomson@propublica.org’; ‘Olga.Pierce@propublica.org’; ‘Al.Shaw@propublica.org’; ‘Theodoric.Meyer@propublica.org’; ‘Minhee.Cho@propublica.org’; ‘Heather.Troup@propublica.org’; ‘crosetto@att.net’; ‘rtve.dircom@rtve.es’; ‘klantendienst@vrt.be’; ‘comunicare.corporate@tvr.ro’; ‘info@nrk.no’; ‘fornamn.efternamn@svt.se’; ‘arvid.andersson@svt.se’; ‘program@svt.se’; ‘JT13h@tf1.fr’; ‘JT20h@tf1.fr’; ‘telecran@telecran.lu’; ‘web-it@ruvr.ru’; ‘psmr2015@df.unipi.it’; ‘roberto.barale@unipi.it’; ‘gloudos@teiath.gr’; ‘n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de’; ‘srcherry@ucdavis.edu’; ‘lucia.lilli@pi.infn.it’; ‘belcari@df.unipi.it’; ‘fantacci@df.unipi.it’; ‘aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it’; ‘valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it’; ‘toncelli@df.unipi.it’; ‘giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it’; ‘gerald.antoch@uni-due.de’; ‘thomas.beyer@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘rafael.torres@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘Christer.Halldin@ki.se’; ‘h.herzog@fz-juelich.de’; ‘koshino@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘Iita@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘jslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘kslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘paul.marsden@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘Bernd.Pichler@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘j.van_den_hoff@hzdr.de’; ‘dimitris@univ-brest.fr’; ‘c.zaragoza.prof@ufv.es’; ‘s.ziegler@lrz.tum.de’; ‘sm4aa@virginia.edu’; ‘fernando.ferroni@roma1.infn.it’; ‘urp@postacert.istruzione.it’; ‘rettore@unipi.it’; ‘n.defrancesco@unipi.it’; ‘acarlesi@ec.unipi.it’; ‘dalcanto@ddp.unipi.it’; ‘ferragina@di.unipi.it’; ‘galanti@fls.unipi.it’; ‘aguidi@vet.unipi.it’; ‘m.guidi@unipi.it’; ‘paolo.mancarella@unipi.it’; ‘sandro.paci@ing.unipi.it’; ‘gino.santoro@med.unipi.it’; ‘tognetti@vet.unipi.it’; ‘ORExecutiveMgtAsst@ad3.ucdavis.edu’; ‘lewin@ucdavis.edu’; ‘cmkiel@ucdavis.edu’; ‘pdodd@ucdavis.edu’; ‘dpathak@ucdavis.edu’; ‘lkatehi@ucdavis.edu’; ‘rhexter@ucdavis.edu’; ‘sabine.zix@uni-due.de’; ‘guenter.van-den-boom@uni-due.de’; ‘rektor@uni-due.de’; ‘christa.sabotka@uni-due.de’; ‘kaiser.prorektor@uni-due.de’; ‘buero-universitaetsleitung@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘vr_forschung@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘chris.mottershead@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘jane.pearson@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘dean@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘d-rso@ntu.edu.sg’; ‘be.feldmann@fz-juelich.de’; ‘s.schmidt@fz-juelich.de’; ‘beate.weiss@uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘bernd.engler@uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘ingo.autenrieth@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘iris.lumpp@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘triantis@teiath.gr’; ‘plytras@teiath.gr’; ‘r.sauerbrey@hzdr.de’; ‘k.braun@hzdr.de’; ‘ordforande@ki.se’; ‘annika.andersson.100@gmail.com’; ‘anders.blanck@lif.se’; ‘lrzpost@lrz.de’; ‘crosetto@att.net’; ‘michela.tosetti@fsm.unipi.it’
Subject: RE: FW: Respectfully requesting a meeting at the PSMR2015 Conference. Pro-Rector of Research of Pisa University recognized irregularities in rejecting papers without providing scientific reasons

Dear Funding Agencies (European Commission, U.S. DOE, U.S. NIH-NCI-NIBIB, etc.) having the objective of maximizing the reduction of cancer deaths and cost using taxpayer and donation money, these facts & data are extremely useful to achieve your goal:

1. Compare the approaches described in sixteen hour movies praising “guesswork” costing trillions of dollars to control millions of variables that no one still fully understands and those having “certainty of results” that are ignored yet can be obtained with a few controllable variables . (See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5a0l3ajJnRUNtQWs/view?usp=sharing

Dear Journalists or citizens working in the public interest, this is how you can support transparency in science to benefit mankind:

  1. Publish on Media, Facebook, Twitter, email, etc. the legitimate respectful request at this link http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363 for a meeting with the leaders of the important PSMR2015 world conference, being held May 18-20 at La Biodola, Elba, Italy, to address their unethical actions breaking the scientific code of ethics crushing scientific evidence and innovations.
  2. Sign the petition to STOP the shameful practice of funding unethical scientists https://www.change.org/p/office-of-science-and-technology-policy-stop-a-shameful-practice-stop-funding-unethical-scientists

Please find at these links more information about

The “Guesswork” vs. “Certainty of Results”: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5a0l3ajJnRUNtQWs/view?usp=sharing

my scientific credibility: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YldyRlI4V2VWNkU/view?usp=sharing ,

personal credibility: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RjdkTDA0WkU2aFk/view?usp=sharing and

the article presented at CERN in 2010 cosigned by 1,000 people https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5djJtLUlrMW90UXc/view?usp=sharing

See previous email exchange on this issue at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363

