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

Correspondence between United To End Cancer and the European Commission in regard to the request for a meeting to address the political and strategic approach to improve Transparency in Science and Procedures to Assign Taxpayer Money to Fund Research Projects with the Highest Impact in Advancing Science and Reducing Cancer Deaths and Cost

From: volontari@blog.u2ec.org [mailto:volontari@blog.u2ec.org] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:53 PM
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; Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu
Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net; crosetto@att.net
Subject: Request for a meeting with EU representatives between May 25-28, to discuss Transparency in Science when funding research which uses taxpayer money

Dear Dr. Jean-Claude Juncker, Dr. Frans Timmermans, Dr. Federica Mogherini, Dr. Carlo.Moedas and staff of the European Commission,

I trust that you agree that we (citizens, scientists, funding agencies using taxpayer money to fund scientists) should all feel responsible to eliminate inconsistencies, toward the 7 million people who die prematurely every year from cancer and to every citizen of an industrialized country who has a cost of over $800 per person per year, whether they have cancer or not (totaling $1.4 trillion per year)?

In this spirit and in the spirit of “Transparency” of the “Transparency Register” EU adopted on December 1, 2014, I would like to request to address Dr. Del Brenna’s words in the attached document regarding our conversation on January 7, 2015 (and in other statements from other conversations not reported in the attachment) that are referring to EU policy for the benefit of its citizens.

Respectfully, on behalf of the taxpayers and cancer patients, I request a meeting to address these inconsistencies that involve the responsibility of the European Commission as supported in the previous emails.

Specifically, a meeting with Dr. Moedas or a representative from his cabinet to address the political and strategic issues of transparency in science and the procedure to assign taxpayer funds to projects with the highest potential to advance science and to reduce premature cancer deaths and cost. (This sentence is summarizing our request from the previous correspondence and phone conversations and is added to the original email dated May 21, 2015).

From a previous email: “Respectfully, I am requesting a face-to-face meeting with EU representatives [to comply with EU rules] to explain the long overdue benefits of a breakthrough invention (3D-CBS) that was recently recognized by the European Patent Office (EPO) after a face-to-face meeting. During this meeting I was able to clearly state my case and answer their concerns which the entire back and forth written actions between the patent examiners and several patent lawyers were unable to accomplish. Fortunately, my last patent lawyer and the EPO examiners recognized the need for this face-to-face meeting which brought swift results after 14 years of uncertainty because I could answer all concerns. For this reason, I would like this meeting so I may state my case and answer any concerns you or your experts may have. I will be in Europe and available to meet anytime Monday, May 25th through Thursday, May 28th 2015.”

Looking forward to your positive reply,

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

Attachments:

Attachment A: Copy of the previous correspondence with the European Commission

Attachment B: Copy of the correspondence with the European Commission and scientists

Attachment C: Text of the conversation on January 7, 2015 between Ms. Del Brenna, Mr. Crosetto and Mr. Marabotto

Attachment D: Supporting material to explain the important problem of solving the most costly and deadly calamity

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:34 AM
To: ‘Carlo.Moedas@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Jean-Claude.Juncker@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Frans.Timmermans@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Federica.Mogherini@eeas.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’
Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘crosetto@att.net’
Subject: RE: It is clear that we have come to a total misunderstanding and I hope that we can turn back the clock, so to speak, so we can have a more cordial relationship.

Dear Dr. Moedas,

I called the office of Ms. Claire Lombard on Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 16:25 and I was asked by the person at the desk that was not Ms. Lombard to call back after half hour. I did call back after half hour and I was able to talk to Ms. Lombard who said that the Commission is in a procedure that is not entitle to answer to me anymore, …no one in the Commission.

The reason I received this answer is that according to all your collaborators the Commission provided the answer to my questions on January 13, 2015. I looked at Ms. Del Brenna’s email dated January 13, 2015 (see below) and I read her statement: “We thank Ms Vidal-Ragout and consider that your request has been addressed in the appropriate way”, however, there is no record of any answer or report that the Commission sent me in writing. I also listened our recorded conversation and I do not find any answer.

Please could you provide any record that you consider “your request has been addressed in the appropriate way?”

I hoped that by providing the proofs that there were some inconsistencies in Del Brenna’s statements (including the one that I call her office repeatedly while I was just diligently doing what her secretary told me to do), to all your Cabinet she would find a remedy by providing what she claimed she had provided or some colleagues would do it.

My intention is to collaborate with your Cabinet and avoid getting into a dead-lock where Ms. Del Brenna tells her colleagues that I am repetitive and that she has addressed the issue in an appropriate way, while there is no record of any answer she provided and there are instead violations in what Del Brenna stated during our phone conversation that she would do and provide.

Please advise how you want to proceed to best fulfil the mission of your Cabinet serving the taxpayer and cancer patient that I represent with the over 7,000 signatures.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 6:39 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’; ‘robert-jan.smits@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Christos.Styliandes@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’
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’
Subject: Re: Inventions beneficial to society long overdue: Request for a meeting with EU representatives between May 25-28, to discuss Transparency in Science when funding research which uses taxpayer money

Dear Mr. Jean Claude JUNCKER, President of the European Union and world leaders,

Respectfully, I am requesting a face-to-face meeting with EU representatives to explain the long overdue benefits of a breakthrough invention (3D-CBS) that was recently recognized by the European Patent Office (EPO) after a face-to-face meeting. During this meeting I was able to clearly state my case and answer their concerns which the entire back and forth written actions between the patent examiners and several patent lawyers were unable to accomplish. Fortunately, my last patent lawyer and the EPO examiners recognized the need for this face-to-face meeting which brought swift results after 14 years of uncertainty because I could answer all concerns. For this reason, I would like this meeting so I may state my case and answer any concerns you or your experts may have. I will be in Europe and available to meet anytime Monday, May 25th through Thursday, May 28th 2015.

The ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS (3-D Compete Body Screening) is a breakthrough technology which, unlike other low sensitivity 6,000 PET/CT (Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography) devices on the market is designed to detect cancer at its earliest stage when most curable. It does this in a single examination, using a safe level of radiation and at a very low cost. The combination of these features makes it unique in the field of medical imaging, giving it the ability to save many lives at a very low examination cost.

