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

Dr. Gretchen Wood, Office of the NIH Director, indicates who at NIH is responsible for addressing analytically and scientifically the project that has the highest potential to improve healthcare and reduce cancer deaths and costs, and provides their names and contact information: Dr. Michael Lauer, Director for Extramural Research and Dr. Richard Nakamura, Director of Center for Scientific Review. Dr. Melanie Showe (NIH/OD) sets a conference call between Crosetto and Laurer on Friday May 20, 2016 for 15 minutes that was extended to 35 minutes. See below the agenda of their discussion. 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org]

Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 9:56 AM To: ‘Showe, Melanie (NIH/OD) [E]’ <showem@od.nih.gov>

Subject: RE: 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 a…

 

Dear Ms. Showe,

Thank you for your email.

I am pleased to confirm the phone call with Dr. Lauer on Friday, May 20th from 4:45 to 5:00 pm.

I am looking forward to speak to Dr. Lauer,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto

 

From: Showe, Melanie (NIH/OD) [E] [mailto:showem@od.nih.gov]

Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 9:23 AM To: volunteers@u2ec.org Cc: Showe, Melanie (NIH/OD) [E] <showem@od.nih.gov>

Subject: FW: 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 a…

 

Good morning,

There have been some changes to Dr. Michael Lauer’s calendar and Wednesday, May 18 at 9:30m and Friday, May 20th at 11:45am are no longer available.  I can offer you Friday, May 20th from 4:45-5pm for a phone call with Dr. Lauer.  Please confirm this date/time works for you.

Thanks,

Melanie

From: United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org>

Date: May 15, 2016 at 11:19:40 PM EDT

To: ‘Barack Obama’ <democraticparty@democrats.org>, <president@whitehouse.gov>, <info@barackobama.com>, <vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov>, <sc.science@science.doe.gov>, <camurray@seas.harvard.edu>, <patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov>, “‘The White House'” <reply-ff3317757467-15_HTML-20605917-6229366-14560@mail.whitehouse.gov>, <info@mail.whitehouse.gov>, <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>, <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>, <helmut.marsiske@science.doe.gov>, <Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov>, <janice.hannan@science.doe.gov>, <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>, <kim.laing@science.doe.gov>, <Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov>, “‘Lubenow, Anne (NIH/NCI) [E]'” <lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov>, “‘Wooldridge, Shannon (NIH/OD) [E]'” <shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov>, “‘Johnson, Maureen (NIH/NCI) [E]'” <johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov>, “‘Lowy, Douglas (NIH/NCI) [E]'” <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>, “‘Pettigrew, Roderic (NIH/NIBIB) [E]'” <rpettig@mail.nih.gov>, “‘Mamaghani, Shadi (NIH/NIBIB) [C]'” <shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov>, “‘Izzard, Tom (NIH/NIBIB) [C]'” <izzardt@mail.nih.gov>, ‘NIBIB Info’ <info@nibib.nih.gov>, “‘Cooper, Christine (NIH/NIBIB) [E]'” <cooperca2@mail.nih.gov>, <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>, <‘grantsinfo@nih.gov’>, <donna@brazileassociates.com>, <chris@brazileassociates.com>, <Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov>, <robinsobi@mail.nih.gov>, <nciilo@mail.nih.gov>, <Lauren.Smith@science.doe.gov>, <TwymanLE@od.nih.gov>, <Christie.Ashton@science.doe.gov>, <Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov>, <Michael.Lauer@nih.gov>, <Showem@od.nih.gov>, <Melanie.Showe@nih.gov>, <Richard.Nakamura@nih.gov> Cc: <crosetto@att.net>, ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@u2ec.org>, <unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com>, ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net>

Subject: RE: 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 c

Dear Dr. Wood, Dr. Collins, Dr. Lauer, Dr. Nakamura, President Obama, members of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force and members of the 13 Federal agencies involved in defeating cancer,

 

Thank you Dr. Gretchen Wood, Office of the NIH Director, for indicating who at NIH is responsible for addressing analytically and scientifically the project that has the highest potential to improve healthcare and reduce cancer deaths and costs, and for providing their names and contact information: Dr. Michael Lauer, Director for Extramural Research and Dr. Richard Nakamura, Director of Center for Scientific Review.

 

On Friday, May 13, 2016, at 4:56 pm (ET), I called the office of Dr. Lauer; after looking at his schedule, his assistant gave me two options for a short 15-minute meeting that would need to be confirmed by Dr. Lauer: either Wednesday, May 18, at 9:30 am or Friday, May 20, at 11:45 am. His schedule was fully booked for longer phone calls until the end of May, but a longer meeting could be planned in June 2016. I tried contacting Dr. Nakamura without success, but would be pleased if he could join our meeting, or we can plan a different one at a later date.

 

Since either of those options, May 18 or May 20, would work for me, I was asked to send an email detailing what I would like to discuss with Dr. Lauer during those 15 minutes.