Yours sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 2:08 AM
To: ‘maria.miller.mp@parliament.uk’; ‘secretary.statesoffice@culture.gsi.gov.uk’; ‘TrustEnquiries@bbc.co.uk’; ‘trusteditorial@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Tony.Hall@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Tim.Davie@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Helen.Boaden@bbc.co.uk’; ‘James.Harding@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Paul.Ricon@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Palmer@bbc.co.uk’; ‘Pallab.Gosh@bbc.co.uk’; ‘oreilly@foxnews.com’; ‘nsb@nsbtalent.com’; ‘patrice_taddonio@wgbh.org’; ‘historydetectives@opb.org’; ‘charlierose@pbs.org’; ‘rockcenter@nbcuni.com’; ‘Dateline@nbcuni.com’; ’60m@cbsnews.com’; ‘press@freedomhouse.org’; ‘info@rvdj.be’; ‘office@cem.bg’; ‘info@rrtv.cz’; ‘sekr@pressenaevnet.dk’; ‘info@presserat.de’; ‘info@die-medienanstalten.de’; ‘ncrtv@otenet.gr’; ‘nfo@nmhh.hu’; ‘info@agcom.it’; ‘cvdm@cvdm.nl’; ‘raad@rvdj.nl’; ‘info@erc.pt’; ‘info.caa@juntadeandalucia.es’; ‘audiovisual@gencat.cat’; ‘po@po.se’; ‘info@ubi.admin.ch’; ‘evening@cbsnews.com’; ‘weekend@cbsnews.com’; ‘AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com’; ‘kelly@foxnews.com’; ‘americasnewsroom@foxnews.com’; ‘crosetto@att.net’; ‘bullsandbears@foxnews.com’; ‘pao@afne.army.mil’; ‘ChrisAddeo@ionmedia.com’; ‘vieweremail@ionmedia.com’; ‘O2.Online@nbcuni.com’; ‘press@pivot.tv’; ‘mario.calabresi@lastampa.it’; ‘segretcor@corriere.it’; ‘piero.bianucci@mailbox.lastampa.it’; ‘vittorio.zucconi@gmail.com’; ‘repubblicawww@repubblica.it’; ‘desk_repubblica.it@repubblica.it’; ‘larepubblica@repubblica.it’; ‘rubrica.lettere@repubblica.it’; ‘redazioneweb@ilfattoquotidiano.it’; ‘p.gomez@ilfattoquotidiano.it’; ‘ilfattoonline@gmail.com’; ‘segreteria@ilfattoquotidiano.it’; ‘stephen.engelberg@propublica.org’; ‘Jeff.Larson@propublica.org’; ‘Robin.Fields@propublica.org’; ‘Tracy.Weber@propublica.org’; ‘Jeff.Gerth@propublica.org’; ‘Charlles.Ornstein@propublica.org’; ‘Sebastian.Rotella@propublica.org’; ‘Marshall.Allen@propublica.org’; ‘Abraham.Lustgarten@propublica.org’; ‘Christie.Thomson@propublica.org’; ‘Olga.Pierce@propublica.org’; ‘Al.Shaw@propublica.org’; ‘Theodoric.Meyer@propublica.org’; ‘Minhee.Cho@propublica.org’; ‘Heather.Troup@propublica.org’; ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘crosetto@att.net’; ‘rtve.dircom@rtve.es’; ‘klantendienst@vrt.be’; ‘comunicare.corporate@tvr.ro’; ‘info@nrk.no’; ‘fornamn.efternamn@svt.se’; ‘arvid.andersson@svt.se’; ‘program@svt.se’; ‘JT13h@tf1.fr’; ‘JT20h@tf1.fr’; ‘telecran@telecran.lu’; ‘web-it@ruvr.ru’
Cc: ‘psmr2015@df.unipi.it’; ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘roberto.barale@unipi.it’; ‘gloudos@teiath.gr’; ‘n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de’; ‘srcherry@ucdavis.edu’; ‘lucia.lilli@pi.infn.it’; ‘belcari@df.unipi.it’; ‘fantacci@df.unipi.it’; ‘aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it’; ‘valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it’; ‘toncelli@df.unipi.it’; ‘giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it’; ‘gerald.antoch@uni-due.de’; ‘thomas.beyer@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘rafael.torres@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘Christer.Halldin@ki.se’; ‘h.herzog@fz-juelich.de’; ‘koshino@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘Iita@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘jslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘kslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘paul.marsden@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘Bernd.Pichler@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘j.van_den_hoff@hzdr.de’; ‘dimitris@univ-brest.fr’; ‘c.zaragoza.prof@ufv.es’; ‘s.ziegler@lrz.tum.de’; ‘sm4aa@virginia.edu’; ‘fernando.ferroni@roma1.infn.it’; ‘urp@postacert.istruzione.it’; ‘rettore@unipi.it’; ‘n.defrancesco@unipi.it’; ‘acarlesi@ec.unipi.it’; ‘dalcanto@ddp.unipi.it’; ‘ferragina@di.unipi.it’; ‘galanti@fls.unipi.it’; ‘aguidi@vet.unipi.it’; ‘m.guidi@unipi.it’; ‘paolo.mancarella@unipi.it’; ‘sandro.paci@ing.unipi.it’; ‘gino.santoro@med.unipi.it’; ‘tognetti@vet.unipi.it’; ‘ORExecutiveMgtAsst@ad3.ucdavis.edu’; ‘lewin@ucdavis.edu’; ‘cmkiel@ucdavis.edu’; ‘pdodd@ucdavis.edu’; ‘dpathak@ucdavis.edu’; ‘lkatehi@ucdavis.edu’; ‘rhexter@ucdavis.edu’; ‘sabine.zix@uni-due.de’; ‘guenter.van-den-boom@uni-due.de’; ‘rektor@uni-due.de’; ‘christa.sabotka@uni-due.de’; ‘kaiser.prorektor@uni-due.de’; ‘buero-universitaetsleitung@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘vr_forschung@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘chris.mottershead@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘jane.pearson@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘dean@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘d-rso@ntu.edu.sg’; ‘be.feldmann@fz-juelich.de’; ‘s.schmidt@fz-juelich.de’; ‘beate.weiss@uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘bernd.engler@uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘ingo.autenrieth@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘iris.lumpp@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘triantis@teiath.gr’; ‘plytras@teiath.gr’; ‘r.sauerbrey@hzdr.de’; ‘k.braun@hzdr.de’; ‘ordforande@ki.se’; ‘annika.andersson.100@gmail.com’; ‘anders.blanck@lif.se’; ‘lrzpost@lrz.de’; ‘crosetto@att.net’; ‘michela.tosetti@fsm.unipi.it’
Subject: FW: Respectfully requesting a meeting at the PSMR2015 Conference. Pro-Rector of Research of Pisa University recognized irregularities in rejecting papers without providing scientific reasons

Dear journalists or citizens working in the public interest, this is how you can support transparency in science to benefit mankind:

  1. Publish on Media, Facebook, Twitter, email, etc. the legitimate respectful request at this link http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363 for a meeting with the leaders of the important PSMR2015 world conference, being held May 18-20 at La Biodola, Elba, Italy, to address their unethical actions breaking the scientific code of ethics crushing scientific evidence and innovations.
  2. Sign the petition to STOP the shameful practice of funding unethical scientists https://www.change.org/p/office-of-science-and-technology-policy-stop-a-shameful-practice-stop-funding-unethical-scientists

Please find at these links more information about my

scientific credibility: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YldyRlI4V2VWNkU/view?usp=sharing ,

personal credibility: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RjdkTDA0WkU2aFk/view?usp=sharing and

the article presented at CERN in 2010 cosigned by 1,000 people https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5djJtLUlrMW90UXc/view?usp=sharing

See previous email exchange on this issue at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363

Yours sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

I am sending this message to Del Guerra’s PSMR2015 Conference co-chairs, to the local organizing committee, to the International Advisory Committee and to the Universities or Organization employing them.

George Loudos, Teiath, Greece

Jon Shah, Fz-Juelic, Germany

Belcari, University of Pisa, Italy

Giuseppina Bisogni, INFN, Pisa

Lucia Lilli, INFN, Pisa

Gerald Anthoch, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Thomas Beyer, Medizinsche University, Wien, Austria

