Dear President Obama, Please let me know your thoughts regarding defending the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients by requesting scientists handling taxpayer money to do their job, and send the request to the millions of people on your mailing list for support. As it was effective in the messages I received from you, it might be effective also for them sometime to diversify the messages such as: “add your name”, add your voice” “stand up …grassroots action is more important than ever … this work depends on your support…”, etc., and to refer to the number of days this matter has passed unresolved (and increase the number as new messages are sent out).
Click here for this post in PDF. May 6, 2016
Dear President Obama and Cancer Moonshot Program, I carefully read and support the worthy causes you, the First Lady Michelle, Mr. Joe Biden and Democrats.org inform me about in emails almost every day. On average I receive 6 such emails a day (fewer emails over the weekend), which makes over 2,000 per year.
Just to mention two examples: by 9:00 am on Friday, April 29, I already received 4 emails: 1 from Michelle Obama, 2 from Joe Biden and 1 from Democrats.org. The day before, I received nine emails from all of you.
I follow several worthy causes including Earth Day, for example, and support them with whatever resources I have to create a better world for us all.
Thank you for your hard work. Please continue to inform us with your emails, communicating with us directly and we will communicate with you using the provisions you make available.
One message from you in particular caught my attention. It was the message you created to request support for the nomination of Merrick Garland to replace the position of Mr. Scalia at the Supreme Court. Here is that message that I received on April 14, 2016 from email@example.com:
“If postal workers don’t deliver, you will not get your mail.
If farmers don’t farm people don’t eat.
If transit workers don’t do their jobs, passengers can’t get to theirs.
People all over America take jobs seriously. The Senate should too.
Tell the Senate leaders to do their jobs and give Judge Merrick Garland a fair hearing.
Add your name”.
After your nomination on March 16, 2016, I received emails from firstname.lastname@example.org and @democrats.org almost daily on 3/17, 3/18, 3/18, 3/19, 3/20, 3/21, 3/22, 3/24, 3/25, 3/29, 4/1, 4/5, 4/6, 4/7, 4/12, 4/14, 4/18, 4/21, 4/26. Here are some examples:
3/17 – Yesterday, President Obama announced Judge Merrick Garland as his nominee to be our next Supreme Court justice, … Add your name to tell Senate Republicans to do their jobs.
3/19 – This is a new low, Dario – so add your name to stand with the President
3/21 – More than 150,000 supporters have already spoken out in support of a fair hearing for Judge Garland. Add your voice.
3/29 – Stand up with the Supreme Court …Right now, grassroots action is more important than ever. …this work depends on your support. We can’t let them off the hook…
4/6 – It’s been 21 days since President Obama nominated Merrick Garland — and Senate Republicans still refuse to hold a fair confirmation hearing… So take a minute and give your senator a call.
4/7 – It’s been 22 days … So take a minute and give your senator a call.
4/18 – It’s been 33 days … So take a minute and give your senator a call.
4/21 – It’s been 36 days … So take a minute and give your senator a call.
4/26 – It’s been 41 days … So take a minute and give your senator a call.
In a country regulated by the “rule of law” and where leaders have an ethical duty toward their citizens, they should play by the rules and determine if there is a concrete number of days remaining in a President’s term of Office, after which the President cannot nominate a new candidate for the Supreme Court. If not, they should do their part of the job.
An explanation (which is not a justification) of why some people do not play by the rule of law, do not want to even discuss their responsibilities or WHAT IS RIGHT and what is in violation of the rule of law may be that they want to use their power to do as they please, ignoring other factors.
Your April 14 message about how everyone should do their job is strong and clear.
Until it is demonstrated that it is unlawful for a President to nominate a new candidate to the Supreme Court 235 days before Election Day and that it is not the duty of a Senator to give the nominee a fair hearing, please continue to SAY and DO WHAT IS RIGHT.
The sending of almost daily reminders that everyone should do what is right and do their job is legitimate and justified. Please continue to do so.
For the same reason, it is legitimate to ask all scientists in the world to do their job by implementing transparent scientific procedures addressing problems analytically and scientifically, and asking them to support their statements when they accept or reject articles or fund research projects with analytical analysis, based on calculations, logical reasoning and scientific evidence rather than based on the political power of their position.