We have known for over 60 years that early detection saves at least 50% of lives, yet my invention that can provide an effective early detection has not received funding and has been obstructed at conferences. It took six years to receive its U.S. patent and 14 years to receive its European patent; its recognition by funding agencies and scientists trusted by funding agencies so that its benefits may be brought to society, is long overdue. Instead, funding agencies are funding the opposite trend of PET having high spatial resolution, low sensitivity and a high examination cost.

The obstruction, delay and prevention of the benefits of my invention to humanity by people responsible to recognize and fund advancements in science demand a public discussion at the political/strategic level and at the technical level with government agencies funding research.

People ask me why leaders holding positions of responsibility like yours toward over 450 million people, handling a budget of billions of dollars do not want to hear the concept of an invention that is understandable to high school students, that has the possibility to defeat themostdeadly (6.5 premature lives per year) andcostly ($1.4 trillion per year) calamity that is breaking the speed, power and cost barrier in real-time applications to advance science in particle detection, early cancer detection and many other fields.

Why are you not willing to call your best experts in the field who are advising you on the strategies to best serve the 450 million EU citizens and the world, for a public discussion on this important matter?

My basic invention which received its U.S. patent in 1999 was formally recognized 23 years ago by world experts from the most important research centers (including representatives from CERN-Geneva), academia and industries in the field at a major scientific review held at the U.S. FERMI National Laboratory, followed by my other inventions from the year 2000 leading to the 3D-CBS for an effective early cancer detection was recognized in several public scientific reviews (including the Leonardo da Vinci competition which my 3D-CBS won in 2011). In spite of its proven technological advantages that have consistently proven to have superseded current scientific theories, the 3D-CBS has been obstructed or ignored and not yet received funding. Until its benefits reach society, lives will continue to be lost needlessly without this superior early cancer screening device designed to save lives, not just measure tumors.

Detailed information is provided below.

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto, President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction in Cancer Deaths

The following is information addressed to you as a public officer holding a position of responsibility as well as to you as a private citizen and to all private citizens who are interested to contribute to solve the most deadly and costly calamity.

The benefits to society, to cancer patients and to taxpayers from my inventions are long overdue.

The benefit to save millions of lives and to reduce healthcare costs: The invention of the 3D-CBS technology has the ability to effectively detect cancer at an early curable stage, requiring a very low radiation dose in a single examination covering all organs of the body, and has a low affordable examination cost.

  • After 14 years, on February 6, 2015, it was finally understood and recognized by the European Patent Office (EPO), when it received its European patent after I had a face-to-face meeting with the patent examiners that gave me the opportunity to answer their concerns.
  • After 6 years, in 2006, it was understood and recognized by the United States Patent Office (USPTO) when it received its American patent.
  • In 2011, it won the Leonardo da Vinci competition for the most efficient solution in particle detection targeted to early cancer diagnosis, held publicly via the web from the University of Pavia, Italy, on their 600 year anniversary.
  • For 14 years it has been understood and recognized by top scientists and world experts in several public scientific reviews and has consistently proven to have superseded current scientific theories when scientists and industries supporting them had to recant their claims as mine continued to be proven correct.
  • The innovative concept was proven with simulation and hardware implementation to be feasible and functional.

The benefit to discover new subatomic particles and reduce the cost of high energy physics experiments: The invention of the 3D-Flow parallel-processing architecture for advancing particle detection (and benefitting other fields such as medical imaging with the 3D-CBS technology).

  • After 7 years, it was understood and recognized in 1999 by the United States Patent Office when it received its United States patent.
  • On December 14, 1993, after a day of presentation followed by questions and answers at a major international public scientific review requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider held at FERMILab, it was formally recognized in a written report compiled by the review committee and made public on January 31, 1994.
  • After its presentation in one month in 1992 at 3 international conferences and its publication in 2 scientific journals, I received much written recognition from top scientists in the field.
  • It was proven to have superseded other scientific theories when scientists supporting them had to recant their claims as mine continued to be proven correct.
  • The innovative concept was proven with simulation and hardware implementation to be feasible and functional.

Because my invention has the potential to save many lives and reduce costs to society, I have made a commitment to donate the majority of the income received from the licensing of my patents of the 3D-CBS technology to cancer patients . Because of my dedication to research to advance fundamental science, I offered CERN in the past a free license to use my 3D-Flow invention for the discovery of new particles.

The reason why after 23 years society, cancer patients and taxpayers still have not received full benefits from my inventions is because government funding agencies, foundations and cancer organizations handling money from taxpayers, philanthropists and donors, are advised by anonymous reviewers who meet in closed door sessions deciding which research to fund. These anonymous reviewers are not being held accountable for their scientific claims to reduce cancer deaths and cost and to advance science by using the most powerful tools to discover new subatomic particles in the most cost-effective manner.

What is the solution if those who have the responsibility to assign funds for research claim to be scientifically incompetent and trust only influential scientists who meet in closed door sessions?

The solution is to give an opportunity for the inventor to explain his invention and answer all questions and concerns in a face-to-face public meeting, or at a conference, on TV, on radio, to anyone who has the responsibility to accelerate the benefits of an invention to humanity. (See additional answers at this link)

We should not be afraid to open the door to advancements in science and should be aware that inventions and discoveries superseded scientific theories in the past, and will continue to in the future regardless of obstructions from influential scientists supporting previous theories. For example:Newtonian physics superseded Aristotelian physics;Snell’s law replaced Ptolemy‘s law ofrefraction;Nicolaus Copernicus‘ Heliocentric modelreplaced Ptolemaic system, of theGeocentric universe; The discovery of the structure of theMilky Way, made obsolete Heliocentric universe;Johannes Kepler andIsaac Newton made obsolete Copernican system;General relativity superseded Newtonian gravity.

Twenty-three years ago, my “3D-Flow” superseded the “cabled logic” for the Level-1 Trigger applications to discover new particles and lowering HEP experiment costs, and even now still supersedes the “FPGA” (Field Programmable Gate Array). My 3D-CBS technology targeted to early cancer detection supersedes all other medical imaging devices because it can maximize results in reduction in cancer deaths and cost because of the synergy among the three features of a) high sensitivity, b) low radiation dose and c) low examination cost that are not offered all at once in other devices.

It should be possible to communicate the new inventive step with simple analogies and calculations as other ideas that superseded previous scientific theories have done; for example, the Heliocentric model that replaced the geocentric theory was proven with observations and calculations. Other theories were proven first with calculations and understood to laymen and then money was raised for a small public experiment like Galileo did when he dropped two objects of different weight from a tower.