Simon Cherry, US Davis University, California, USA

Rafael Torres, King’s College, London, UK

Christer Halldin, Karlolinska Institute, Sweden

H. Herzog, FZ-Juelich, Germany

H. Iida, Japan,

J.S. Lee, South Korea

Stanislaw Majewski, University of Virginia, USA

Paul Marsden, King’s College, London, UK

Bernd Pichler, University of Tuebingen, Germany

Van Der Hoff, HZDR Germany

D. Visvikis, France

C. Zaragoza, Spain

S. Ziegler, Leibniz Center, Germany

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:45 PM
To: ‘psmr2015@df.unipi.it’; ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘roberto.barale@unipi.it’; ‘gloudos@teiath.gr’; ‘n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de’; ‘srcherry@ucdavis.edu’; ‘lucia.lilli@pi.infn.it’; ‘belcari@df.unipi.it’; ‘fantacci@df.unipi.it’; ‘aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it’; ‘valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it’; ‘toncelli@df.unipi.it’; ‘giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it’; ‘gerald.antoch@uni-due.de’; ‘thomas.beyer@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘rafael.torres@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘Christer.Halldin@ki.se’; ‘h.herzog@fz-juelich.de’; ‘koshino@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘Iita@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘jslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘kslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘paul.marsden@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘Bernd.Pichler@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘j.van_den_hoff@hzdr.de’; ‘dimitris@univ-brest.fr’; ‘c.zaragoza.prof@ufv.es’; ‘s.ziegler@lrz.tum.de’; ‘sm4aa@virginia.edu’; ‘fernando.ferroni@roma1.infn.it’; ‘urp@postacert.istruzione.it’; ‘rettore@unipi.it’; ‘n.defrancesco@unipi.it’; ‘acarlesi@ec.unipi.it’; ‘dalcanto@ddp.unipi.it’; ‘ferragina@di.unipi.it’; ‘galanti@fls.unipi.it’; ‘aguidi@vet.unipi.it’; ‘m.guidi@unipi.it’; ‘paolo.mancarella@unipi.it’; ‘sandro.paci@ing.unipi.it’; ‘gino.santoro@med.unipi.it’; ‘tognetti@vet.unipi.it’; ‘ORExecutiveMgtAsst@ad3.ucdavis.edu’; ‘lewin@ucdavis.edu’; ‘cmkiel@ucdavis.edu’; ‘pdodd@ucdavis.edu’; ‘dpathak@ucdavis.edu’; ‘lkatehi@ucdavis.edu’; ‘rhexter@ucdavis.edu’; ‘sabine.zix@uni-due.de’; ‘guenter.van-den-boom@uni-due.de’; ‘rektor@uni-due.de’; ‘christa.sabotka@uni-due.de’; ‘kaiser.prorektor@uni-due.de’; ‘buero-universitaetsleitung@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘vr_forschung@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘chris.mottershead@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘jane.pearson@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘dean@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘d-rso@ntu.edu.sg’; ‘be.feldmann@fz-juelich.de’; ‘s.schmidt@fz-juelich.de’; ‘beate.weiss@uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘bernd.engler@uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘ingo.autenrieth@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘iris.lumpp@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘triantis@teiath.gr’; ‘plytras@teiath.gr’; ‘r.sauerbrey@hzdr.de’; ‘k.braun@hzdr.de’; ‘ordforande@ki.se’; ‘annika.andersson.100@gmail.com’; ‘anders.blanck@lif.se’; ‘lrzpost@lrz.de’; ‘crosetto@att.net’; ‘michela.tosetti@fsm.unipi.it’
Subject: RE: Respectfully requesting a meeting at the PSMR2015 Conference. Pro-Rector of Research of Pisa University recognized in rejecting papers without providing scientific reasons – RE: PSMR2015 – rejection of abs

Dear PSMR2015 Conference co-chairs, local organizing committee, International Advisory Committee and leaders of the universities or organizations supporting them,

Respectfully, on behalf of over the 1,000 taxpayers and cancer patients who cosigned the article and over 7,000 who paper signed a petition to implement scientific, open, public procedures to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail, I request a meeting with your representative at the PSMR2015 conference to address technical scientific issues to maximize the advancement of science for the benefit of taxpayers.

I will be at La Biodola, Island of Elba, from May 16 at 5:00 pm until May 20, 2015.

I have attempted for the past 15 years to address these issues with Alberto Del Guerra, who is one of the leaders in the field who shaped the direction of research during the past decades and who reviewed in the year 2000 my technical-scientific book: “ 400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening ”. However, his statements need to be discussed and the right direction of research for a more effective approach to reduce premature cancer deaths and cost needs to be addressed. Among his statements he claims: “… In conclusion I do not think that is fair to say that the increase in count rate by means of increase in detection area and solid angle coverage is directly proportional to the clinical capability of the system!” Indeed, increasing count rate and PET sensitivity is providing results opposite to those stated by Del Guerra and is instead directly proportional to the clinical capability of the system.

In a phone conversation with Dr. Tosetti, Research Coordinator at the IRCCS Stella Maris that is using one the of most advanced 7Tesla MRI devices, stated that the advantage of the 7 Tesla MRI with respect to the 1.5 Tesla is the better signal-to-noise ratio. Therefore, to improve MR/PET it would be important to integrate my invention in the PET section of the MR/PET as proposed in my paper that will also greatly improve the signal-to-noise ratio and provide an ultra-high sensitivity PET section of the multimodality MR/PET. My invention will provide at the same time a lower cost per valid signal captured compared to the current cost.

Because I have found that a face-to-face meeting can resolve the doubts reviewers might have, for example, on February 6, 2015 the European Patent examiners recognized the inventive steps of my 3D-CBS technology with a face-to-face meeting, I trust that you will use your position of responsibility at this conference to convince Alberto Del Guerra to let science advance through a scientific open forum and not silence the innovations beneficial to mankind.

Please find at these links more information about my

scientific credibility: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5YldyRlI4V2VWNkU/view?usp=sharing ,

personal credibility: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RjdkTDA0WkU2aFk/view?usp=sharing and

the article presented at CERN in 2010 cosigned by 1,000 people https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5djJtLUlrMW90UXc/view?usp=sharing

See previous email exchange on this issue at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363

Looking forward to a positive reply.

Yours sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

I am sending this message to Del Guerra’s PSMR2015 Conference co-chairs, to the local organizing committee, to the International Advisory Committee and to the Universities or Organization employing them.

George Loudos, Teiath, Greece

Jon Shah, Fz-Juelic, Germany

Belcari, University of Pisa, Italy

Giuseppina Bisogni, INFN, Pisa

Lucia Lilli, INFN, Pisa

Gerald Anthoch, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Thomas Beyer, Medizinsche University, Wien, Austria