First request on behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients:
I trust that you will find it legitimate and justified if I send you and Government leaders an email almost every day, as you did.
Please let me know your thoughts regarding defending the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients by requesting scientists handling taxpayer money to do their job, and send the request to the millions of people on your mailing list for support. As it was effective in the messages I received from you, it might be effective also for them sometime to diversify the messages such as: “add your name”, add your voice” “stand up …grassroots action is more important than ever … this work depends on your support…”, etc., and to refer to the number of days this matter has passed unresolved (and increase the number as new messages are sent out).
Please let me know what you think about this example of emails that you might send out to help taxpayers and cancer patients receive better service from scientists:
** Start of the example of a possible message to defend the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients **
“Add your name to tell scientists handling taxpayer money to do their job.
It has come to my attention that scientists who assign taxpayer money to fund research projects refuse to implement procedures that would give a fair hearing to applicants by addressing issues analytically and scientifically, allowing them to question each other. They assign funds at closed door meetings ignoring cost-effective technologies and crushing innovations.
Today 1,600 additional Americans will die from cancer. It’s been 238 days since DOE officials promised a hearing with DOE experts in particle detection who handle taxpayer money (and 7,316 days since NIH received a letter from the inventor showing why the explanation given by reviewers for rejecting his claim was incorrect), to an analytical and scientific discussion with the inventor of a breakthrough technology – but have not followed through.
His invention was discussed with top experts in the field in a major scientific review at FERMILab, as requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider and the Director of FERMI National Laboratory in 1993, who found his invention valuable. However, they did not have the funds needed to fund it to completion.”
Many of the 11 million Americans -157 million in the world- who died from cancer could have been saved with an invention providing effective early detection if NIH would have granted a hearing addressing issues analytically and scientifically.
*** End of the example of a possible message to defend the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients **
Mr. President, I believe I would be failing in my duty if I did not draw your attention to the adversities and obstacles (pp. 102-141) that I have faced this past decade that have delayed implementation of my invention capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation at the lowest cost per valid signal captured from tumor markers, and the resulting burden to taxpayers this inaction has brought, not only monetarily but in avoidable deaths and suffering that will continue to occur unless immediate action is taken because the appearance of corruption in the distribution of taxpayer funds for research projects is unmistakable.
(A description of my inventions for scientists is summarized in three abstracts and summaries at: RTSD, NSS and Medical Imaging, while details of my inventions and adversities are provided at the 271-page public version which is an excerpt of the 413-page 3D-Flow OPRA proposal. A description of my inventions for 12-18 year-old students is available from Part-1 to Part-9, from March to May 2016 at the blog: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?cat=20)
Here is some additional information proving that an investigation is needed on how taxpayer money is assigned to research projects.
DOE experts in particle physics still refuse to hold a fair hearing addressing issues analytically and scientifically like top experts did in 1993. They prefer assigning money without a comparison between different approaches based on analytical and scientific evidence that the project funded with taxpayer money will maximize advancement in science and benefit humanity. In fact, over $50 million funded a Level-1 Trigger that did not work effectively; several million dollars funded an inefficient, hazardous PET device for breast at an exorbitant cost compared to a mammogram. The team who boycotted for 15 years the cost-effective 3D-CBS technology for early cancer detection, submitted and received $15.5 million in funds to build the Explorer device similar to the 3D-CBS, but costing over ten times as much, thus it can never have a substantial impact on the reduction of cancer deaths and costs. An investigation is necessary to determine how taxpayer money is being spent on cancer research that is known in advance from an analytical analysis and scientific evidence that it will not reduce cancer deaths and costs, and how funding is not going to projects that can make a significant difference.
