See this post in pdf.
I fully embrace the mission and objective to defeat cancer once and for all and to make sure that there is no misunderstanding on who the beneficiaries will be from all of our work and for this reason I would like to relaunch it with the name “Cancer Moonshot for Our Children” (#CancerMoonShotForOurChildren). Now that it is clear that is will serve our children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, loved ones and future generations, we should report our plan to reduce cancer deaths and costs to them in a language they understand and not just to big corporations, scientists or experts in the field.
Dear President Barack Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden, Dr. Jim Siegrist, Dr. Patricia Dehmer, Dr. Cherry Murray, Dr. Ernest Moniz, Dr. Anne Lubenow, Dr. Douglas Lowy, Dr. Francis Collins, members of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force and all experts in particle physics, medical imaging and administrators from the thirteen Government Agencies involved in the Cancer Moonshot project,
Again, thank you for your commitment and accepting the responsibility to be part of the National Cancer Moonshot Task Force to serve not only America but the entire world to address possible solutions for the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer.
I fully embrace the mission and objective to defeat cancer once and for all and to make sure that there is no misunderstanding on who the beneficiaries will be from all of our work and for this reason I would like to relaunch it with the name “Cancer Moonshot for Our Children” (#CancerMoonShotForOurChildren).
Now that it is clear that is will serve our children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, loved ones and future generations, we should report our plan to reduce cancer deaths and costs to them in a language they understand and not just to big corporations, scientists or experts in the field.
Because we love our children we will not trick them, cheat them, deceive them or take advantage of their inexperience, showing that we are smarter with more experience and do what we want, but instead we will set rules that will make us accountable to them, protect their ingenuity and leave no room for anyone to deceive them.
I would humbly and respectfully suggest that everyone this weekend goes home and tries to explain to their children, nephews, nieces, grandchildren, etc., from 12 to 18 years of age what the #CancerMoonShotForOurChildren is, his/her work, commitment, how this program differs from many other campaigns launched in the past that did not reach their target because we are now at 8.2 million cancer deaths per year (7 million premature) with the projection to increase if we do not come up with an effective solution. You may explain that the #CancerMoonShotForOurChildren is different because it is transparent, it is based on an open dialogue Vice-President Joe Biden is catalyzing among philanthropist, entrepreneurs, scientists, cancer organizations, activists, cancer patients and taxpayers through Twitter, Facebook, and is based on analyzing analytically and publicly different projects, researches and therapies that are on the cusp of incredible breakthroughs, and is different because it is clearing out the bureaucratic hurdles that were an impediment to discussing analytically and scientifically different projects claiming higher reduction in cancer deaths and cost, and is different because it is asking everyone who makes a claim that they can contribute to a reduction of cancer deaths and cost to estimate the percent of reduction their project expects to obtain and can be measured on a sample population with a standard protocol described below that is considered acceptable and fair to everyone; and is different because it asks these inventors/researchers/proposers/Principal Investigators to provide the cost of the project, when the first results will be available, the link to the scientific description of how these results can be obtained, and how much the operating cost of the program will be, and it will ask all these claims to be defended in a debate, similar to the Presidential Debate where scientists and Principal Investigators can question each other in public.
Protocol to test the efficacy of different projects/ideas/inventions that should be acceptable and fair to everyone: “For example, test the plan/project on 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 the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution.”
The challenge will be to explain all this in simple terms that an adolescent 12 to 18 years of age will understand that eventually will boil down to a table with:
- Project #1 the 3D-CBS device costing approximately $20 million to develop three units, with an operating cost of $400 per exam which takes 4 minutes, covering all organs of the body, replacing the mammogram, colonoscopy, PSA, PAP-Test, etc., that is recommended annually, providing first results after 3 years from funding, reducing cancer deaths by 33% after 6 years, and by over 50% after 10 years;
- Project #2 the drug???, Cost for the development??? Operating costs??? When are first results expected??? % of cancer death reduction after 6 years, % of cancer death reduction after 10 years;
- Project #3 the vaccine???, Cost for the development??? Operating costs??? When are first results expected??? % of cancer death reduction after 6 years, % of cancer death reduction after 10 years;
- Project #4 the program to educate at risk individuals to change their lifestyle??? Cost for the development??? Operating costs??? When are first results expected??? % of cancer death reduction after 6 years, % of cancer death reduction after 10 years; etc.