Simon Cherry, US Davis University, California, USA

Rafael Torres, King’s College, London, UK

Christer Halldin, Karlolinska Institute, Sweden

H. Herzog, FZ-Juelich, Germany

H. Iida, Japan,

J.S. Lee, South Korea

Stanislaw Majewski, University of Virginia, USA

Paul Marsden, King’s College, London, UK

Bernd Pichler, University of Tuebingen, Germany

Van Der Hoff, HZDR Germany

D. Visvikis, France

C. Zaragoza, Spain

S. Ziegler, Leibniz Center, Germany

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 12:39 AM

To: psmr2015@df.unipi.it; unitedtoendcancer@att.net; roberto.barale@unipi.it; gloudos@teiath.gr; n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de; srcherry@ucdavis.edu; lucia.lilli@pi.infn.it; belcari@df.unipi.it; fantacci@df.unipi.it; aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it; valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it; toncelli@df.unipi.it; giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it; gerald.antoch@uni-due.de; thomas.beyer@meduniwien.ac.at; rafael.torres@kcl.ac.uk; Christer.Halldin@ki.se; h.herzog@fz-juelich.de; koshino@ncvc.go.jp; Iita@ncvc.go.jp; jslee@ulsan.ac.kr; kslee@ulsan.ac.kr; paul.marsden@kcl.ac.uk; Bernd.Pichler@med.uni-tuebingen.de; j.van_den_hoff@hzdr.de; dimitris@univ-brest.fr; c.zaragoza.prof@ufv.es; s.ziegler@lrz.tum.de; sm4aa@virginia.edu; fernando.ferroni@roma1.infn.it; urp@postacert.istruzione.it; rettore@unipi.it; n.defrancesco@unipi.it; acarlesi@ec.unipi.it; dalcanto@ddp.unipi.it; ferragina@di.unipi.it; galanti@fls.unipi.it; aguidi@vet.unipi.it; m.guidi@unipi.it; paolo.mancarella@unipi.it; sandro.paci@ing.unipi.it; gino.santoro@med.unipi.it; tognetti@vet.unipi.it; ORExecutiveMgtAsst@ad3.ucdavis.edu; lewin@ucdavis.edu; cmkiel@ucdavis.edu; pdodd@ucdavis.edu; dpathak@ucdavis.edu; lkatehi@ucdavis.edu; rhexter@ucdavis.edu; sabine.zix@uni-due.de; guenter.van-den-boom@uni-due.de; rektor@uni-due.de; christa.sabotka@uni-due.de; kaiser.prorektor@uni-due.de; buero-universitaetsleitung@meduniwien.ac.at; vr_forschung@meduniwien.ac.at; chris.mottershead@kcl.ac.uk; jane.pearson@kcl.ac.uk; dean@kcl.ac.uk; d-rso@ntu.edu.sg; be.feldmann@fz-juelich.de; s.schmidt@fz-juelich.de; beate.weiss@uni-tuebingen.de; bernd.engler@uni-tuebingen.de; ingo.autenrieth@med.uni-tuebingen.de; iris.lumpp@med.uni-tuebingen.de; triantis@teiath.gr; plytras@teiath.gr; r.sauerbrey@hzdr.de; k.braun@hzdr.de; ordforande@ki.se; annika.andersson.100@gmail.com; anders.blanck@lif.se; lrzpost@lrz.de; crosetto@att.net

Subject: Respectfully requesting to address the irregularity recognized by the Pro-Rector of Research of Pisa University – RE: PSMR2015 – rejection of abs

Dear colleague,

Respectfully, on behalf of taxpayers who trust that scientists comply with the code of ethics of a scientist and of a physician, and to prevent the scientific community from being discredited by a few scientists who break the rules, I forward the message from the Pro-Rector of Research of the University of Pisa who indicated that “the scientific societies need to deal with this problem”. (See below the text of April 21, 2015, email by Dr. Barale highlighted in light blue).

The problem that Dr. Barale refers to is that the Chairman of the PSMR2015 Conference, Alberto Del Guerra, like some other Chairmen, influential scientists and reviewers, break the code of ethics of a scientist by rejecting papers (see below text highlighted in light blue) without providing scientific arguments, supporting their rejection claims with calculations, logical reasoning and scientific evidence. When a judge passes sentence like a dictator and does not follow any rules, laws or code, a few people are cheated and it hurts and damages them.  The same holds true within the field of science, with the difference being that it deceives, hurts and damages all of humanity who trust scientists to be competent and honest.

A civilized society is ruled by the “rule of law”, and science is ruled by the “laws of nature”.  It is the responsibility, duty and ethics of a scientist to provide scientific reasons referring to the “laws of nature” rather than to the power dynamics and money.

As soon as I spoke to Pro-Rector Barale on April 20, 2015, after first sending the email below where Del Guerra and the reviewers he appointed rejected my paper without providing scientific reasons, he immediately noticed the irregularity.

He looked carefully at all our email exchanges and not finding any scientific reason for the rejection of my paper, Dr. Barale said that this needed to be resolved and that he would immediately talk to Del Guerra.

The next day, however, Dr. Barale wrote that it is the task of the “scientific societies” to solve this problem.

Therefore, I bring this problem to the attention of the institutions and/or organizations that apparently have some links through their employees to Del Guerra’s PSMR2015 conference so they may attempt to solve this scientific inconsistency as Dr. Barale attempted.  If this approach proves unsuccessful then we should follow Dr. Barale’s advice and extend the concern to the “scientific societies” at large, which you are still part of.

Whether or not your institution or organization is linked to Del Guerra’s PSMR2015 conference, please let everyone know the policy of your organization toward unethical scientists who have no rules or codes complying with scientific procedures to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge.

Would you agree to ban these unethical scientists from receiving taxpayer and donation money out of respect to taxpayers who put the trust in the scientific society?

Would you agree to sign the petition to penalize these unethical scientists who will end up discrediting the scientific community and discourage this practice in any scientific environment (paper review, conference presentation review, funding opportunity review, etc.)? Petition: https://www.change.org/p/office-of-science-and-technology-policy-stop-a-shameful-practice-stop-funding-unethical-scientists?recruiter=166362129&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

 

I am sending this message to Del Guerra’s PSMR2015 Conference co-chairs, to the local organizing committee, to the International Advisory Committee and to the Universities or Organization employing them.

George Loudos, Teiath, Greece

Jon Shah, Fz-Juelic, Germany

Belcari, University of Pisa, Italy

Giuseppina Bisogni, INFN, Pisa

Lucia Lilli, INFN, Pisa

Gerald Anthoch, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Thomas Beyer, Medizinsche University, Wien, Austria

Simon Cherry, US Davis University, California, USA

Rafael Torres, King’s College, London, UK

Christer Halldin, Karlolinska Institute, Sweden

Herzog, FZ-Juelich, Germany

Iida, Japan,

J.S. Lee, South Korea

Stanislaw Majewski, University of Virginia, USA

Paul Marsden, King’s College, London, UK

Bernd Pichler, University of Tuebingen, Germany

Van Der Hoff, HZDR Germany

Visvikis, France

Zaragoza, Spain

Ziegler, Leibniz Center, Germany

 

—–Original Message—–
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:24 AM
To: ‘ROBERTO BARALE’
Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘crosetto@att.net’
Subject: RE: PSMR2015 – rejection of abs

Dear Dr. Barale,

Thank you for your response.

As Pro-Rector of Research of the University of Pisa aren’t you part of the scientific societies?

Because you have assessed while we were on the phone an irregularity and scientific inconsistency from Del Guerra not providing a scientific reason for his rejection of the paper, is the University of Pisa supporting this event that is committing irregularities and inconsistencies in science or the PSMR2015 is a private initiative by Del Guerra and his colleagues Nicola Belari, Maria Giuseppina Bisogni and Lucia Lilli who are carrying on this initiative outside the payroll time by the University of Pisa?

I need to inform the over 1,000 cosigners on page 2 to 4 of the paper https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5djJtLUlrMW90UXc/view?usp=sharing and over 7,000 signers of a paper petition to implement scientific procedures.

Thank you for your response.

Respectfully,

Dario Crosetto

—–Original Message—–

From: ROBERTO BARALE [mailto:roberto.barale@unipi.it]

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:56 AM

To: United To End Cancer

Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net; crosetto@att.net

Subject: RE: PSMR2015 – rejection of abs

Dear Dr. Crosetto,

I looked into the matter and I realized that’s not my job to get into the merits of decisions taken by the organizing committees of Congress.

I think is the task of the scientific societies deal with this problem, my best regards Prof. Roberto Barale

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:39 AM
To: ‘roberto.barale@unipi.it’
Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘crosetto@att.net’
Subject: RE: PSMR2015 – rejection of abs

Dear Prorector of Research Dr. Barale,

Thank you for taking my phone call yesterday.

I understood from you comment on the phone after reading Del Guerra message: “based on the scoring criteria [Scientific novelty, Completeness and Relevance for (S)PET/MR)] suggested its rejection” that you could not see any scientific motivation and noticed the irregularity of Del Guerra’s procedure and inconsistency with science. I remember you looking for a scientific motivation for the rejection and saying that you could not find one and immediately told me that will work to fix this and will let me know very soon.