After recently sending you a few messages outlining this problem by means of whitehouse.gov (which allows texts limited to 2500 characters), I received an email on April 21st from Jason Goldman at email@example.com suggesting to visit the website “We the People” https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/#signapetition to “Petition the White House on the Issues that Matter to You”. I will certainly follow his suggestion; however, the impact of my petition reaching this group of 30 people and a few hundred of my friends clearly can never get close to the impact the White House would have which reaches millions of people every day with over 2,000 emails in one year, per recipient, from your combined four accounts (yours, Michelle Obama, Joe Biden and Democrats.org).
The strengths of scientists are in the correctness of a formula, technological advantages and benefits of inventions and not popularity or political power. It is the task of those who have political power to see to it that the benefits of inventions are made available for humanity.
I doubt I could reach the 100,000 petition signatures required in 30 days to be entitled to receive your answer, but I trust you pay attention and DO WHAT IS RIGHT by investigating the corruption in assigning taxpayer money behind closed doors for expensive research projects that are inefficient, with no analytical discussion of other projects which may prove more effective because they want to please their “circle of friends”. By not having an analytical discussion with all project authors who claim efficient and cost-effective results, taxpayer money will continue to be assigned to projects based on who the reviewers’ friends are, rather than the merits of the project.
To unveil this corrupt procedure it is sufficient to ask the applicants some simple questions about their proposal and perform an analytical analysis of the projects to find out whether they can substantiate their claims before funding or not. For example, whether they can identify specific subatomic particles from data arriving at ultra-high speed in particle physics, or if they can significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs.
To unveil this corrupt procedure is sufficient to bring to the attention of the public what follows:
- a) the existence of breakthrough inventions that have been recognized valuable formally and officially by academia, industry and research centers, published in scientific peer-reviewed journals, endorsed by top experts in the field, proven feasible and functional in hardware to greatly advance science and benefit humanity in significantly reducing cancer deaths and cost
- b) the unethical actions of scientists belonging to a circle of friends, who prevent humanity from receiving benefits from inventions by continually boycotting them, but have no problem approving funding for similar projects submitted by or to them, even when they are ten times as expensive. These scientists waste taxpayer money and crush the implementation of innovations much more beneficial to humanity.
I am a scientist and my strength is thinking outside the box providing breakthrough innovations beneficial to the 323 million Americans and the entire world where the concepts require analytical thinking understandable to 12-18 year-olds. My basic invention was approved, proven feasible and functional in hardware and no scientist has been able to refute my claims since its conception. This is an example of what you requested and promised to support “giving the tools they need to think analytically” in the letter you sent me on September 25, 2015.
My strength is not political power, but I can prove using analytical thinking understandable by common people that my invention is able to capture all possible signals from tumor markers at the lowest possible cost per each valid signal captured. I can prove that this enables an effective early cancer detection. As you know, we have the “cure/treatment” for cancer when detected at an early stage, while we do not have a “cure” for cancer detected at a late stage. This means that my invention can bring a reduction of cancer deaths on a sample population of 33% in 6 years and over 50% in 10 years.
I ask for a fair hearing from the government scientists handling taxpayer money to do their job as scientists when they fund research and address in an analytical discussion my 413-page proposal, supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries showing feasibility of my invention/project and all related documentation supporting my claims. I ask to stop dismissing transparent analytical, scientific procedures crushing innovations beneficial to humanity with political decisions.
The message to tell scientists handling taxpayer money to do their job should be as strong and clear as yours regarding a fair confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland.
Until those in charge of taxpayer money can demonstrate a shortcoming in my 3D-Flow system that would prevent it from detecting subatomic particles more efficiently and at lower cost than Level-1 Trigger of CERN CMS and Atlas experiments, and
until it can be demonstrated that the 3D-CBS invention would not, as I have demonstrated, be hundreds of times more efficient and much more cost-effective than the over 6,000 PET currently in use in medical facilities (which could have saved many of the 11 million Americans -157 million in the world- who died from cancer since funding of my invention was denied on April 25, 1996),
until a transparent and evidence-based rebuttal of innovative technologies like 3D-CBS can be mustered, the appearance of corruption in the distribution of taxpayer funds for cancer research is unmistakable.
The pall of backroom deals where taxpayer money is assigned among a circle of friends will taint the scientific enterprise, discouraging innovative, imaginative scientists from entering or remaining in the field.