 

Clearly, I do not want to talk the entire time, but I am looking forward to having a dialogue whose outcome would best serve the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients and to this goal, and to be fair, I respectfully suggest the following schedule with 50% time allocated to both of us as follows:

 

00:00 – Crosetto: 3 minutes – I will address the first 1996 NIH reviewer’s misconception that was the cause of my inventions submitted in grant proposals to NIH being rejected for the next ten years (see at this link reviewer’s misconception, his rejection, my explanation, but still my inventions were crushed) and prevented benefits in cancer death reduction through an effective early cancer detection. The NIH reviewer believed that intensive computational resources were required at the back-end of PET, while my proposal provided intensive computation at the front-end of PET. I explained that it is essential to have intensive computation capabilities at the front-end because if we do not capture the valuable data emitted by the radiation it will not wait and is lost forever. Furthermore, a lack of computation at the front-end would miss valuable data and make useless any intensive computation at the back-end which will receive garbage data giving garbage results. I would like to explain during this time slot the concept of my invention which provides intense computation at the front-end with the capability to extract ALL valuable information from radiation with an analogy that I used with 12-18 year-old students (see the analogy at this link).

 

03:00 – Lauer: 3 minutes – Response to my statements. Either support the NIH reviewer’s claim that what is needed is intensive computation at the back-end of PET and invalidate my claim for intensive computation at the front-end, or if in agreement that intensive computation is needed at the front-end of PET, a reform of the NIH Center for Scientific Review is required and an investigation should begin into the cause of these repeated  misconceptions by several different reviewers over ten years, and who is responsible for the deaths of many of the 158,284,800 people from cancer (includes 11,724,800 Americans) since 1996 who could have been saved with my invention which enables an efficient and cost-effective early cancer detection.

 

06:00 – Crosetto: 2 minutes – I would like to get your attention to 6 lines of the letter that your predecessor Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo, Director for Extramural Research in 2004, wrote to Senator John Cornyn who had inquired on my behalf why the NIH was not funding my invention. In her letter dated May 10, 2004 (see full text of her letter at this link) she stated: “…Specifically, NIH staff have provided advice on being responsive to the peer reviewers’ comments (focusing on both the strengths and weaknesses), and they have provided specific instructions for submitting a revised application. They have consistently recommended that he spend time analyzing the results and gathering as much feedback as possible from the summary statement, senior investigators, and peers at his organization and/or in his field.

 

Dr. Bravo should have provided analytical and scientific evidence to support the reviewers’ claims to improve computational resources at the back-end of PET and to support focusing solely on improving spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity, and invalidate my claims regarding my 3D-CBS invention that cost-effectively provides intensive computation at the front-end, maximizing efficiency and accuracy in the measurement of all parameters: time, energy, spatial resolution and sensitivity. Because this was not possible, rather than asking the inventor year after year for more than a decade to give up his inventions, NIH should have granted me a hearing to learn about my claims and inventions, invite NIH reviewers to a meeting with me asking all of us to support scientifically our opposite claims instead of asking me to listen to my peers in the field who have rejected my papers, crushed my inventions and my 3D-CBS idea for 15 years and then copy my ideas with their Explorer as they admit in slide 6 presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference. Furthermore, these peers meet behind closed doors to split NIH taxpayer money among themselves – wasting public money in pursuit of their own agendas and personal interests because through a circle of friends they used NIH taxpayer money to fund the Explorer which is less efficient and costs over ten times my 3D-CBS.

 

08:00 – Lauer: 2 minutes – Response to my statements. Either support his predecessor at NIH or open an investigation into the cause of my invention never receiving an honest and in depth review  and who is responsible for the deaths of many of the 158,284,800 people from cancer (includes 11,724,800 Americans) who could have been saved with my invention which enables an efficient and cost-effective early cancer detection. True, Dr. Bravo could not have known then that the peers who she suggested I listen to were the same ones who then copied my ideas and used NIH taxpayer money to fund themselves through a circle of friends to pursue their agenda, but she did know they had been rejecting my ideas for over 15 years. An investigation will clearly identify those responsible and cure the flawed process implemented behind closed doors by the NIH Center for Scientific Review.

 

10:00 – Crosetto: 2.5 minutes. Now that I have informed all leaders who have taken the lead to defeat world cancer, on behalf of all past and future victims of cancer, I respectfully request a hearing to address analytically and scientifically why NIH funded $15.5 million for the Explorer project which is based on the specifications of 500,000 expensive crystals and all its related components described in articles and press releases by its authors but did not fund or address analytically and scientifically my 3D-CBS invention which uses less than 1,000 economical crystals, achieves higher efficiency, costs over ten times less than the Explorer, and has the greatest potential to reduce cancer deaths and healthcare costs.