Because the Conference is approaching soon, I appreciate if you could let me know by the end of the day or by tomorrow how this irregularity could be fixed.

Thank you,

Respectfully,

Dario Crosetto

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 4:50 AM
To: ‘roberto.barale@unipi.it’
Subject: FW: PSMR2015 – rejection of abs

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org]
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:19 PM
To: ‘psmr2015@df.unipi.it’; ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘gloudos@teiath.gr’; ‘n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de’; ‘srcherry@ucdavis.edu’; ‘lucia.lilli@pi.infn.it’; ‘belcari@df.unipi.it’; ‘fantacci@df.unipi.it’; ‘aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it’; ‘valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it’; ‘toncelli@df.unipi.it’; ‘giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it’; ‘gerald.antoch@uni-due.de’; ‘rafael.torres@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘christer.halldin@ntu.edu.sg’; ‘h.herzog@fz-juelich.de’; ‘koshino@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘Iita@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘jslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘kslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘sm4aa@virginia.edu’; ‘paul.marsden@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘Bernd.Pichler@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘j.van_den_hoff@hzdr.de’; ‘dimitris@univ-brest.fr’; ‘c.zaragoza.prof@ufv.es’; ‘s.ziegler@lrz.tum.de’; ‘rbarale@biologia.unipi.it’; ‘crosetto@att.net’
Subject: FW: PSMR2015 – rejection of abs

Dear PSMR2015 Co-Chairmen, Local Organizing Committee and International Advisory Committee,

On behalf of taxpayers who pay research and researchers and who trust that scientists comply with the code of ethics of ascientist and of a physician, it is legitimate to ask you to please provide scientific evidence that I can pass on to them, agreeing or disagreeing with my three long paragraphs (from my abstract and summary) reported below where I explain that my paper is complying with [Scientific novelty, Completeness and Relevance for (S)PET/MR)].

Alberto Del Guerra stated that two reviewers rejected my paper based on those three criteria.

If you are one of those two PSMR2015 reviewers, please explain your rejection; if not, because you qualify yourself as expert in the field by being among the members of the PSMR2015 Local and International Advisory Committee, please express your evaluation of my paper based on calculations, logical reasoning and scientific evidence, approving or refuting my calculations, logical reasoning and scientific evidence.

In the event you share the same vision as Del Guerra of what can and cannot advance the field of medical imaging to reduce cancer deaths and healthcare costs as he expressed in his statements reported below, please also provide answers to additional questions in the interest of taxpayers who have been waiting for answers for 15 years, or provide your scientific professional response if different from Del Guerra’s vision.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

From: Alberto Del Guerra [mailto:alberto.delguerra@df.unipi.it]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:50 AM
To: 3D-Computing, Inc.; psmr2015@df.unipi.it;unitedtoendcancer@att.net; gloudos@teiath.gr;n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de; srcherry@ucdavis.edu;lucia.lilli@pi.infn.it; belcari@df.unipi.it;fantacci@df.unipi.it; aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it;valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it; toncelli@df.unipi.it;giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it; gerald.antoch@uni-due.de;thomas.berger@meduniwien.ac.at; rafael.torres@kcl.ac.uk;christer.halldin@ntu.edu.sg; h.herzog@fz-juelich.de;koshino@ncvc.go.jp; Iita@ncvc.go.jp;jslee@ulsan.ac.kr; kslee@ulsan.ac.kr;paul.marsden@kcl.ac.uk;Bernd.Pichler@med.uni-tuebingen.de;j.van_den_hoff@hzdr.de; dimitris@univ-brest.fr;c.zaragoza.prof@ufv.es; s.ziegler@lrz.tum.de; rbarale@biologia.unipi.it; crosetto@att.net; ALBERTO del Guerra
Subject: Re: PSMR2015 – rejection of abs

Dear Crosetto,
as I told you your submission has been evaluated by two reviewers who based on the scoring criteria [Scientific novelty, Completeness and Relevance for (S)PET/MR)] suggested its rejection
I am afraid there is nothing to add
Sincerely yours
alberto del guerra

--
Alberto Del Guerra
Adjunct Professor of Medical Physics
TRIMAGE Project Coordinator
Former Head of the Functional Imaging and Instrumentation Group
Former Director and Head, Specialty School in Medical Physics

Department of Physics “E.Fermi”
University of Pisa
Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, I-56127   PISA, Italy

Phone: +39-050-2214942; fax:+39-050-2214333
E_mail: alberto.delguerra@df.unipi.it

From: 3D-Computing, Inc. [mailto:info@3d-computing.com]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:33 AM
To: ‘psmr2015@df.unipi.it’; ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘alberto.delguerra@df.unipi.it’; ‘gloudos@teiath.gr’; ‘n.j.shah@fz-juelich.de’; ‘srcherry@ucdavis.edu’; ‘lucia.lilli@pi.infn.it’; ‘belcari@df.unipi.it’; ‘fantacci@df.unipi.it’; ‘aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it’; ‘valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it’; ‘toncelli@df.unipi.it’; ‘giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it’; ‘gerald.antoch@uni-due.de’; ‘thomas.berger@meduniwien.ac.at’; ‘rafael.torres@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘christer.halldin@ntu.edu.sg’; ‘h.herzog@fz-juelich.de’; ‘koshino@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘Iita@ncvc.go.jp’; ‘jslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘kslee@ulsan.ac.kr’; ‘paul.marsden@kcl.ac.uk’; ‘Bernd.Pichler@med.uni-tuebingen.de’; ‘j.van_den_hoff@hzdr.de’; ‘dimitris@univ-brest.fr’; ‘c.zaragoza.prof@ufv.es’; ‘s.ziegler@lrz.tum.de’; ‘rbarale@biologia.unipi.it’; ‘crosetto@att.net’
Subject: RE: PSMR2015 – rejection of abs

[copy of the first text sent as a pdf attachment on April 17, 2015 at 1:09 am (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)]

Dear Del Guerra, PSMR2015 Chairmen, Local Organizing Committee and International Advisory Committee,

In response to your message dated March 23, 2015 stating: « Your abstract/summary has been reviewed like all others by the reviewers based on three criteria: Scientific novelty/Completeness/Relevance for (S)PET/MR. The referee global evaluation was very low and all recommended to “reject”» , I provide the following response, a request for answers to my questions on behalf of the interest of the taxpayers and cancer patients for whom I am working and a request to revise your evaluation accepting my paper for oral presentation.

Thank you for your reply to my email. Could you please provide the answers that are not included in your reply to my two questions related to PSMR2015 criteria for evaluation?

Question 1: Please could you explain why you are not interested in the “Comparison of benefits between an ultra-sensitive MR/3D-CBS, an ultra-sensitive, highly cost-effective 3D-CBS and other MR/PET and PET using high spatial resolution detector modules“ and to follow scientific procedures that make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail” .

 

Question 2: Would you please point out the paragraph(s) in the attached “abstract” and “summary” that you disagree and you believe is not a positive contribution to better serve taxpayers and cancer patients?

Because I have not received technical-scientific answers to my legitimate questions from Alberto Del Guerra during the past 15 years which I asked on behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients, and apparently PSMR2015 Chairmen, the Local PSMR2015 Organizing Committee and the International PSMR2015 Advisory Committee who consider themselves expert in the field, are sharing the same vision as Del Guerra, I am extending the request for answers to all of you so I can pass them on to taxpayers and cancer patients.