What is your reaction to and how can you support the work of an inventor stating scientific truths and concepts beneficial to you and humanity such as the following which are understandable to high school students?

  1. Do you understand that in order to measure the dimensions of small tumors to save millions of lives with early detection, it is necessary to capture all possible signals from the tumor markers? However, current and new PET modules designed for future PET (Positron Emission Tomography) can only detect larger tumors because they capture only one signal from every several thousand emitted, and not enough signals are emitted from small tumors to be seen.
  2. Do you understand that these PET modules have defects akin to bullet proof vests that are too thin and have holes like Swiss cheese and therefore cannot save the wearer’s life? They can only serve the interests of drug companies who want to show the shrinkage effect their drug is having on large tumors to increase sales, even though the average life extension from Avastin, one of the leading chemotherapy drugs, is only 4.4 months at a cost of over $10,000 per month. Instead, experimental data has proven for over 60 years that early detection could save 50% of the annual 6.5 million premature cancer deaths.
  3. Do you understand that my 3D-CBS invention is greatly beneficial to humanity because it is proven year after year to have superseded other more costly and less efficient approaches? Experimental data prove that these other approaches have wasted billions of dollars in physics research and do not have the capability as mine does to prevent millions of deaths, but have been funded with your taxpayer money. Will you support public workshops and scientific procedures and the funding of 3D-CBS prototypes with your taxpayer and donation money to accelerate the benefits of inventions to you, your loved ones and humanity? Sign the petition and/or make a donation to the non-profit organization at United to End Cancer www.u2ec.org.
  4. Do you understand that… (see other examples at this link). If you have questions, and/or doubts, please write to requests@unitedtoendcancer.org.

A reaction by many is to claim incompetence, referring to authorities (scientists and decision-makers) and some get upset when asked to use their reasoning to evaluate scientific evidence, understandable to high school students. Even in this latter case many people continued to refer to scientists with titles and reputations, and the knowledge accepted for decades, centuries or millenniums. For example: Aristotle’s Theory, that heavier objects fall faster was believed for 2,000 years; however, a twelve-year-old student without a degree like Aristotle, can show with calculations, simple reasoning and an experiment that dropping two similar-shaped objects having different weights from the top of a tower reach the ground at the same time, and prove Aristotle’s theory wrong. Those who would continue to refer to the authority in science and refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence would lose credibility.

No matter if the contributors to research are laymen donating $10 or the directors of funding agencies with their millions of dollars; no matter the occupation – plumber, mechanic, lawyer, economist, physicist, journalist, physician, dean or vice president of a university, president of a large foundation or bank, the Director of NIH, NCI, NIBIB, a Commissioner of the EU, head of an agency for Research and Innovation at the European Commission; if they read carefully the three paragraphs above they would understand the inconsistencies or they can ask for clarification. Your common sense would not suggest protecting a Navy-SEAL with a thin bullet-proof vest having holes like Swiss cheese, so why is research with a similar defect, requiring high radiation, a high examination cost and which cannot detect tumors at an early stage being funded? It is understandable that the people listed above (plumbers, lawyers, economists, journalists, directors of funding agencies, etc.) cannot discuss details of a specific technology with the experts; however, it is their responsibility to make the recipients of their donations whether 10 dollars or millions of dollars ACCOUNTABLE for their claimed competence in reducing cancer deaths and cost and in advancing science by requesting the following from them:

  1. That they defend their scientific claims in an open, public workshop where scientists can question each other. If they cannot agree using calculations and logical reasoning in a transparent discussion, they should agree to conduct two experiments where the results determine who is right and who is wrong. Funding agencies should fund both experiments, not just the one that is increasing the cancer business and not reducing cancer deaths as demonstrated by historical data.
  2. That they provide a plan estimating results in reduction of cancer deaths and cost when testing their project/idea/invention on a sample population; for example: 10,000 people in the age group, 55 to 74 taken from a location where, in the previous 20 years, the mortality rate was constant (e.g. 0.5%). A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution. (This test would be fair for any proposed solution, whether it be a drug, vaccine, diagnostic device, or a program to change lifestyle, etc. The one providing the highest results must be considered most valuable).

NOW THAT YOU KNOW the inconsistencies in science that are damaging you monetarily and more importantly, in lives lost. It is essential for you to take action! (See at this link the actions that need to be taken to accelerate the benefits of my inventions to you and to humanity. The media should inform the public and we need to inform scientists, decision-makers, politicians and funding agencies directly at their work location or at conferences as was done at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in November 2013; at the same conference in November 2014; at the U.S. DOE and U.S. NIH and NCI in December 2014; at one of the largest European Foundations in December 2014; at the major world research laboratory at CERN in Geneva and at the European Commission, Science, Research and Innovation in January 2015).

It is essential for your benefit to obtain public answers from people who handle taxpayer and donor money and to report all those who provide careless, irresponsible, incompetent answers, and those who deliberately oppress, delay or deny through arrogance and corruption the benefits from advancements in science that can lead to reduction of cancer deaths.

To receive the benefits for you and your loved ones it is necessary to build my invention for an effective low cost screening of all organs of the body in a single examination proven to have the highest potential to solve the most deadly and costly calamity by significantly reducing cancer deaths and cost.Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the non-profit foundation:Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths” at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?page_id=185

The Committee of United to End Cancer

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2015 11:30 PM
To: ‘Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Carlo.Moedas@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Jean-Claude.Juncker@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Frans.Timmermans@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Federica.Mogherini@eeas.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’
Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’; ‘crosetto@att.net’
Subject: It is clear that we have come to a total misunderstanding and I hope that we can turn back the clock, so to speak, so we can have a more cordial relationship.

Dear Ms. Del Brenna,

Thank you for your response to my email. I had prepared this e-mail the first week of February, however I had a mild heart attack which was corrected with two stents in my artery. I am now back to my normal work.

It is clear that we have come to a total misunderstanding and I hope that we can turn back the clock, so to speak, so we can have a more cordial relationship.

I want to clarify the events you outline because you say my request was repetitive and had already been addressed in the appropriate way, but I don’t believe this to be true.

My initial request was to speak with Cabinet Minister, Moedas. It is true that I did speak with Dr. Maria Jose Vidal-Ragout and Dr. Fredrik Olsson-Hector on technical matters, but as you know they do not have the same responsibilities, and I still wanted to speak with Dr. Moedas on political matters.