We need administrators of public funds who will hold the integrity of the procedures for distributing scientific resources above reproach by implementing public, transparent procedures based on calculations, scientific evidence, objective, data-driven analysis
Second request on behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients:
I trust that you find legitimate my request on behalf of the 1,600 Americans who die from cancer every day (one every 4 seconds in the world) and that you will use all what is in your power to ensure that scientists employed by government agencies handling taxpayer money will do their job.
Do you think that to protect the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients these employees who do not do their job should first receive a warning and if they persist in their unfair behavior toward the interest of cancer patients, their position should be occupied by someone qualified to implement scientific procedures who would give a fair hearing to applicants, allowing them to question each other and that it should be based on analytical thinking as you wrote in the letter you sent me on September 25, 2015?
More specifically, I respectfully request you ask Glenn Crawford, Division Director of Research and Technology of the Office of High Energy Physics of the Department of Energy, to:
- Hold a fair hearing addressing analytical and scientific issues with DOE scientists handling taxpayer money of my 413-page proposal/invention
- Compare openly and publicly my 3D-Flow OPRA proposal/invention for the applications of upgrades of the Level-1 Trigger at CMS and Atlas with the other candidates (FPGA approach, Associative Memories approach, etc.) before spending U.S. money.
- Avoid making the same mistake as his predecessors at DOE, when they funded over $50 million for the alternative Level-1 Trigger by Wesley Smith that did not work effectively, and several other projects that could have benefitted from my 3D-Flow invention (only 40 Higgs boson-like events were found out of 100,000 generated. This result was achieved from the analysis of trillions of events recorded casually and not for the merit of Smith’s Level-1 Trigger, although he was aware of the existence of my programmable Level-1 Trigger since 1992).
- Hold a fair hearing with scientists displaying professional integrity, knowledgeable in particle detection, and who, in the event my 3D-Flow OPRA project is not chosen for High Energy Physics applications, will provide their service to the collectivity to advance science in other fields of applications such as in medical imaging.
In the event Glenn Crawford continues to refuse to do his job of implementing scientific procedures who would give a fair hearing to applicants, allowing them to question each other and that it should be based on analytical thinking would it be possible to find someone qualified to implement this job serving the interest of taxpayers?
More specifically, I respectfully request Anne Lubenow, Deputy Executive Officer, National Cancer Institute (NCI) to:
- Hold a fair hearing addressing analytical and scientific issues with NIH-NCI scientists handling taxpayer money of my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention, hundreds of times more efficient than the over 6,000 PET currently used in medical facilities.
- Address my responses to the rejection statements from the NIH reviewers of my ten proposals submitted to NIH over a period of ten years, in particular Norka Ruiz Bravo, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at NIH, who responded to an enquiry on my behalf from Honorable John Cornyn, written on May 10, 2014.
Because I am able to explain the technological advantages and benefits of my invention to 12-18 year-old students, I am confident that during a hearing at NIH I will be able to explain them to NIH experts in finding the most cost-effective solution to reduce cancer deaths and costs. My first answer to the rejection by an NIH reviewer was in 1996; my explanation of what is needed to improve PET efficiency is still valid now.
- Compare openly, publicly my 3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) invention with ultra-sensitive detector, low radiation dose, low examination cost, with other devices such as the Explorer. This public comparison among projects aiming to improve medical imaging is essential; otherwise humanity will continue to be deprived of the benefits of inventions like mine. Many of the 11 million Americans (and 157 million people in the world) who died from cancer since 1996, when my second proposal to NIH was rejected, could have been saved with my technology for early cancer detection. Instead, my ten proposals, submitted to NIH over ten years, were all rejected and my presentations to conferences boycotted.
Now the same people – like Joel Karp, who was the General Chairman of the 2002-IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference and rejected all my papers – are proposing the Explorer that is very similar to my 3D-CBS. However, the Explorer with half million crystal detectors costs over 10 times my 3D-CBS. Therefore the Explorer cannot have an impact in significantly reducing cancer deaths and costs.