The additional questions are reported at the end of this message (before your message dated March 23, 2015). Some are related to Del Guerra’s review of my 2000 technical-scientific book “ 400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening ” ISBN 0-9702897-0-7; others refer to later dates. Del Guerra’s review contained statements that do not appear to be going in the direction of creating more cost-efficient medical imaging instrumentation to serve the patients’ needs and in their best interest. I have been asking for technical-scientific answers with prudence both orally and in private emails many times during the past years. I have been waiting with patience for Del Guerra’s answers for many years, but because they did not arrive, I made my request official by asking for an answer publicly in an article with 14 co-authors and 1,000 cosigners that were presented on February 2, 2010 at the workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN, Geneva. Also, on that occasion, I had a promise from Del Guerra that I would receive his reply by the end of February 2010. However, to date I have not received an answer. (see article at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5djJtLUlrMW90UXc/view?usp=sharing )

Herein I respectfully provide the answers to your questions about how my abstract/summary satisfies the PSMR2015 criteria for “Scientific novelty/Completeness/Relevance for (S)PET/MR,” for being accepted.

For those who are not familiar with my work, please see my Bio at: http://nscj.co.uk/ecm3/sessions/DarioCrosetto.pdf

  1. Scientific novelty:From my submitted Abstract: “… the advanced features of MR/3D-CBS and 3D-CBS are the result of new techniques, improvements to existing techniques, and their synergy in the field of detector assembly, electronics, coupling of the detector with the electronics, real-time algorithms, etc .”. And “…providing uniquely in one device: an effective early detection, a low examination cost, and a very low radiation dose.” After 14 years of written actions between my lawyers and the patent examiners of the European Patent Office, they recognized the inventive steps of my technology from my oral presentation and after answering their specific questions face-to-face. One thing that improves MR/PET is the improvement of the S/N ratio, as it was also confirmed by Dr. Tosetti during our brief phone conversation on 3/19/15. This can be achieved not only by increasing the magnetic field from 1.5T to 7T but also by executing complex real-time algorithms on data arriving at a very high rate from the instrument using my invention that has this capability and is more cost-effective compared to other approaches. People are expecting the scientific truth beneficial to humanity to be addressed using scientific procedures in an open, public scientific forum.From my submitted Summary : “… because of the synergy among new and known techniques that when combined in a unique way provide advantages in “accurately capturing all possible signals from the tumor markers (specific radiation at 511 keV) at the most economical cost per valid signal captured”. These features will provide the most powerful MR/3D-CBS tool to researchers for advancement in science with unprecedented superiority with respect to current MR/PET by Siemens, GE and Philips because of the advantages derived from the non-obvious synergistic effects of combining in a unique way new and known techniques” And “ My improvements stem from an innovative way to detect more accurately a greater number of photons emitted from the tracer medium than current designs can. ” And “ The features needed at once all optimized in the best synergy to obtain those results are the ones listed above: High sensitivity, low radiation and low examination cost .” And “ My innovations, which derive from the synergy of several new and known techniques, supersede the performance and cost-effectiveness in advancing research, saving lives and reducing healthcare costs with respect to the existing ideas/approaches/devices.”
  2. Completeness: From my submitted Abstract: “… each scientist needs to explain, compare, and defend theoretically in an open, public workshop how their idea/project/invention can significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost and present a plan to prove it experimentally on a sample population ” “ testing their idea on a sample population of 10,000 people aged 55 to 74, in a location where, in the previous 20 years, the mortality rate is constant (e.g. 0.5%). A difference or no difference in mortality will quantify the success or failure of their claim. ” This approach of requesting theoretical explanations supported by calculation and scientific evidence and proving them with experimental results on a sample population provides the “whole completeness” of the project, avoiding to set an intermediate target (e.g. shrinking the tumor) without obtaining substantial results in cancer deaths reduction, but, increasing instead healthcare cost while prolonging life merely for a few weeks or months.From my submitted Summary: “… The key features of my invention are supported by simulations and hardware implementations” And “…I proved its feasibility and functionality in two hardware electronic modular boards suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size for HEP or Medical Imaging applications. This powerful tool for the discovery of new particles when used with other applications is the basis of my medical imaging invention .” And “… The larger area of economical crystal detectors exposes the patient to approximately 4% of the radiation they currently receive.” And “ would enable effective early detection of cancer, coronary diseases, and other systemic anomalies. It could do this because my innovative technology has cost-effective novel electronics, simplified detector assembly and coupling of detectors with electronics, the capability to execute complex algorithms in real-time that can efficiently measure all characteristics of the incident photon and filter the background noise .”
  3. Relevance for (S)PET/MR: From my submitted Abstract: Comparison of benefits between an ultra-sensitive MR/3D-CBS, an ultra-sensitive, highly cost-effective 3D-CBS and other MR/PET and PET using high spatial resolution detector modules” and “ This article explains how science is advanced by new features of MR/3D-CBS technology providing an unprecedented ultrasensitive, cost-effective MR/PET for early detection and accurate prognosis of anomalies in biological processes .”From my submitted Summary: “… The MR/3D-CBS supersedes the other MR/PET because it can provide the above features & benefits in synergy optimized to reach the goal of the most powerful tool for researchers to explore new frontiers and advance in science. ” And “ The features needed at once all optimized in the best synergy to obtain those results are the ones listed above: High sensitivity, low radiation and low examination cost. All other PET do not have all these 3 features maximized in one device ”.Please address also these statements that do not appear to be going in the direction of creating more cost-efficient medical imaging instrumentation to serve the patients’ needs and in their best interest.

=== Del Guerra August/2000, from his review of Crosetto’s book

“…What I am saying is that for many clinical investigations the amount of radioactivity (a lot) that is not in the field of view of the actual PET cameras does not give any additional clinical information. A special case could be the whole body PET for tumor and metastasis search, but in that case, I would assume that the amount of radioactivity taken by the patient is not issue, being patients at great risk. In conclusion I do not think that is fair to say that the increase in count rate by means of increase in detection area and solid angle coverage is directly proportional to the clinical capability of the system!”

=== End Del Guerra ======================

=== Crosetto 02/02/2010 (see article at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5djJtLUlrMW90UXc/view?usp=sharing )

If my objective is that of capturing as many photons as possible at a minimum cost per photon captured and you do not believe it necessary, we should discuss this issue first because otherwise all that I propose, in your opinion, would be unnecessary and without value.

By the same token, it is necessary to discuss what improvements need to be made to PET. I assume that it is the increase in efficiency: “the ratio between the number of valid signals (true) captured, divided by the number of valid signals (true) emitted, measuring with great accuracy all characteristics of the captured photons”.

Based on what you have written, it seems that you do not agree with this goal and give more importance only to one measurement which is “spatial resolution”, although the principle of operation of PET is based on measuring dynamic activity during a period of time: the nutrient consumption, blood flow, perfusion, etc.