After you responded that you believed my concerns had been addressed appropriately by speaking with Dr. Vidal-Ragout and Dr. Olsson-Hector, I wrote again on January 20th telling you they had not, and renewed my request for a meeting with Dr. Moedas or one of his colleagues in May. When I did not hear back after nine days I sent a reminder on January 29th.

I waited another two weeks and when I had still not heard back from you I made a phone call on February 12th in the morning (Brussels time) and spoke with your assistant who I believe is Ms. Duarte and I left my phone number, as I did the previous times asking to kindly return my call. She told me you were out and to call back at 3 p.m. which I did. At that time, she told me you had returned but went out again and to call back at 5 p.m. Again, I did as told and finding you once more not in your office, I left my phone number.

Shortly thereafter I received your last email saying “You … called my office repeatedly etc.”

So you see, the last two phone calls I made on February 12th (the three in one day) were only made at the request of your assistant who had told me to call back, and my first one that day was only made because I had been waiting since January 20th – more than 3 weeks – for a response to my email. My enquiry was legitimate because in a previous conversation you mentioned that the EU staff must respond within 15 days.

It was a different experience when I left a message at the main number at the European Commission on Friday, January 2, 2015, as my phone call was returned on Monday, January 5th, explaining that the voice message on the answering machine was inaccurate since Jan. 2, 2015 was still a holiday and my question was answered. I had another returned phone call later and I participated in a survey indicating “excellent service” as score for both returned phone calls. I am puzzle why you never returned any phone calls and made the remark that I call your office “repeatedly” while I was just diligently doing what your secretary told me to do.

I also took your words seriously that if I wanted to talk to you or any EU Commissionaires, members of the cabinets, or Director Generals that I needed to first register at the “Transparency Register”, because the conversation would then be recorded and later streamed on an EU website. I was very glad to hear about the EU’s spirit for transparency and for the same reason EU adopts this transparency because do not want people to think that there are secret discussions between individuals and UE staff, I immediately registered at the EU “Transparency Register” and recorded my conversations to eventually prove to cancer patients that I discussed arguments in their interest and nothing secret.

Ms. Del Brenna, I appreciate you believing my request had been addressed appropriately, but until I speak with Moedas or one of his people on a very important matter, it really has not been. Besides, I have heard nothing regarding the technical report promised from Dr. Ragout.

I am sorry that our correspondence has not gone in the direction either of us would want. I hope we can come to a new understanding.

I will not disturb your Agency for some weeks, as I will not be in Brussels again until May. However, I am interested in receiving the technical report from my meeting with Dr. Ragout Vital because my record shows that she said the answer to my questions should be provided by the Cabinet of Dr. Moedas since they are regarding political matters that she cannot answer. I would also like to receive the report about our meeting with Dr. Olsson-Hector.

During our conversation you mentioned that you will ask your technical people to provide an official “detailed” answer after they met with me and analyzed what I wrote . I also mentioned that I have tried to summarize in the two paragraphs that are also reported below and in the three items supporting each of the two paragraphs describing how serious the problem is. It is serious because we have an annual economical cancer cost of $1.4 trillion obtaining in 50 years only 5% cancer death reduction. This shows inconsistency in the strategy used, which is a political matter.

I also offer to provide more documentation, up to thousands of pages. However, I have not received the report where I could see if more pages are needed and in which area to address possible concerns. You also mentioned: “ Now it is difficult to obtain during this first week of January a meeting, perhaps we can have one in a month, because it is important to go to speak to the people who know what you are talking about ”. (Vidal-Olson).

I hope that in the near future our conversation can be more cordial.

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

From: Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu [mailto:Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 11:54 AM
To: volunteers@u2ec.org
Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net ; crosetto@att.net
Subject: RE: Request for a meeting at the UE in Brussels on May 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money

Dear Mr. Crosetto,

You wrote to the Cabinet of Commissioner Moedas and to a number of other Commission colleagues on 5 January requesting a meeting “at the UE in Brussels on January 8, or January 9, 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money”.

We spoke on the phone and I gave you the necessary contacts in the relevant services of the European Commission. You acknowledged the information I provided on 7 January 2015 and reiterated your request to meet with Commissioner Moedas or his team. To this I answered the same day that I noted that you were already to meet his services.

You met indeed with relevant colleagues in DG RTD and in the Research Executive Agency.

You reiterated your request on 12 January 2015. I replied on 13 January that we considered your request had been addressed in the appropriate way.

Again, on 20 January 2015, you requested a date for a meeting next May, copying a number of other Commissioners’ Cabinets. You sent a reminder on 29 January 2015 and called my office repeatedly.

The Commission reserves the right to discontinue correspondence which is repetitive. You correspondence qualifies on this account, and I regret to inform you that the Commission will not be replying to any future correspondence from you on this subject.

Best regards,

Giulia Del Brenna

Deputy Head of Cabinet
European Commission
Cabinet of Commissioner Moedas
Research, Science and Innovation

BERL 09/111

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Brussels

Tel: +32 2 29 58090

Gsm : +32 498 958090

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 7:23 PM
To: DEL BRENNA Giulia (CAB-MOEDAS)
Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net ; crosetto@att.net
Subject: FW: Request for a meeting at the UE in Brussels on May 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money

Dear Ms. Del Brenna,

Please could you let us know when we should expect the answer with a proposed date(s) for the meeting in May, 2015?

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:36 AM
To: ‘Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Carlo.Moedas@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Jean-Claude.Juncker@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Frans.Timmermans@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Federica.Mogherini@eeas.europa.eu’; ‘robert-jan.smits@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Christos.Styliandes@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’; ‘CAB-SEFCOVIC-WEB@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’; ‘Filip.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’; ‘borgna@apre.it’; ‘bossi@apre.it’; ‘buonocore@apre.it’; ‘federico.cinquepalmi@miur.it’; ‘dagostino@apre.it’; ‘delorenzo@apre.it’; ‘dimaggio@apre.it’; ‘insogna@apre.it’; ‘schisani@apre.it’; ‘desole@apre.it’; ‘Antonio.VICENTE@ec.europa.eu’; ‘Maria-Da-Graca.CARVALHO1@ec.europa.eu’; ‘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’
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’
Subject: RE: Request for a meeting at the UE in Brussels on May 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money

Dear Ms. Del Brenna,

I was sorry to read in your email dated January 13th that you believe my request to meet with EU Commissioners “… has been addressed in the appropriate way” because evidence points to the contrary.