- Avoid making the same mistake as predecessors in funding projects like the one presented by Craig Levin, Deputy Chairman of the 2013-IEEE-MIC conference, who after the presentation of his paper “Promising New Photon Detection Concepts for High-Resolution Clinical and Preclinical PET”, funded by National Institute of Health grants R01 CA119056, R01 CA119056S1 (ARRA), R01CA120474, and R01EB011552, the Department of Energy grant DESC0005290 and others had to admit when answering my questions that his “block detector” approach had an exorbitant cost compared to a mammogram, the efficiency was less than 10%, it required a high, hazardous radiation dose to the patient and therefore could not be used for screening and would not save lives if tested on a sample population.
Levin‘s Whole-Body PET with a 70 cm diameter and 1.5 m detector length, will require 31,539,200 crystals 1x1x1 mm3, 492,800 connectors and 492,800 Sensors (APDs). The cost will be exorbitant, the inefficiency of the detector will capture less than 50% of the photons hitting the detector, it would not be sensitive enough to detect tumors at their early stage and the radiation dose required might still be higher than 1 mSv. If NIH had inquired about efficiency, radiation to the patient, cost, etc., it would have been obvious that NIH was wasting taxpayer money funding such a project.
In the event Anne Lubenow continues to refuse to do her job of implementing scientific procedures who would give a fair hearing to applicants, allowing them to question each other based on analytical thinking, would it be possible to find someone qualified to implement this job serving the interest of taxpayers?
President Obama, from your three campaigns in 2009, 2015 and 2016, I can see how the cancer problem is important to you. Now you have placed the Vice-President in charge of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force, and given him $195 million for this program in 2016.
However, until the key problem of implementing transparency in reviewing cancer research projects based on analytical analysis and scientific evidence is implemented, we cannot expect much from a review process assigning taxpayer money in closed-door meetings, as explained before.
Here is a comment I often receive discussing this point (doing something to solve the cancer calamity): why does President Obama give every year $5 billion to the National Cancer Institute and now he also gives $195 million to Vice-President Biden to do the same job, putting him in charge to defeat once and for all this disease? If President Obama trusts more Vice-President Biden to solve the cancer problem or Greg Simon, or whoever else he thinks has a better chance to defeat this disease, why doesn’t he take the $3 billion form NCI budget and give it to Mr. Biden instead of just $195 million? He would have more resources to do what is needed to be more effective in a shorter time, close NCI and save taxpayers $2 billion.
Now I would like to respectfully submit a three-step plan to you that would create a paradigm change in cancer research that never occurred in the past century, which follows the analytical thinking approach. I would appreciate it if you could let me and all those who care to solve the cancer problem know what you think about this approach.
- Launch an investigation into how taxpayer money has been spent on cancer research up to now and collect all material concerning projects that have not been funded for an investigative analytical analysis. For each project funded, determine if the estimated impact in cancer death reduction was asked for or provided before funding, whether results were measured on a sample population, whether they can be measured now, and whether they were able to prove reduction of cancer deaths and cost. In either case, was it possible to determine this before providing funding with an analytical analysis of the proposed project, and was scientific evidence provided?
- Funding agencies which use taxpayer and donation money to fight cancer, whether through a new drug, creating a large data base, genomics, personalized medicine, vaccine, medical imaging device, or healthy lifestyle promotion, etc., should estimate the expected reduction in cancer death and cost when the project is put into place (or combined with other existing techniques) and present a plan to test it on a sample population. For example, test the plan on 10,000 people aged 55-74 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. What do you think about asking simple questions such as these to those who raise money or submit a project claiming a reduction in cancer deaths and costs?
- How much is the expected reduction in cancer deaths (6 years and 10 years from funding) your project/approach can provide when measured on a sample population?
- How much will your project cost to develop?
- When can the first results be expected?
- How much are the operating costs?
- Is there a link to support the analytical and scientific evidence of your claims?”
Do you think it fair to provide taxpayers with a list of the top 30 projects which score highest on this? After all they are paying for it and are expecting results in cutting the cancer mortality rate.