The real problem that should be addressed at the workshop on February 2-4, 2010 at CERN, since among the participants are listed researchers from Siemens and other corporations, is the problem raised by the President of Nuclear Medicine and Medical Physics of Italy published in issue, “Anno V, N. 2, May 2009 pp. 26-68” to which I provided a point-to-point answer ( www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/288.pdf). More specifically we should address the future of Medical Imaging, Molecular Imaging, and PET outlined in that article where the Presidents of the mentioned organizations state that large corporations (such as Siemens for whom they cited several articles about their R&D) are moving toward increasing the length of the Field of View (FOV) of PET up to 2 meters, however, using detectors with efficiency lower than 20% (for example RPC, crystals with 4 mm in thickness, etc.). In reality, this approach worsens performance of current PET in the feature that identifies micro-nodules and worsens early detection. Instead, it is functional only to perform more examinations in a given time, thus achieving only greater profit. My solution instead foresees an increase of the FOV keeping at the same time crystal efficiency higher then 95%, increasing the overall efficiency by over 400 times, allowing more accurate measurements of the characteristics of photons in time coincidence even when slow, economical crystals are used.

Another issue that needs to be clarified and most likely would have been if you had attended the meeting in Pavia on September 30, 2009, involves the point of view of the President of the Medical Physics Association in Italy, Guido Pedroli (one of the authors of the article published on May 2009 in the Magazine “Notiziario della Medicina Nucleare) who agreed with and recognized the value of my innovative electronics for the 3D-CBS. He was strongly against my suggestion to use BGO crystals because, in his opinion, they provide signals that are not consistent in time (“ballerini” –dancing photons- as witnessed in the video recording, meaning that although the circumstances do not change, the signals, for no reason, in his opinion, one time are high and next time are low). To no avail, I argued that the General Electric PET is based on BGO, that more than half of existing PET in the world use BGO, that my 3D-Flow parallel processing architecture can extract more information from any crystals, including the BGO, and improve its performance. In conclusion, Guido Pedroli rejected my approach because I suggested the use of BGO and he said in the video that YOU are the expert who can explain why it should not be used. Therefore, I am expecting also a clarification from you on this issue.

Focusing on multimodality as indicated by the choice of most of the talks for the CERN workshop, does not help to reduce premature cancer deaths if among these there is not one modality that is efficacious and cost-efficient for early cancer detection (PET technology at the molecular level is the best candidate, recognized by everyone because it allows analysis of anomalous cancerous biological processes even before a tissue morphological change occurs, when CT, MRI, Ultrasound, etc. cannot detect them).

Essentially, we should ask ourselves how it is possible to measure photon’s energy more accurately (for sure, the sum of 9 elements is better than 4), how can photon arrival time be improved, how can the spatial resolution be improved by accurately measuring x, y, z coordinates relative to the point where the photon is absorbed in the crystal, and how can the signal-to-noise ratio be improved. For each of these parameters it is necessary to discuss and compare different solutions, underlining not only better accuracy, but also cost reduction.

With the 3D-CBS project, I implemented these improvements for measuring those parameters and have illustrated them in Figure 2. If you disagree with Figure 2, you must be more specific in which section: in summing 9 electronic channels instead of 4 for measuring photon’s energy? In the detector assembly, different from the current “block detector, etc.?

These are the important aspects that can make a great impact on the reduction of cancer deaths through implementation of early cancer detection at low examination cost and high efficiency.

Once it have been identified these basic technical aspects that are essential for actuating a shift in cancer research, it is necessary to identify the innovations with more merits, targeted to the improvement of such fundamental aspects that are more useful to the patient.

The objective to identify all innovations with greater merit and more useful to the patient is achieved only if a true “peer review” process is established in which each expert in this field, according to an ethical and professional standards should discuss with his colleagues, referring to precise scientific arguments. The result is that this process will make the best solution stand out that can measure up to verification by many experts and whose claims cannot be refuted.

Therefore, the key elements for science to effectively contribute to Health are two:

  1. Directors, Chairmen of Conferences and Workshops and people responsible for the major research centers in the world in different disciplines related to reducing cancer deaths, must nominate experts and decision makers who plan the future of cancer research and services, facilities, etc. in health care, to engage in discussion with project proposers (or Principal Investigators).
  2. These nominated experts will discuss with the Principal Investigators (PI) of research for solutions targeted to reduce cancer deaths at a lower cost (estimated results of their research must be provided in their proposals) and follow a fair peer review procedure described previously, whose goal is to make stand out and promote solutions that best comply with the law of nature and the interest of the patient

In this specific case, in order to make the best solution for early cancer detection at the molecular level stand out, what is important is to ask ourselves how it is possible to capture more accurately more pairs of photons in time coincidence at a lower cost per photon captured.

In light of your statements expressed during the review of my technical-scientific book of 2000, one should not be surprised that you are “very much in disagreement” about the advantages of my technology because, based on your statement:

=== Del Guerra August/2000, from his review of Crosetto’s book

…is not in the field of view of the actual PET cameras does not give any additional clinical information. …I do not think that is fair to say that the increase in count rate by means of increase in detection area and solid angle coverage is directly proportional to the clinical capability of the system! ,”

not only do you not see as useful the advantages I propose, but also it seems that you do not believe it is necessary to INCREASE PET FOV and INCREASE COUNT RATE, which is improving efficiency, and it seem you do not want it, no matter who proposes it, independent of any approach.

It would have been important to discuss this issue (as well as others) in a face-to-face meeting with the President of the Medical Physics Association, Guido Pedroli as he suggested during our first meeting on June 15, 2009. I, other participants and even you agreed, but you never provided a date to meet, alternate to a date in the summer of 2009 or before October 25, 2009 when you communicated that you could not attend even via conference call at the meeting on September 30, 2009. Without this face-to-face discussion, given the fact that we are dealing with innovations, the risk is that they will continue to be misinterpreted as has often occurred in the past. Furthermore, even before discussing my innovations, because it is clear from the numerous citations made by Pedroli and Salvo article in May 2009 ( www.crosettofoundation.org/uploads/288.pdf) of research work by industry and university that confirm the trend expressed also in your above statement. It is extremely urgent we address your statements, the other research work and trends about the future direction of the research in this field during this workshop.

After having assessed that it is necessary for an improvement in efficiency at a lower cost per photon captured, the logical next step is to analyze how my innovations were misinterpreted on many occasions

I am only sending this email to your colleagues involved in this conference and to the Director of Research of the University of Pisa who is supporting this Conference. However, because many people are interested in solving the cancer problem and during my seminars cancer patients ask me who is competent in this field and what kind of answer I receive from them, it would not be fair to hide your answers from them because they are the ones who pay for research with their tax-money and donations.

Looking forward to your reply,

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

—–Original Message—–
From: PSMR2015 [mailto:psmr2015@df.unipi.it]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:48 AM
To: unitedtoendcancer@att.net;alberto.delguerra@df.unipi.it; belcari@df.unipi.it;michela.tosetti@fsm.unipi.it; aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it;toncelli@df.unipi.it; valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it;giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it; fantacci@df.unipi.it; info@3d-computing.com
Subject: Fwd: PSMR2015 – rejection of abs

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: PSMR2015 – rejection of abstract submission

Date: 2015-03-23 8:44 am

From: PSMR2015 <psmr2015@df.unipi.it>

To: crosetto@att.net

Reply-To: psmr2015@df.unipi.it

——– Forwarded Message ——–

Subject: Re: PSMR2015 – rejection of abstract submission

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:28:17 +0100

From: Alberto Del Guerra <alberto.delguerra@df.unipi.it>

To: Dario Crosetto <crosetto@att.net>

##################################

TRANSLATION TO ENGLISH

##################################

Dear Crosetto,

Your abstract/summary has been reviewed like all others by the reviewers based on three criteria:

Scientific novelty/Completeness/Relevance for (S)PET/MR. The referee global evaluation was very low and all recommended to “reject”.