 

Based on quotes from reputable companies, materials needed, and transparent verifiable calculations, the first 3D-CBS will cost approximately $8 million. Two additional units will cost $4 million each, to reach a production cost of approximately $2.5 million each. It is feasible to build one unit within two years from funding and three 3D-CBS units for a total cost of $20 million including testing costs within three years from funding. First test results will be available in the third year by screening 10,000 people aged 55-74 per 3D-CBS unit per year in three different locations.  Based on the increased efficiency, the estimate is 33% cancer death reduction in 6 years from funding and 50% in 10 years. Based on the description from articles and press releases by the authors of the Explorer with 500,000 expensive crystals and related components, the first Explorer unit which is less efficient than the 3D-CBS unit, is estimated to cost over $100 million, the second and third $60 million each, reducing to approximately $40 million each when in production. The building and testing in three different locations three Explorer units will cost over $200 million, which is over ten times the cost of $20 million for three 3D-CBS units plus testing. The impact of the Explorer to save lives will be much lower compared to the 3D-CBS and will increase healthcare costs.

 

12:30 – Lauer: 2.5 minutes – Response to my statement. Either refute my estimates and commit to provide quotes from companies for the cost of 500,000 expensive crystals and all related components used in the Explorer, and the cost for the 1,000 economical crystals and all related components for which I have quotes used for my 3D-CBS, and please show how the less efficient, ten times more expensive Explorer has more potential to save lives compared to the 3D-CBS, or

 

  1. open an investigation to find the cause that impeded funding inventions that could have already saved many lives and who is responsible for the deaths of many of the 158,284,800 people who died from cancer (includes 11,724,800 Americans) that could have been saved with my invention which enables an efficient and cost-effective early cancer detection and those that will be lost in the future by funding the Explorer instead of the 3D-CBS.

 

  1. put an end to the flawed process implemented behind closed doors by the NIH Center for Scientific Review which can enable a circle of friends to split NIH taxpayer money among themselves – wasting public money in pursuit of their own agendas and personal interests instead of following transparent scientific procedures to pursue the interests of taxpayers.

 

If you feel like you need more time in this fair 50% time split from the 15 minutes allocated for this meeting, I trust we can arrange a second meeting to address as many NIH reviewers’ misconceptions listed in the rejection of my ten proposals to NIH during a period of ten years that could help you to optimize the use of taxpayer money to advance the interests of taxpayers and cancer patients.

 

I am trying to help NIH and all government agencies by providing facts, documents, and data verifiable scientifically that will allow the corrupted scientists who broke the trust of taxpayers to be identified.  They are a disgrace to other scientists who are instead responsible, ethical and act with integrity toward their colleagues and taxpayers who trust them and who pay their salaries.

 

I trust that you and everyone in a position of responsibility handling taxpayer money, the Cancer Moonshot Task Force and members of the 13 Federal agencies involved in defeating cancer will fully support this investigation and a reform of the NIH Center for Scientific Research will take place that will guarantee transparency in the assignment of taxpayer money to research projects that will discourage and prevent corruption.

 

I am available to address these issues as soon as possible, starting with the first 15-minute meeting on Wednesday, May 18, 2016.

 

I am looking forward to our meeting, please confirm which day of the two proposed you prefer.

 

Thank you,

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Dario Crosetto

 

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:09 AM To: ‘Barack Obama’ <democraticparty@democrats.org>; ‘president@whitehouse.gov’ <president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@barackobama.com’ <info@barackobama.com>; ‘vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘sc.science@science.doe.gov’ <sc.science@science.doe.gov>; ‘camurray@seas.harvard.edu’ <camurray@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov’ <patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov>; ‘The White House’ <reply-ff3317757467-15_HTML-20605917-6229366-14560@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@mail.whitehouse.gov’ <info@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘vice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘helmut.marsiske@science.doe.gov’ <helmut.marsiske@science.doe.gov>; ‘Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov’ <Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov>; ‘janice.hannan@science.doe.gov’ <janice.hannan@science.doe.gov>; ‘Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov’ <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>; ‘kim.laing@science.doe.gov’ <kim.laing@science.doe.gov>; ‘Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov’ <Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov>; ‘Lubenow, Anne (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov>; ‘Wooldridge, Shannon (NIH/OD) [E]’ <shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov>; ‘Johnson, Maureen (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov>; ‘Lowy, Douglas (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Pettigrew, Roderic (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <rpettig@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Mamaghani, Shadi (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov>; ‘Izzard, Tom (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <izzardt@mail.nih.gov>; ‘NIBIB Info’ <info@nibib.nih.gov>; ‘Cooper, Christine (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <cooperca2@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘grantsinfo@nih.gov’; ‘donna@brazileassociates.com’ <donna@brazileassociates.com>; ‘chris@brazileassociates.com’ <chris@brazileassociates.com>; ‘Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov’ <Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov>; ‘robinsobi@mail.nih.gov’ <robinsobi@mail.nih.gov>; ‘nciilo@mail.nih.gov’ <nciilo@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Lauren.Smith@science.doe.gov’ <Lauren.Smith@science.doe.gov>; ‘TwymanLE@od.nih.gov’ <TwymanLE@od.nih.gov>; ‘Christie.Ashton@science.doe.gov’ <Christie.Ashton@science.doe.gov>; ‘Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov’ <Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov> Cc: ‘crosetto@att.net’ <crosetto@att.net>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@u2ec.org>; ‘unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com’ <unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net> Subject: Dear Dr. Wood RE: Dear President Obama & Cancer Moonshot TF – RE:Dr. Lubenow and Cancer Moonshot Task Force RE Request for a meeting at your office on December 9 afternoon of December 10 morning 2014. RE: Respectfully we are asking TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE

 

Dear Dr. Wood, President Obama, members of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force and members of the 13 Federal agencies involved in defeating cancer,

 

On behalf of the 158,155,200 who died from cancer (11,715,200 were Americans) many of whom could have been saved with my inventions that instead were crushed by NIH and NCI reviewers for two decades since 7,322 days ago, I respectfully request a hearing to address analytically and scientifically with NIH and NCI experts handling taxpayer money the best strategy to significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs.

 

Please find attached a three-fold brochure summarizing my breakthrough inventions and two examples among many which occurred these past 20 years when I tried to explain NIH reviewers’ misconceptions that have crushed my inventions. I was able to explain my inventions to 12-18 year-olds students and I am confident that during a hearing I could explain them to NIH administrators, scientists and experts handling taxpayer money.

 

I have informed the scientists at the most important conferences in the field. At the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Seoul Korea I spoke to several NIH reviewers. One author presented the Explorer, 2 m PET device citing in his slide No. 6 by the title: “Not a New Idea” my previous invention described in an article published in the year 2003 (which is referring to other articles that I wrote in the year 2000 and years before). Following is an excerpt of the attached brochure:

 

From the attached brochure: “3D-CBS invention reverses  the misconceptions of NIH and main stream reviewers funding cancer research who believe that what is required is intensive computational resources at the back-end of PET focusing solely on improving spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity. Rather, the 3D-CBS invention cost-effectively provides intensive computation at the front-end, maximizing efficiency and accuracy in the measurement of all parameters: time, energy, spatial resolution and sensitivity, which help to eliminate “false positives” and “false negatives”. This enables an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases when they are most curable, potentially saving 50% of lives that would be lost prematurely to cancer and reduces healthcare costs.

 

It outperforms the Explorer which was funded by NIH for $15.5 million in October 2015.  The authors, who for many years rejected the 3D-CBS, copied many of its ideas.  However, the 3D-CBS intense computation capability at the front-end using 3D-Flow OPRA, provides more accurate measurements with less than 1,000  economical crystals compared to 500,000 expensive crystals used by Explorer. These technological advantages offer the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs.” End of the text from the attached brochure.

 

Why did NIH fund the Explorer for $15.5 million in October 2015 after I wrote the article in 2013 comparing the 3D-CBS with the Explorer on page 19 and other PET devices in the table on page 20, after I went to NCI and NIBIB on December 11, 2014 and Informed Dr. Lubenow and Dr. Pettigrew about my invention which is far superior in performance and lower cost and I submitted ten grant applications during ten years and all were rejected?

 

I hope that to best serve the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients you will grant me a hearing to discuss analytically and scientifically with NIH and NCI experts handling taxpayer money what is best for the cancer patients.

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

(See http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?cat=20)

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 3:02 PM To: ‘Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov’ <Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov> Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net>; ‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ <info@crosettofoundation.org> Subject: FW: Dr. Lubenow and Cancer Moonshot Task Force RE: Request for a meeting at your office on December 9 afternoon of December 10 morning 2014. RE: Respectfully we are asking TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE

 

Dear Dr. Wood,

Thank you for taking my call, please read all emails below explaining why after 20 years that I try to explain (and submitted ten grant proposals which have all been rejected) the misconception of NIH reviewers that it is useless to improve computing power at the back-end of instrumentation for medical imaging if there is not sufficient computing power at the front-end capturing all possible valid signals from the tumor markers.

If the front-end massively parallel processing system at the front-end is not capturing valid data from tumor markers, increasing processing power at the back-end to process garbage (as requested by the NIH reviewer in the Proposal 1R43RRLM11544-010A and many others, see the email below dated May 6, 2016) will only provide garbage as results.

My 3D-CBS system based on my 3D-Flow invention that has the capability to extract all valuable information from radiation at the lowest cost per valid data captured from the tumor markers allow reducing radiation dose to the patient, examination cost and more importantly it enables an effective early cancer detection.

Many of the 158,112,000 people who died from cancer (11,712,000 were Americans) could have been saved if NIH would have granted an analytical and scientific hearing to allow me to explain this misconception and several others that led NIH to fund in October 2015 the Explorer project for $15.5 million which does not have a potential to significantly reduce cancer deaths and did not fund my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) that has the capability to improve diagnosis, prognosis and efficiently monitor treatments, in addition to provide an effective early detection.

I trust that you will contact me soon to address analytically and scientifically this and other aspect of the problem ASAP.

Sincerely yours,

Dario Crosetto

900 Hide

 

It’s been 242 days since DOE officials promised a hearing and 7,320 days since NIH crushed innovations. Today 21,600 additional people died prematurely from cancer, 158,112,000 from when the invention was crushed (11,712,000 were Americans)

 

(See http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1630)

 

Dear President Obama,

 

Add your name and ask you contacts to tell scientists handling taxpayer money to do their job.