- Create a competition among all projects claiming a reduction of cancer deaths and cost that will have the Principal Investigators (P.I.) presenting their projects, programs and defending their claims with analytical analysis, calculations, logical reasoning and scientific evidence in a public debate with other competitors, asking each other questions like in a presidential debate.
The goal of the competition should be clearly defined and all ambiguities should be eliminated by excluding cancer research programs which value more the cancer business than the reduction of cancer deaths.
The projects with higher merit to be funded should provide analytical analysis and scientific evidence to maximize reduction of cancer deaths and costs with respect to the other projects and be able to defend the claims with other P.I.s in a public debate. The public and the review panel should evaluate whether or not the analytical analysis is sound, if calculations presented by the P.I.s are correct, if the project is supported by logical and scientific evidence.
Ultimately, the task to identify the cancer project with the higher potential to reduce cancer deaths will be much less subject to error and subjection than contests such as American Idol, You Got Talent, etc., because the judge will be objective evaluation, calculation and analytical thinking first and of experimental results as a final result. In the event the public and review panel cannot determine which calculation presented by two P.I.s are correct, they should agree to run an experiment where results will tell who is right and who is wrong.
Do you think that this will “cure” the corruption in the scientific community of scientists who belong to a circle of friends and approve funding among themselves using taxpayer money boycotting or even copying other ideas/projects?
I am looking forward to receiving your thoughts and the thoughts of Government leaders who strive to improve the process to assign funding with taxpayer money to research projects that will maximize benefits to taxpayers, to the Cancer Moonshot Task Force and to the administrators of the 13 government agencies you have involved on February 1, 2016, in the Cancer Moonshot program.
President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths
900 Hideaway Pl
DeSoto, TX 75115
See Abstracts and Summaries:
3D-Flow OPRA: A Revolutionary Electronic Instrument Offering Fast, Multidimensional Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) on Ultra-High Speed Data Arriving in Parallel from a Matrix of Thousands of Transducers.
3D-FLOW OPRA: A Breakthrough Invention Capable of Extracting ALL Valuable Information from Radiation Providing a Very Powerful Tool to Discover New Particles, Reduce HEP Costs, Advance Science and Benefit Humanity.
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 7:05 AM 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>; ‘Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov’ <Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov>; ‘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: Dear President Obama & Cancer Moonshot TF – RE: I respectfully request YOU CLEAR OUT THE BUREAUCRATIC HURDLES that are an impediment to discuss ANALYTICALLY & SCIENTIFICALLY 413 pages invention/project to advance science and reduce cancer deaths and cost
 Here are one reviewer’s comments and my response to him after receiving one of ten rejections over ten years (100% rejection): Proposal 1R43RRLM11544-010A, Submitted on December 1995, reviewed April 25, 1996 – Reviewer 3 comments:
A massively parallel computer is proposed to replace the front-end electronics on existing scanners without any clear indication of the need or a justification for doing so. On the other hand, no indication is given that the applicant knows what tasks on these instruments do require intensive computational resources, i.e., tomographic reconstruction. (A-1).
In my response which follows, I explained that I did provide the information that the reviewer had asked for, but he just missed it. I also said I knew where the task of intensive computation is needed in these instruments, but the reviewer had a misconception of what is required. There was no more follow up and so I had to let it go. If NIH would have granted a hearing to clarify the reviewer’s misconceptions many of the 11 million American (157 million in the world) who died from cancer since April 25, 1996 could have been saved. Here is my response to the reviewer:
“This reviewer either is not knowledgeable in data acquisition and processing of signals from photon detector PET devices or he deliberately does not want to improve the low efficiency of current PET. In either case he requests Type-A PET device with no scientific reasons supporting his claim that intensive computational resources are required only at the backend in “tomographic reconstruction” and not at the front-end where the photons are missed. The “massively parallel” real-time computing power at the front-end is in contrast to the very limited capability of current PET to capture and accurately measure the characteristics of incident photons. Because of their limited processing capability, current PET systems cannot accurately extract the characteristics of incident photons, leading to many false positives. No matter how much processing power one puts at the back-end, once the information is lost at the front-end, there is no way of fabricating it with any sophisticated software program at the back end.”