I am sorry.

Please avoid to interfere with colleagues who are not involved with the conference. Greetings, Alberto Del Guerra

**********************************

ORIGINAL MESSAGE IN ITALIAN FROM DEL GUERRA

**********************************

Caro Crosetto,

il tuo abstract/summary e’ stato esaminato come tutti gli altri dai referee secondo tre criteri:

Scientific novelty/Completeness/Relevance for (S)PET/MR La valutazione globale dei referee e’ stata estremamente bassa, e tutti hanno raccomandato il “reject”

Mi spiace.

Ti pregherei inoltre di evitare di interferire con colleghi che non sono coinvolti con la conferenza saluti alberto del guerra

--
Alberto Del Guerra
Adjunct Professor of Medical Physics
TRIMAGE Project Coordinator
Former Head of the Functional Imaging and Instrumentation Group
Former Director and Head, Specialty School in Medical Physics

Department of Physics “E.Fermi”
University of Pisa
Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, I-56127   PISA, Italy

Phone: +39-050-2214942; fax:+39-050-2214333
E_mail: alberto.delguerra@df.unipi.it

**********************************************************

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:44 PM
To: ‘Lucia Lilli’; ‘alberto.delguerra@df.unipi.it’; ‘belcari@df.unipi.it’; ‘fantacci@df.unipi.it’; ‘aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it’; ‘valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it’; ‘toncelli@df.unipi.it’; ‘michela.tosetti@fsm.unipi.it’; ‘giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it’
Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’
Subject: RE: PSMR2015 – rejection of abstract submission

Dear Dr. Tosetti,

Thank you for taking my phone call today. I understand that you were in a meeting and you had to interrupt our conversation; however, I appreciate you offering to continue our discussion at a more convenient time and also to read my abstract and summary. Please suggest a date and time convenient to you for a conference call to continue our interrupted conversation.

For your convenience (and of those copied in this email), I provide a link to my bio that was recently requested from the Chairman of the ISECM Conference who invited me as a session keynote speaker at his conference after noticing my 32-page paper in the proceedings of the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in Korea.

http://nscj.co.uk/ecm3/sessions/DarioCrosetto.pdf

During our phone conversation, I asked whether you receive better information from a 7T MRI or a 1.5T MRI because I was confident we could find a technical-scientific reason on which we could agree, as we did after your explanation that the 7T MRI has a better S/N ratio and then I asked you the second question – whether you prefer a PET capturing one out of several thousand signals emitted by the tumor markers or another PET capturing one signal out of 25 emitted. I expected we would also find a technical-scientific reason to agree on the second question as well. However, our conversation was interrupted and I never received an answer.

I see that you are part of Dr. Del Guerra’s FIIG team, and I took your advice to call him as you stated he is an authoritative (autorevole) person in the field of Medical Imaging. I have tried unsuccessfully to reach him these past two days. Ms. Lilli told me he would be available Thursday so I left my phone number but he did not return my message and I could not find him when I called on Thursday. Ms. Lilli said she would send me an email with Dr. Del Guerra’s cell phone number, but at this time I have not received an email or a phone call.

My question on behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients is why anyone would not be interested in the “ Comparison of benefits between an ultra-sensitive MR/3D-CBS, an ultra-sensitive, highly cost-effective 3D-CBS and other MR/PET and PET using high spatial resolution detector modules” . This should be of interest to any scientist, doctor, physicist, or anyone responsible for serving taxpayers and cancer patients.

I understand that you and I can agree or disagree on technical-scientific issues and we are responsible for our own answers, for those we share with our collaborators, and not for what someone else may think who is not related to our work, team, etc. However, the organizers of the PSMR2015 Conference have more responsibility in providing an answer, while Dr. Del Guerra, the Chairman of the conference, is ultimately taking responsibility for the people that he appointed to work on his behalf.

My next question asked if you, the conference organizer committee and the Chairman would kindly “ point out the paragraph(s) in the attached “abstract” and “summary” that you disagree and you believe is not a positive contribution to better serve taxpayers ”. This is also a legitimate question as part of our professional ethic to provide a technical-scientific reason when we disagree on a technical-scientific issue that is affecting and of interest to taxpayers and cancer patients.

The reason for my question is because I believe that through an in depth dialogue on specific technical-scientific issues, we can understand each other referring to calculations and logical reasoning. I have observed that dialogue and collaboration has worked on many occasions – the most recent one being after 14 years of written Office Actions between my Patent Attorneys and the European Patent Examiners in Munich, everything was resolved after 15 minutes of my presentation and my answering their two specific questions which eliminated their concerns. They were able to recognize the inventive steps of my application and grant the patent.

Therefore, knowing your position that you can speak for yourself but share some responsibilities with FIIG Del Guerra’s group, I would like to accept your offer to continue our conversation on MRI and PET. Because of your position as Director of the Laboratory of Medical Physics and Magnetic Resonance Technologies of IRCCS Stella Maris and IMAGO7 Research Foundation, of a facility having 1.5T MRI and 7T MRI and your interest in the field, I assume you will be attending the PSMR2015 Conference and I hope that you will be in favor to compare different approaches for the benefit of cancer patients you are serving every day in your hospital.

I look forward to your reply stating when would be most convenient time for a conference call,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:59 AM
To: ‘giuseppina.bisogni@pi.infn.it’; ‘psmr2015@df.unipi.it’
Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘crosetto@att.net’
Subject: FW: PSMR2015 – rejection of abstract submission

Dear Dr. Bisogni and PSMR2015 review committee,

Thank you for taking my phone call.

I trust that you will help to address this issue following a scientific procedure that will lead to an answer consistent with science that we can pass on to taxpayers and cancer patients.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 6:59 AM
To: ‘Lucia Lilli’; ‘alberto.delguerra@df.unipi.it’; ‘belcari@df.unipi.it’; ‘fantacci@df.unipi.it’; ‘aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it’; ‘valeria.rosso@pi.infn.it’; ‘toncelli@df.unipi.it’; ‘michela.tosetti@fsm.unipi.it’
Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘crosetto@att.net’
Subject: RE: PSMR2015 – rejection of abstract submission

I regret to receive your email stating that you are not interested in the “Comparison of benefits between an ultra-sensitive MR/3D-CBS, an ultra-sensitive, highly cost-effective 3D-CBS and other MR/PET and PET using high spatial resolution detector modules “ and to follow scientific procedures that make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail.

Would you please point out the paragraph(s) in the attached “abstract” and “summary” that you disagree and you believe is not a positive contribution to better serve taxpayers and cancer patients?

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

From: Lucia Lilli [mailto:lucia.lilli@pi.infn.it]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:02 AM
To: crosetto@att.net
Subject: PSMR2015 – rejection of abstract submission

Dear Prof. CROSETTO, Dario,

we are sorry to inform you that your abstract ID 55

“Comparison of benefits between an ultra-sensitive MR/3D-CBS, an ultra-sensitive, highly cost-effective 3D-CBS and other MR/PET and PET using high spatial resolution detector modules “

has been rejcted.

We do hope that you are able to attend the PSMR2015 Conference as well.

Kind regards

the PSMR2015 Local Organizing Committee

Lucia Lilli

INFN – Pisa

Bldg. C

Largo Bruno Pontecorvo, 3

I-56127 Pisa

phone: +39 050 2214 327

fax: +39 050 2214 317

mobile: +39 334 8998 639

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 *