There is strong, irrefutable evidence based on EU rules, the need to comply with transparency and to mandates received from the citizens, that this case cannot be closed until my request has been addressed in the appropriate way. Therefore, on behalf of the citizens and cancer patients who lose their money and lives, I request a meeting with EU Commissionaires, members of the cabinets, or Director Generals, to address the specific lack of accountability in assigning research funds resulting in the disproportion between huge investments in research in two very important fields and meager results and the reasons why the cost-effective solutions that have existed for decades remain unfunded. We need to address in particular the largest, most expensive experiment in the history of the planet at CERN and the most deadly and costly calamity: cancer.

In fact, during our meetings with EU officers on January 8, 2015, Mr. Fredrik Hector Olsson, Head of the Unit of the REA.A.3 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research and Innovation, after listening to the irrefutable evidence I gave regarding the CERN Axial-PET project funded by the EU Marie Skłodowska-Curie Program, stated that I should report the mismanagement of this project. Furthermore, Ms. Vidal-Ragout clearly stated that she could not address the EU strategy on Research and Innovation that ignores existing solutions available for decades, while implementing strategies that increases rather than decreases the disproportion between huge investments and meager results. She did, however, promise to find the names and departments at the European Commission that could address these concerns in a transparent manner.

I was sorry to hear the detached, hard tone of your voice when I called you on January 13, 2015. It was not against me, but against transparency and the dialogue that would provide benefits to citizens and cancer patients. Perhaps you were afraid to admit that during our previous conversation on January 7, 2015, you had said that if the claims I had made in my letter were correct, then transparency and the dialogue on facts would unveil that the EU strategy during the past 30 years was wrong. As I mentioned by phone and email, a premature death from cancer occurs in the world every 5 seconds. Saving as many lives as possible as soon as possible by analyzing past errors, being open to innovations, and enforcing transparency among scientists (who should discuss publicly how their research is expected to reduce cancer deaths and the cost to society and defend their claims against other scientists who may question them), should compensate for and be more important than the pride of those responsible for funding who have obtained little results.

(True scientists like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, etc. did not hesitate to admit mistakes and correct them. You can find an example in the recent movie “The Theory of Everything” about Stephen Hawking where he admits being wrong and is eager to correct his mistake ASAP).

I was pleased to hear the enthusiastic tone of your voice during our first conversation on January 6, 2015, when you were happy to tell me the new requirements of the “Transparency Database” starting from December 1, 2014, where meetings between EU representatives and citizens or organizations are recorded and made public. I could hear in your voice how proud you were to work for an organization like the EU where rules are intended to protect and serve the interests of the citizens.

I was therefore taken aback the next day and on January 13, 2015, when I heard the change in your voice as you tried to deny me a meeting, going against what you had told me on January 6, denying a dialogue and transparency regarding irrefutable facts on two important issues largely affecting EU and world citizens. Now that I have made it clear in writing and later orally on January 8 to Mr. Frederick Olsson and Ms. Vidal-Ragout that there exists a disproportion between investments and results caused by a specific lack of accountability in assigning research funds (proven by the flaws as detailed in the 3 + 3 points to the two paragraphs of the document that they could not refute), your actions of obstruction to a dialogue and transparency are equivalent to a cover up and denial of benefits to the citizens.

To understand the evidence of my claims does not require an act of faith in a “qualified expert”, as I was told by Mr. Olssen during our January 8th meeting, as they can be easily understood by a high school student (although I am happy to discuss them with any expert). It is as simple as demonstrating that Aristotle was wrong by measuring the length of the shadow of a stick placed at different latitudes (even a 12 years old student can prove things that cannot be refuted by “qualified experts”). The judge in science is always: “calculations, logical reasoning and ultimately the results of an experiment”.

The EU Marie Curie Program funded the CERN Axial-PET project, which has a very high spatial resolution and very low efficiency. Therefore, it cannot reduce cancer deaths and is only increasing costs because it cannot detect small tumors at an early stage, which is when the probability of success in saving a patient’s life is highest. These new PET modules for medical imaging have defects akin to bulletproof vests that are too thin and have holes like Swiss cheese. CERN’s Axial-PET module is similarly incapable of capturing more than one signal from tumor markers out of thousands of signals. In this way, most signals are unused and therefore useless: small tumors remain undetected as only large or fast growing tumors emit enough signals to be seen by these inefficient detectors.

It is not hard to understand that these PET devices are built to serve the drug companies who want to show the shrinkage of large tumors that emit thousands of signals. By showing that the drug can shrink the tumor from 25 mm to 24.5 mm they can increase their sales. However, the low sensitivity of these devices will not see small tumors emitting only hundreds of signals (unless a very high radiation dose to increase the emission of signals is administered to the patient with the risk of inducing cancer).

Only the implementation and enforcement of the rules in place at EU on transparency and dialogue can serve the interests of citizens and cancer patients regarding the most deadly and costly calamity. Therefore, I renew my request for a meeting on May 2015 (please suggest a date) with EU officers that will be transparent, recorded and published on the UE website as you stated during our first phone conversation on January 6th, 2015, to address the EU strategy, which will reduce the disproportion between huge investments in research and meager results and address the underlying cause: the lack of accountability .

I look forward to your positive reply.

Respectfully,

Dario Crosetto

From: Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu [mailto:Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:29 PM
To: crosetto@att.net
Cc: Antonio.VICENTE@ec.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
Subject: RE: Request for a meeting at the UE in Brussel on January 8, or January 9, 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money

Dear Mr Crosetto,

I note that you were able to inform the relevant services under the responsibility of Commissioner Moedas of your concerns (meeting with Ms Vidal-Ragout).

We thank Ms Vidal-Ragout and consider that your request has been addressed in the appropriate way.

Best regards,

Giulia Del Brenna

Deputy Head of Cabinet

European Commission
Cabinet of Commissioner Moedas
Research, Science and Innovation

BERL 09/111

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Brussels

Tel: +32 2 29 58090

Gsm : +32 498 958090

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 8:24 AM
To: DEL BRENNA Giulia (CAB-MOEDAS)
Cc: VICENTE Antonio (CAB-MOEDAS); CAB MOEDAS ARCHIVES; unitedtoendcancer@att.net; VIDAL-RAGOUT Maria Jose (RTD); WILKKI Minna (RTD); crosetto@att.net; OLSSON HECTOR Fredrik (REA)
Subject: RE: Request for a meeting at the UE in Brussel on January 8, or January 9, 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money

Dear Ms. Del Brenna,

I was surprised that after telling me on the phone Tuesday, January 6, 2015 how democratic, open, and transparent the European Commission is, and saying I was welcome to have a meeting with someone on your team, the possibility appears now to have faded away. You told me that first I should register at the “Transparency Register” which would allow our conversation with the Commissioner to be publicly streamed on an EU website, but that if I was not registered you would be available to meet over coffee. However, after I sent you my two paragraphs describing the urgent need to address two scientific inconsistencies involving the European Commission, including “how EU‑funded research can be used more effectively” and how to avoid the continual premature loss of 6.5 million lives per year knowing that a solution has existed for 14 years, and to avoid wasting billions of dollars in physics research knowing that a solution has existed for 22 years to cost-effectively discover new particles at a lower cost, you now are no longer eager to address them.

Isn’t there a good reason to accelerate the meeting to learn as soon as possible how to prevent the premature death of a person from cancer every 5 seconds? And how to stop wasting another $30 billion in the next 10 years on High Energy physics experiments?

I was surprised that you did not respond to my request to meet with a member of your team (the team of Carlos Moedas to which you are a member) or to a person appointed by Moedas, but preferred to leave this task, which clearly has a strategic issue pertinent to your group, to people of the executive group such as Ms. Vidal Ragout. I organized a meeting independently with Ms. Vidal Ragout DG Research and Innovation and Fredrik Hector Olsson, Marie Curie Research and Innovation group, to talk about specific issues; however, I supported my two paragraphs with three examples of proofs that the approach of the solutions to both problems were flawed.

In fact, no one could refute my claims in the two paragraphs and in the three supporting arguments; however, they could not address the change of strategies and rules because that is the task of the team of Moedas that you are part of it.

After you told me on the phone Wednesday morning that you interpreted my two paragraphs and the three proofs supporting them as saying that what the European Commission has done these past 30 years is wrong, I could understand your desire to have technical people implementing your strategic plan to check whether my claims and proofs are solid; however, they would not be able to go to the next step of discussing changes to the approach and strategy to fix the flaws.

One thing that I told you on the phone and I stress here again, is that not only you, but many people, including scientists, after learning about existing flaws change their original statements including denying transparency and even obstructing my study and my analysis of facts and data which prove a flawed approach. I hope that it will not occur in this case, and that now I have registered with the “Transparency Register” you will still guarantee a meeting with someone of your group that will follow transparency and that it will be recorded and then streamed on an EU website.

Many people take offense that my innovations make the old approaches obsolete and believe it wrong to discuss the approach carried on by the European Commission, by many scientists and people during the past 30 years. However, it is neither my goal, desire, nor satisfaction to make the European Commission or other scientists, etc., look bad. My goal is to reduce premature cancer deaths and cost and we should all have the courage to understand what is wrong, otherwise we cannot fix it.

From the discussion on Thursday, January 8, 2015 with Hector Olsson, Head of Unit, and Frank Marx, Deputy Head of Unit of the REA.A.3 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research and Innovation, about the low sensitivity, high cost, high spatial resolution CERN Axial-PET project having a detector resembling a thin bullet proof vest with Swiss cheese holes, not useful to reduce cancer deaths and cost, that was funded by the EU Marie Curie program, we could learn they cannot justify their actions. They stated they do not have any responsibility because they appoint qualified reviewers, and if their opinion is different from mine, they have done their job in finding qualified scientists.

Leaders of the European Commission must understand that all employees with responsibility should learn in their training and orientation that the word “opinion” in science, research and innovation does not exist. It is not a part of the vocabulary.

In science the judge is the experiment, and the laws of nature. There cannot be different opinions among scientists. If there is no consensus on calculations, logical reasoning and expected results (e.g. in reducing cancer deaths and cost), both scientists should agree to an experimental set up where the results will tell who is wrong and who is right.

The task of the Commissioner is to enforce transparency in science to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail. They should make sure that different statements from scientists are resolved first with a public debate among the people and then with an experiment .

Therefore, I renew my request for a meeting as you mentioned that will be recorded and published as streaming at the EU website, to cooperate and discuss how to solve the problem of a DISPROPORTION between huge investments in research and meager results because of lack of accountability, starting from the agencies like the European Commission who has the money and has therefore the possibility to fund research and innovations that is solving a problem or postponing a problem.

We should be driven by the desire to solve as soon as possible the most deadly and costly calamity and not be blinded or blocked by the fear of admitting that what has been done so far is wrong.

I am looking forward to your reply.

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

From: Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu [mailto:Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu] Sent: mercoledì 7 gennaio 2015 11:25
To: crosetto@att.net
Cc: Antonio.VICENTE@ec.europa.eu ; CAB-MOEDAS-ARCHIVES@ec.europa.eu;unitedtoendcancer@att.net;Maria-Jose.VIDAL-RAGOUT@ec.europa.eu; Minna.Wilkki@ec.europa.eu
Subject: RE: Request for a meeting at the UE in Brussel on January 8, or January 9, 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money

Dear Mr Crosetto,

Thank you for your e-mail and subsequent phone conversation.

I understand you will be meeting Ms Vidal Ragout in DG Research and Innovation in order to communicate your concerns. She will be sending a report on your meeting and advise on possible and appropriate follow-up.

Best regards,

Giulia Del Brenna

Deputy Head of Cabinet

European Commission
Cabinet of Commissioner Moedas
Research, Science and Innovation

BERL 09/111

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Brussels

Tel: +32 2 29 58090

Gsm : +32 498 958090

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 1:30 AM
To: DEL BRENNA Giulia (CAB-MOEDAS)
Cc: VICENTE Antonio (CAB-MOEDAS); CAB MOEDAS ARCHIVES; unitedtoendcancer@att.net; crosetto@att.net
Subject: RE: Request for a meeting at the UE in Brussel on January 8, or January 9, 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money

Dear Ms. Del-Brenna,

Thank you for your response and precious information you provided. I registered at the “Transparency Register”:

ID number of Fondazione Crosetto per Sconfiggere la Mortalità Prematura da Cancro is: 228808215441-74.