 

Tell them to distribute funds for cancer research after they implement public, transparent procedures based on calculations, analytical and scientific evidence, objective data-driven analysis, and not distributing taxpayer money to a circle of friends behind closed doors.

 

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 all applicants by addressing issues analytically and scientifically, allowing them to question each other. They assign funds in closed door meetings ignoring cost-effective technologies and crushing innovations.

 

Today 1,600 additional Americans will die from cancer. It’s been 242 days since DOE officials promised an analytical and scientific hearing with the inventor of a breakthrough life-saving technology and DOE experts in particle detection who handle taxpayer money.

 

And it’s been 7,320 days since NIH received a letter from the inventor showing why the explanation given by reviewers for rejecting his claim was incorrect.

 

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 158,112,000 who died from cancer in the world-(11,712,000 were Americans) could have been saved with an invention providing effective early detection if NIH had granted an analytical and scientific hearing.

 

(See http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?cat=20)

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 3:09 PM To: ‘Barack Obama’ <democraticparty@democrats.org>; ‘president@whitehouse.gov’ <president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@barackobama.com’ <info@barackobama.com>; ‘vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘sc.science@science.doe.gov’ <sc.science@science.doe.gov>; ‘camurray@seas.harvard.edu’ <camurray@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov’ <patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov>; ‘The White House’ <reply-ff3317757467-15_HTML-20605917-6229366-14560@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@mail.whitehouse.gov’ <info@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘vice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘helmut.marsiske@science.doe.gov’ <helmut.marsiske@science.doe.gov>; ‘Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov’ <Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov>; ‘janice.hannan@science.doe.gov’ <janice.hannan@science.doe.gov>; ‘Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov’ <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>; ‘kim.laing@science.doe.gov’ <kim.laing@science.doe.gov>; ‘Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov’ <Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov>; ‘Lubenow, Anne (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov>; ‘Wooldridge, Shannon (NIH/OD) [E]’ <shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov>; ‘Johnson, Maureen (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov>; ‘Lowy, Douglas (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Pettigrew, Roderic (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <rpettig@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Mamaghani, Shadi (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov>; ‘Izzard, Tom (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <izzardt@mail.nih.gov>; ‘NIBIB Info’ <info@nibib.nih.gov>; ‘Cooper, Christine (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <cooperca2@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘grantsinfo@nih.gov’; ‘donna@brazileassociates.com’ <donna@brazileassociates.com>; ‘chris@brazileassociates.com’ <chris@brazileassociates.com>; ‘Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov’ <Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov>; ‘robinsobi@mail.nih.gov’ <robinsobi@mail.nih.gov>; ‘nciilo@mail.nih.gov’ <nciilo@mail.nih.gov> Cc: ‘crosetto@att.net’ <crosetto@att.net>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@u2ec.org>; ‘unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com’ <unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net> Subject: RE: Dr. Lubenow and Cancer Moonshot Task Force RE: Request for a meeting at your office on December 9 afternoon of December 10 morning 2014. RE: Respectfully we are asking TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE

 

Dear Dr. Lubenow and Cancer Moonshot Task Force,

 

Sorry, in the previous email the following footnote was missing.

See the attached pdf file for your convenience.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dario Crosettto

 

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

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.”

 

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 6:46 AM To: ‘Barack Obama’ <democraticparty@democrats.org>; ‘president@whitehouse.gov’ <president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@barackobama.com’ <info@barackobama.com>; ‘vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘sc.science@science.doe.gov’ <sc.science@science.doe.gov>; ‘camurray@seas.harvard.edu’ <camurray@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov’ <patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov>; ‘The White House’ <reply-ff3317757467-15_HTML-20605917-6229366-14560@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@mail.whitehouse.gov’ <info@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘vice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘helmut.marsiske@science.doe.gov’ <helmut.marsiske@science.doe.gov>; ‘Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov’ <Crawford.Glen@science.doe.gov>; ‘janice.hannan@science.doe.gov’ <janice.hannan@science.doe.gov>; ‘Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov’ <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>; ‘kim.laing@science.doe.gov’ <kim.laing@science.doe.gov>; ‘Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov’ <Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov>; ‘Lubenow, Anne (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov>; ‘Wooldridge, Shannon (NIH/OD) [E]’ <shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov>; ‘Johnson, Maureen (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov>; ‘Lowy, Douglas (NIH/NCI) [E]’ <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Pettigrew, Roderic (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <rpettig@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Mamaghani, Shadi (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov>; ‘Izzard, Tom (NIH/NIBIB) [C]’ <izzardt@mail.nih.gov>; ‘NIBIB Info’ <info@nibib.nih.gov>; ‘Cooper, Christine (NIH/NIBIB) [E]’ <cooperca2@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘grantsinfo@nih.gov’; ‘donna@brazileassociates.com’ <donna@brazileassociates.com>; ‘chris@brazileassociates.com’ <chris@brazileassociates.com>; ‘Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov’ <Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov>; ‘robinsobi@mail.nih.gov’ <robinsobi@mail.nih.gov>; ‘nciilo@mail.nih.gov’ <nciilo@mail.nih.gov> Cc: ‘crosetto@att.net’ <crosetto@att.net>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@u2ec.org>; ‘unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com’ <unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net> Subject: Dr. Lubenow and Cancer Moonshot Task Force RE: Request for a meeting at your office on December 9 afternoon of December 10 morning 2014. RE: Respectfully we are asking TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE

 

Dear Dr. Lubenow and Cancer Moonshot Task Force,

 

I regret that once more you have not kept your promise to work in the interest of cancer patients by addressing analytically and scientifically what is best for them; you do not accept help from professionals like myself who can help identify inconsistencies in statements, approaches, actions that do not significantly reduce cancer deaths and adopt a scientific procedure that will lead to a solution of the cancer problem. You excused yourself by claiming a “heavy workload” and so you were conducting “an internal review of suggestions for the initiative from concerned individuals. The Panel encourages a public dialogue through an online feedback platform…”

 

Let’s address the last point you mention. I am curious if this initiative of a “public dialogue” is a result of the suggestion I made in a letter and 413-page proposal to Vice-President Joe Biden, dated January 22, 2016, that I hand-delivered to the Grischa Hotel in Davos, Switzerland, for the American Delegation staying there asking for it to please be given to Mr. Biden.  I was reassured in an email by the Hotel personnel that my letter was delivered to the American Delegation. The same letter and 413-page proposal was sent via U.S. postal service and published on the web.

 

My letter to Mr. Biden stated the following:

What are your thoughts on identifying a procedure that is fair and respectful to all parties (researchers, philanthropists, funding agencies, investors, taxpayers and cancer patients) on which everyone agrees, benefitting taxpayers and cancer patients the most?  Here is what I believe should be happening, and I would appreciate if you would let me and the public know what you think:

 

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 deaths and cost when the project they are funding 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 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 message from our leaders in regard to the cancer problem is loud and clear. It was stated by President Obama at the State of the Union address on January 12, 2016; it was stated to the world from the World Economic Congress in Davos on January 21, 2016; it is to defeat cancer once and for all. Simply put, to substantially reduce cancer deaths. This message and objective were reported by all newspapers around the world. I have an Italian newspaper from those days reporting in large capital letters that Joe Biden announces that he wants to defeat cancer once and for all.

 

You are the Executive Officer of the National Cancer Institute who has been in charge over the period of several NCI Directors (Andrew von Eschenbach, John Niederhuber, Harold Varmus and Douglas Lowy) who handle $5 billion taxpayer money per year who should guarantee a continuity and effectiveness of programs to defeat cancer through the years across the period of several NCI Directors.

 

The message from our leaders is specifically directed to you, who, as an NCI Executive Officer is responsible to make the best use of the $5 billion per year to maximize the result of reducing cancer deaths as the leaders asked you to do and announced their objective to the world.

 

During our meeting at NIH in Bethesda on December 11, 2014, when I mentioned the statement by NCI Director, von Eschenbach stating in 2003 that he will eliminate suffering and deaths due to cancer by 2015, you laughed commenting, yes, I remember very well, I was there, working for him when he made this statement.

 

Clearly von Eschenbach’s objective was to achieve that goal; how did you translate his desire into real actions to achieve it?

 

Is it by refusing an analytical and scientific discussion, asking for ideas how to spend the $5 billion in research projects, and then picking the ones that favor a circle of friends, the ones from more influential scientists, groups or to satisfy a political agenda? Or from one of the thousands who answer your questions on the web that will not significantly reduce cancer deaths so the problem remains. Is this the best way to spend $5 billion for years to come to do the job your leaders asked you to do to defeat cancer?

 

I assume instead that President Obama told you the same thing he told me in the letter he wrote on September 25, 2015, that he can give the tools to think analytically; therefore, by refusing one more time an analytical and scientific discussion with myself it seems you are not doing the job your leaders asked you to do.

 

Let’s now analyze in depth the difference between the five questions I published in several documents, sent to Mr. Biden, and to leaders, including you who acknowledged reading my email, and your three questions in your latest initiative of the “public dialogue” on the NCI website at https://cancerresearchideas.cancer.gov.

 

I also suggested these five questions be asked to those who raise money or submit a project claiming a reduction in cancer deaths and costs:

 

  1. 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?

 

  1. How much will your project cost to develop?

 

  1. When can the first results be expected?

 

  1. How much are the operating costs?

 

  1. Is there a link to support the analytical and scientific evidence of your claims?”

 

Your three questions at the NCI website are the following:

 

  1. What is the research problem?

 

  1. What is your proposed solution?

 

  1. How will your solution make a difference?

 

None of your three questions mention the problem that is at the heart of our leaders, which is their goal to solve the problem of significantly reducing cancer deaths. Your questions do not indicate that the cancer mortality rate is too high and how can we significantly reduce it. Research problems can be infinite and clearly if someone proposes a solution it is to make a difference otherwise it cannot be called a solution; but which solution? For what amount?