A table with 6 columns and many rows of different projects will be easy for anyone to understand. Although we would all be glad if a drug (or big data, personalized medicine, etc.) to cure late stage cancers one day will be discovered… (and for this reason we should not cut all funding in this direction), we already know that the cure for cancer detected at an early stage exists, it is working, but what is missing is an effective tool for early cancer detection in all organs of the body. For this reason we should work in that direction.
It should be evident from the table that $20 million for Project#1 for early cancer detection with the potential to reduce cancer deaths by over 50% in ten years should be of interest to the taxpayer, cancer patient and everyone compared to the billions of dollars spent on new drugs for late detection which have failed to reach their target for over 50 years.
Although these adolescents will not be able to understand how all details of one project compares to another, in a public debate everyone should realize who provides more satisfactory answers to the questions and who has more convincing arguments like in a Presidential Debate. And ultimately the child or the layman, who does not understand the details, should understand the results that will judge the inventor/researcher/proposer/Principal Investigator. From these results the grown child will know who to trust for competence and honesty.
I am confident that not many additional highlights are needed regarding the difference between this campaign and the many others that have not succeeded, and it will be interesting to hear the feedback from your children, what they understood, which questions they asked, etc. that everyone could share on the web, on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.
I particularly like the words used by President Obama in the letter he wrote me on September 25, 2015, stating that he can give scientists like me the tools I need to think “analytically”. That is a strong, effective word to explain what is important in science, what helps determine that one project is better than another. I think that President Obama, like every parent, can learn a lot by verifying what his daughters Malia Ann and Sasha learned from his explanation on the CancerMoonShotForOurChildren program, how it is different from all other campaigns that failed to reduce the 8.2 million cancer deaths per year, and he and Michelle can learn a lot from their daughters’ questions trying to understand how this time the target can be reached through an open DIALOGUE analyzing publicly, analytically and scientifically each project and clearing out bureaucratic hurdles as promised by the Vice-President.
As my contribution to this dialogue in simple terms, understandable to a child or the layman that will lead us to the solution of the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, I am providing below an excerpt from a book that I wrote with middle school teachers of the St. Alcuin Montessori school in Dallas by the title “Understanding a new idea for a Cancer Screening device” ISBN 0-9702897-1-5 published in the year 2000, the same year my technical-scientific book for scientists “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” ISBN 0-9702897-0-7 was published.
I respectfully would like to ask Mr. Steve Ricchetti or any staff member of Vice-President Joe Biden to help clear bureaucratic hurdles and to pick up the Priority Mail Express EL095094646US envelope that I sent him which has been available for pickup since February 29th at the Washington DC Post Office, 20500. Ms. Donna Brazile confirmed in an email that she told Mr. Ricchetti to be on the lookout for my letter.
Excerpt from my book for adolescents and laymen published in the year 2000.
Who is the authority in science?
In science, as opposed to other disciplines, the ﬁnal “authority” is not “a person” but rather, an “experiment.” A person cannot arbitrarily say that a novel idea is wrong; he must find ﬂaws and present arguments to support his criticism logically. If the discussion does not result in agreement, then the idea must be tested experimentally. It is experimentation that mediates between old ways and new insights. It is experimentation that shows whether what has been taken to be the best implementation or solution to a problem in the past can be improved upon, whether there is a better way, a better solution.
In literature, different opinions of William Shakespeare or Dante Alighieri can be argued. People may like their work or not. However, there is no question of their being right or wrong.