I would like to request a meeting with Commissioner Carlo Moedas, Mr. Antonio Vicente or with you or another member of Moedas’ team or a person appointed by Commissioner Moedas on the important subject described in the email below.

I appreciate your information and organization charts you provided about other teams, and I agree with you that there are several persons among those teams with experience to discuss the topic I propose. However, by reading the description on the website that I report below, I think that Moedas’ Department: Research and Innovation plays a role which it seems it should not be less important than the other.

· Making sure that research funding programmes, notably Horizon 2020, contribute to the Commission’s jobs, growth and investment package.

· Promoting the international excellence of the EU’s research and science and strengthening research capacities and innovation across all Member States

  • Evaluating how EU‑funded research can be used more effectively.
  • Ensuring that Commission proposals are based on scientific evidence.

· Encouraging private companies to apply research to meet challenges faced by society and create more high-quality jobs.

The members of this team seems to be the right persons to evaluate how EU-funded research could be used more effectively to avoid the waste in the past of $50 billion spent in research in particle physics while a solution existed since 23 years, how to avoid the waste of additional $30 billion during the next ten years while an existing solution continue to be ignored and a public scientific procedure continue to be refused. It seems this team would have the right persons to evaluate how EU-funded research could be used more efficiently to solve the most deadly and costly calamity, to avoid the loss of millions of premature lives (6.5 million premature deaths per year) and most costly ($1.4 trillion per year, which is costing over 750 euro per year to each citizen of an industrialized country) while a solution existed since 14 years but is being ignored and open, public, TRANSPARENT scientific procedures are refused.

On behalf of many people that are suffering caused by this most deadly and costly calamity, I trust that someone of Moedas’ team would agree to address the issue listed below in a meeting on January 8, or January 9, 2015.

Looking forward to your positive replay,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

From: Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu [mailto:Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu] Sent: martedì 6 gennaio 2015 17:14
To: crosetto@att.net
Cc: Antonio.VICENTE@ec.europa.eu ; CAB-MOEDAS-ARCHIVES@ec.europa.eu
Subject: RE: Request for a meeting at the UE in Brussel on January 8, or January 9, 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money

Dear Mr Crosetto,

Thank you for your phone call. As discussed, Mr Vicente is not available today and we – as a Cabinet – may not be the right persons to discuss the topics you propose.

You may be interested in contacting the directorate of Ms Draghia-Akli. Please follow this link for the organisation chart of the DG for Research and Innovation:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/dgs/pdf/organisation_en.pdf

Marie Sklodowska-Curie grants are not under the responsibility of Commissioner Moedas (but rather under Commissioner Navracsics) and are managed by DG Education and Culture, please see:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/docs/organisation_en.pdf

For future reference, in case you may wish to meet a Commissioner, a Director-General or a Member of a Cabinet, you need to be registered as an organisation or a self-employed individual under our Transparency Register:

http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/info/homePage.do?redir=false&locale=en

Best regards,

Giulia Del Brenna

Deputy Head of Cabinet

European Commission
Cabinet of Commissioner Moedas
Research, Science and Innovation

BERL 09/111

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Brussels

Tel: +32 2 29 58090

Gsm : +32 498 958090

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 4:13 PM
To: DEL BRENNA Giulia (CAB-MOEDAS)
Subject: FW: Request for a meeting at the UE in Brussel on January 8, or January 9, 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: lunedì 5 gennaio 2015 15:54
To: 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; borgna@apre.it;bossi@apre.it; buonocore@apre.it;federico.cinquepalmi@miur.it; dagostino@apre.it;delorenzo@apre.it; dimaggio@apre.it;insogna@apre.it; schisani@apre.it;desole@apre.it; Antonio.VICENTE@ec.europa.eu;Giulia.DEL-BRENNA@ec.europa.eu;Maria-Da-Graca.CARVALHO1@ec.europa.eu;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
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; bullsandbears@foxnews.com;pao@afne.army.mil; ChrisAddeo@ionmedia.com;vieweremail@ionmedia.com; O2.Online@nbcuni.com;press@pivot.tv; unitedtoendcancer@att.net;crosetto@att.net; redazione@eunews.it; REA-INFO@ec.europa.eu
Subject: Request for a meeting at the UE in Brussel on January 8, or January 9, 2015, with you or one of your representatives to discuss Transparency in Science in funding research using taxpayer money

I will be travelling to Brussel on January 7, 2015 and I would like to ask if you could kindly arrange a meeting on January 8, or January 9, 2015, with UE representatives of the UE Parliament and staff of the European Commissions who are responsible to maximize the use of taxpayers money to advance in research in particle physics and in solving the most deadly and costly calamity: cancer and how to implement Transparency in Science for the benefit of humanity.

We would like to bring to your attention inconsistencies in science and in the use of research funds that are detrimental to taxpayers.

In particular we would like to meet the EU Staff who were part in the process of assigning funding for experiments at CERN (Atlas and CMS) and EU Staff of the European Commission, “Research & Innovation Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions” who were part in the process of assigning funding to the CERN-Axial PET project for high spatial resolution, high cost and very low sensitivity which is detrimental to saving the life of cancer patients.

Because CERN now is making the same mistake that wasted $50 billion and 20 years of work by 10,000 scientists during the past 20 years and refuses OPEN, PUBLIC, TRANSPARENT, WORKSHOPS, but rather they prefer planning, as stated in the CMS and Atlas Technical Design Report, to correct their flaws in the CMS and Atlas instrumentations by using FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) and is going to waste an additional $30 billion during the next 10 years, it is urgent that the European Commission and other funding agencies became aware through an open, public scientific workshop about the flaws to avoid wasting taxpayer money.

It is even more urgent to address in a meeting on January 8 and 9, 2015, the other flaws that prevent maximizing advancement in science in the field of early cancer detection with the 3D-CBS breakthrough technology. This would avoid delaying saving lives and continue to assist powerless to the premature death from cancer of over 6.5 million people per year.

Looking forward to your positive reply, I take the opportunity to wish to all of you a Happy New Year.

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

January 5, 2015

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

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

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

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

1. in the field of particle physics, by wasting taxpayer money on a project costing over$50 billion and 20 years of work by 10,000 scientiststo build flawed instrumentations incapable of performing accurate measurements to identify new particles,while the 3D-Flow-OPRT breakthrough invention, officially recognized by academia at a formal scientific review in 1993 and in subsequent reviews, to efficiently identify new particles (because of its capability to execute object pattern recognition algorithms in a programmable form in real-time on data arriving from the detector at a billion collisions per second), was ignored, remains unfunded, and the author prevented from presenting his invention at scientific conferences. Now they are making the same mistake with FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), wasting an additional $30 billion during the next 10 years.

2. in the field of cancer research by wasting huge amounts of money in the economic cost of cancer of$1.4 trillion per year implementing the flawed approach of mainly developing drugs and treatment of late detection (which experimental data has shown for more than half century to be incapable of significantly reducing premature cancer deaths because there are thousands of different types of cancer that now total 6.5 million deaths per year and is projected to double by 2030), even though (a) it has been known for 68 years that early detection and prompt treatment can avoid over 50% of cancer deaths and (b) the ultrasensitive 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technological breakthrough targeted to early cancer detection has been available for 14 years, based on previous inventions in particle detection, recognized in many public scientific reviews to be effective for early cancer detection of tumors in all organs of the body with a single examination, at low cost, and very low radiation dose, but remains unfunded.

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

1. CMS 125.3 GeV and Atlas 126.5 GeV energy measurements of the same phenomenon in nature of the Higgs boson-like particle. As you would not give money to a shop knowing their scales are not calibrated (balanced), you should not give money to scientists who deceive you and the public by publishing results with uncalibrated instruments. The justification given by Anthony Lavietes, the General Chairman of the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, one of the most important scientific conferences in the field attended by 2,000 scientists, to Crosetto’s question about the discrepancy on the two measurements by CMS and Atlas, was that even on the same instrument measurements can be different to the 15-digit decimal point due to differences in atmospheric pressure, temperature, tides caused by the moon, etc. This answer is not satisfactory because the difference between 125.3 and 126.5 is 0.91% error, which is 100 trillion greater than the error Lavietes indicated. Funding agencies should request a public hearing between Crosetto and leaders in the field responsible for the direction of research to address similar scientific inconsistencies before assigning taxpayer money.

2. Finding 40 Higgs boson-like particles out of 100,000 generated, clearly shows that the billion-dollar instrumentation was inadequate to perform the job it was designed for. The justification given to Crosetto’s question at the plenary meeting of the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference by the keynote speaker Olga Botner, who was on the committee that assigned the 2013 Nobel Prize was the following. She stated that the efficiency of CMS and Atlas instruments was very good, they were very well tested and that the low rate is due to natural phenomena and not due to inefficiency of the instruments. Her statement was contradicted by the answers Crosetto received from the other speakers at the trigger session who specialize in the CMS and Atlas detector and electronics of Level-1 Trigger who admitted the inefficiency of their system as not having the capability to capture data for three to four collisions when a possible Higgs boson-like candidate was detected. Additional proof that Botner’s justification is not scientifically correct is confirmed in the CMS 2013 Trigger Upgrade Technical Design Report which states that the Level-1 trigger electronics must be replaced with OPRT (Object Pattern Recognition Trigger) capabilities because the current trigger was inadequate. Funding agencies should request a public hearing between Crosetto and leaders in the field responsible for the direction of research to address similar scientific inconsistencies before assigning taxpayer money.

3. Wesley Smith, who received over $50 million to develop the CMS Level-1 Trigger and who wrote in his Biographical Sketch that he was responsible for the design and implementation of the CMS trigger and the selection of the data claiming the discovery of the Higgs boson, recanted many of the rejection statements he made to Crosetto during the past 22 years. The most significant was Crosetto’s invention of the 3D-Flow-OPRT providing programmability at Level-1 Trigger at a data rate from thousands of channels at a billion events per second. Smith rejected it stating that programmability al Level-1 Trigger was not needed. During the last meeting between Crosetto and Smith at CERN on August 27, 2008, Smith admitted to having implemented several of Crosetto’s techniques that he had previously rejected, and also admitted the advantages of others that have still not been implemented but would increase efficiency and reduce the cost of High Energy Physics experiments. Funding agencies should request a public hearing between Crosetto and Wesley Smith and other leaders in Level-1 Trigger responsible for the direction of research that led to the waste of $50 billion and 20 years of work by 10,000 scientists, and address similar scientific inconsistencies before assigning additional $30 billion of taxpayer money for the next 10 years.

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

1. On June 2, 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported a study on Avastin, one of the most important chemotherapy drugs on the market. It sold $6.3 billion in 2012, yet, analyzing data for the previous 10 years, it shows prolonging life on average only 4.4 months at a cost of over $10,000 per month.

2. During the past 50 years, the cost of treating cancer at a late stage in the U.S. increased100 times while reduction of cancer mortality was only 5%. In the same period, mortality rate reduction for stroke was 74%, 64% for heart disease, and 58% for flu and pneumonia as reported by the New York Times on April 23, 2009. Experimental data gathered by Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) over several decades show that early cancer detection saves lives, with a survival rate of 90% to 98%. Data reveal NO difference in the mortality rate from cancer in countries which spend or do NOT spend money in an effort to eliminate cancer.

3. Instead of funding the ultrasensitive 3D-CBS technology, existing for the past 14 years, for early detection of cancer in all organs of the body in a single, very low radiation dose and low examination cost, which combined with existing prompt treatment could reduce mortality by 50% and greatly reduce healthcare costs, funding was given for the development of new PET modules for medical imaging that have defects akin to making a bullet-proof vest that is too thin and has holes like Swiss cheese. The request for the development of these PET modules to measure spatial resolution rather than sensitivity is functional to measure only the shrinkage of the tumor that increases drugs sales by creating hope for the patient’s survival. However, reality shows that for more than half century, the life of a cancer patient has been prolonged on average just a few months at a high cost in suffering and money. High sensitivity instead will save lives with early detection.

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

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


Allegati (links will expire on 30/11/2015):

  1. 2015_01_07_Del_Brenna_trascrizione_Italian_English_sh.pdf (151 KB) [application/pdf] Download link: http://webmail.u2ec.org/imp/attachment.php?id=555dfdca-1554-4e15-b3a6-535a25bb2e2b&u=volontari%40blog.u2ec.org
Share it!Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

This post is also available in: Italian

Leave a Reply

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