 

The objective of creating a “public dialogue” with my five questions is to serve the interest of taxpayers, to serve our leaders who declare they want to eliminate deaths and suffering from cancer once for all, to help you as the NCI Executive Officer to make the best use of the $5 billion per year to maximize results by obtaining information from the responses to those five questions that will identify the projects with highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost, and then follow a scientific procedure where authors of the projects ask each other questions in a public debate, in a transparent procedure based on calculations, scientific evidence, objective and data-driven analysis.

 

Instead, my “public dialogue” goal to receive useful information from five relevant questions that would help solve a problem have been twisted into three questions calling it a “public dialogue” which will provide minimal help to solve the problem.

 

Hundreds or thousands of answers to those questions may present a cancer research project that could be worthy to pursue, however, by not having the information on the impact provided by the proposer of cancer death reduction and a link to scientific material supporting the claims, and the impossibility for you to be knowledgeable in all disciplines, the answers to those questions will not provide information useful to develop a scientific process based on calculations, scientific evidence, objective and data-driven analysis. You will end up funding out of the thousands projects suggested the one from a circle of friends, from influential people, etc., because it will be impossible from the answers you receive to create a scientific procedure.

 

Did you read the 114 ideas posted so far on the NCI website answering your three questions? Which one has the higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost that can publicly defend its claims when compared analytically and scientifically with the other 113 ideas? Which transparent scientific procedure will you follow to determine which project you are going to fund? Or none of these projects will be discussed analytically and scientifically and the $5 billion per year will be assigned to other projects that are not part of the “public dialogue”?

 

What matters after all is how NCI is spending the $5 billion they receive every year to maximize the return to taxpayers in cancer death reduction.

 

Transparency and “public dialogue” would be to inform the public about the 30 or 50 projects receiving the larger funding from NCI, share with the public the analytical and scientific discussion showing higher potential to reduce cancer deaths, their expected results in cancer deaths reduction and what will be the measured on a sample population.

 

I have been trying to help NCI since 1995 and you since 2002 to make the best use of the public money to fund research projects that can provide greater results in cancer death reduction. From the time you joined NCI in 2002, over $60 billion has been spent on cancer research and violations of NCI’s role and mission in the distribution of taxpayer funds for cancer research are unmistakable.

 

Starting from 1996, I have been trying to address issues analytically and scientifically with NIH-NCI pointing out clear misconceptions that have crushed my invention that would have already saved many of the 11 million Americans (157 million in the world) who have died from cancer since April 25, 1996 (see NCI reviewer’s statement rejecting[1] my proposal, and my explanation demonstrating he had a misconception on where computation power is needed in medical image instruments).

 

During our meeting on December 11, 2014, I made you aware of the NCI funding projects like the one from Craig Levin that has an exorbitant cost compared to the mammogram, is inefficient, is hazardous to the patient for screening, cannot reduce cancer deaths, so that its funding from NIH is therefore a waste of taxpayer money.

 

I also made you aware (as well as later via email) that at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conferences in Seoul, South Korea (2013) and in Seattle, Washington (2014), I talked to several of your reviewers and they could not refute that my approach and invention was superior to theirs in achieving cancer death and cost reduction. I have also informed you about the team who boycotted for 15 years the cost-effective 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technology for early cancer detection. I informed you about my 32-page article presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference describing the advantages of my 3D-CBS compared to the Explorer on page 19, and on page 20 I described the Table II comparing the 3D-CBS with current PET and the one presented at conferences, supported by NIH grants that will be available in the future.

 

After having informed you about the Explorer that in many areas is a copy of the 3D-CBS but costs over ten times as much and cannot claim a substantial reduction in cancer deaths, I learned that NIH funded its development for $15.5 million without calling for a comparison with my 3D-CBS invention which would provide much greater benefits to taxpayers.  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.

 

This is what we need to explain to taxpayers, cancer patients, and our leaders who want to achieve the goal of defeating this deadly disease. Why did you fund the Explorer which is over ten times as costly as the 3D-CBS but has a much lower potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs.

 

I am available to offer my professional knowledge to address this issue analytically and scientifically in a public debate with the authors of the Explorer where we can question each other.

 

Knowing that we have the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention that has high potential to reduce cancer death and cost, that has been recognized valuable in several public scientific reviews, that NCI has $15.5 million to fund this type of research, that every day we are losing 1,600 Americans (one every 4 seconds in the world) from cancer, that we lost 11 million Americans since I provided the explanation in 1996 to NCI that their reviewer had a misconception, and also provided thousands of pages of analytical and scientific explanations of several other misconceptions of NIH-NCI reviewers, I respectfully request to have a meeting with you and your experts to address analytically and scientifically these issues.

 

I am looking forward to a swift reply,

Sincerely,

 

Dario Crosetto

President of Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

900 Hideaway Pl.

DeSoto, TX 75115

Tel. 972-223-2904

 

 

From: NCI Correspondence and Clearance Branch [mailto:nciilo@mail.nih.gov] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 2:48 PM To: ‘United To End Cancer’ <volunteers@u2ec.org> Subject: National Cancer Institute response

 

Dear Mr. Crosetto:

 

Anne Lubenow, Deputy Executive Officer, National Cancer Institute (NCI) has asked me to respond to your recent e-mail and your previous request for a meeting or teleconference with her and with other officials at NCI and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Due to heavy workloads of NCI and NIH staff, such a meeting is not possible.

 

NCI staff and members of the Blue Ribbon Panel for the National Cancer Moonshot Initiative are conducting an internal review of suggestions for the initiative from concerned individuals. The Panel encourages public dialogue through an online feedback platform on the NCI website at https://cancerresearchideas.cancer.gov/.  You may wish to submit your cancer research ideas on that platform.

 

As NCI and other federal agency officials have informed you – in response to your previous inquiries in recent years – in order for NIH and its component institutes and centers to consider or fund research on your invention and technology, you and/or your organization must first submit a research proposal through the structured, competitive grants review process established by NIH. You can find current information about the process and funding opportunities at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm and  http://www.cancer.gov/grants-training.

 

We wish you success in pursuing a grant application with NIH.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Robinson

Office of Communications and Public Liaison

National Cancer Institute

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

 

From: Lubenow, Anne (NIH/NCI) [E] [mailto:lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:56 AM To: ‘United To End Cancer’ <volunteers@u2ec.org>; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net> Cc: crosetto@att.net; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@u2ec.org>; Wooldridge, Shannon (NIH/OD) [E] <shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov>; Johnson, Maureen (NIH/NCI) [E] <johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov>; Lowy, Douglas (NIH/NCI) [E] <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; Pettigrew, Roderic (NIH/NIBIB) [E] <rpettig@mail.nih.gov>; Mamaghani, Shadi (NIH/NIBIB) [C] <shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov>; Izzard, Tom (NIH/NIBIB) [C] <izzardt@mail.nih.gov>; NIBIB Info <info@nibib.nih.gov>; Cooper, Christine (NIH/NIBIB) [E] <cooperca2@mail.nih.gov> Subject: RE: Request for a meeting at your office on December 9 afternoon of December 10 morning 2014. RE: Respectfully we are asking TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE in PUBLIC, OPEN WORKSHOPS and STOP to funding scientists who deny it.

 

Dr. Crosetto….

 

As we discussed yesterday, I am sorry that it has taken me longer than anticipated to identify times for a discussion.  I will be in touch the middle of next week with some options for your consideration.

 

All the best,

 

Anne

 

Anne Lubenow

Deputy Executive Officer

National Cancer Institute

301-435-7780

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

 

From: Lubenow, Anne (NIH/NCI) [E] [mailto:lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov] Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 7:45 AM To: ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net> Cc: crosetto@att.net; ‘United To End Cancer’ <unitedtoendcancer@u2ec.org>; Wooldridge, Shannon (NIH/OD) [E] <shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov>; Johnson, Maureen (NIH/NCI) [E] <johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov>; Lowy, Douglas (NIH/NCI) [E] <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; Pettigrew, Roderic (NIH/NIBIB) [E] <rpettig@mail.nih.gov>; Mamaghani, Shadi (NIH/NIBIB) [C] <shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov>; Izzard, Tom (NIH/NIBIB) [C] <izzardt@mail.nih.gov>; NIBIB Info <info@nibib.nih.gov>; Cooper, Christine (NIH/NIBIB) [E] <cooperca2@mail.nih.gov> Subject: RE: Request for a meeting at your office on December 9 afternoon of December 10 morning 2014. RE: Respectfully we are asking TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE in PUBLIC, OPEN WORKSHOPS and STOP to funding scientists who deny it.

 

Dr. Crosetto…

 

Thank you for your email.  I will contact my colleagues and someone will get back to you about setting up a conference call with the appropriate people.  I am not sure if we will be able to adequately assemble by January 11th but I will try.  If not, we will get back to you with some other dates and times.

 

Thank you also for sending an electronic version of the materials you sent.  We are trying to determine how to retrieve the hard copies as they appear to be somewhere in the NIH mail system.

 

We will be in touch next week.

 

All the best,

 

Anne

 

Anne Lubenow

Deputy Executive Officer

National Cancer Institute

301-435-7780

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

 

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:49 PM To: ‘Anne.Lubenow@nih.gov’ <Anne.Lubenow@nih.gov> Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net>; ‘crosetto@att.net’ <crosetto@att.net> Subject: Request for a conference call after February 9, 2015 to continue our discussion of December 11, 2014 at the 11th floor of Bld. 31

 

 

Dear Dr. Lubenow,

 

As per your suggestion during our meeting on December 11, 2014 at the 11th floor of Bld. 31 to arrange a conference call to continue the discussion on the important subject of how we could have already and how we can in the future significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost, I am requesting that you kindly suggest a date after February 9, 2015 for this conference call and that you invite all NCI experts interested in achieving ASAP this objective.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dario Crosetto

 

[1] 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. 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.”

Share it!Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply

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