This is not the case for scientists. Nowadays, with the advancement of science, a middle school student can demonstrate with a simple experiment that Ptolemy’s (200 B.C. — 158 B.C.) “geocentric theory” was wrong, as was the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Both believed the earth to be immobile and at the center of the universe.
The experiment using Jean-Bernard-Leon Foucault’s (1851) pendulum shows that theories of persons with the scientiﬁc stature of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and others can be shown to be wrong. (Even before Foucault, Nicolas Copemicus (1473-1543) showed that the geocentric theory was wrong). While the pendulum swings back and forth on a location on the -. surface of the Earth, the Earth rotates beneath it, so that relative motion exists between them. At the poles, the relative rotation will be shown when a plane of sand or other light material is hit by the pendulum a second time in the same place after a rotation of the duration of 24 hours. In Paris it will take 32 hours to complete one full relative rotation, while at the equator no relative movement between the Earth and the swing of the pendulum will be seen.
Experimentation is an irrefutable way of proving something to be wrong, or that what believed, until a certain date, to be the best solution to a problem, is no longer the best because of a new discovery. However, the credit for a new idea showing the error of past beliefs goes to the person who understood that error. After understanding the misconception or the limitation of the old approach or solution, the person who has conceived a correction or improvement that is not proven wrong should receive recognition.
The mere process of understanding and conceiving is often sufficient to assess the improvement, the advantage, or the discovery. In fact, the U.S. Patent Office issues millions of patents based on descriptions; however, it is not necessary to go to Washington, D.C., to line up in front of the U.S. Patent Office with a working hardware model of the idea. An interesting illustration of this is the National Public Radio newscast some time ago, that reported a person in the United States having built and successfully tested the very parachute (weighing tens of pounds) designed about 500 years ago by Leonardo da Vinci. In Da Vinci’s time, the means to test his invention did not exist; however, it was clearly an invention, even if at the time it was not possible to verify its practicality.
Other so-called “authorities” have made pronouncements accepted as true at the time but later proven to be wrong. For example Charles H. Duell, director of the U.S. Patent Office (1839), said: “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner in physics (1923), said: “There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.” Lord Kelvin, president of the British Royal Society (1895), said: “Heavier-than-air ﬂying machines are impossible.”
Common reactions to a revolutionary idea
Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the famous writer, once said that every revolutionary idea creates three reactions: “It’s completely impossible”; “It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing”; or “I said it was a good idea all along.”
Thus the arbiter of the validity of Crosetto’s ideas will not be any person, neither the middle school student, the government official, the scientist, nor the PET manufacturer, but the robustness of the ideas themselves in standing up to study and critique. The sharp change in slope of improvements over time shown in Figure l will (in the absence of a striking discovery during the next few years of a new crystal detector with improvements of a mammoth scale) support the breakthrough approach of the inventions described in Crosetto’s book [i].
This book is meant to be a description in layman’s terms of the novel ideas set forth in technical terms in Crosetto’s book [i]. The purpose of saying the same things in a different language is to reach the general public in the shortest time possible and help them understand the choices available to them in preventive health care.
This message was sent from: to:
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 4:48 PM
To: ‘Barack Obama’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘The White House’ <reply-ff3317757467-15_HTMLfirstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov’ <Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov’ <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov’ <Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov>; ‘Lubenow, Anne (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <email@example.com>; ‘Wooldridge, Shannon (NIH/OD) [E]’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Johnson, Maureen (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <email@example.com>; ‘Lowy, Douglas (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Pettigrew, Roderic (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Mamaghani, Shadi (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <email@example.com>; ‘Izzard, Tom (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘NIBIB Info’ <email@example.com>; ‘Cooper, Christine (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>
Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <email@example.com>
Subject: #CancerMoonShotForOurChildren My contribution to the DIALOGUE that will lead us to the solution of the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer.