Dear Dr. Womersley, may I suggest that you or the person appointed by you will set up a teleconference at your earliest convenience after June 30, 2016, to discuss the article and slides STFC_SWATCH.pdf presented by STFC at the RT2016 in Padova, Italy on June 6, 2016, and compare it with my two slides for the 3D-Flow-OPRA.pdf. (See pp. 3-4)? To avoid writing several emails, I will appreciate if you could let me know if there is any reason that this teleconference should not take place
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 12:54 PM
To: ‘Janice.Masone@stfc.ac.uk’ <Janice.Masone@stfc.ac.uk>
Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: FW: Respectfully requesting a teleconference at your earliest convenience, to discuss the work supported by STFC presented at RT2016 on June 6, 2016 and my lower cost and more performant breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention
Dear Ms. Masone,
Thank you for taking my call a few minutes ago. As I mentioned during our phone conversation my cell phone record shows two missed calls from STFC on June 28, 2016 at 7:40 am and today, July 4, 2016, at 3:38 pm. Please could you enquire who is attempting to communicate with me and please provide my office number in DeSoto, Texas at +1-972-223-2904.
If you cannot find the person who was trying to contact me, please could you ask Dr. Womersly to let me know when he (or a person appointed by him) can set up a teleconference to discuss the STFC work presented at the RT2016 conference as requested below.
Thank you for your attention.
President of Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths
900 Hideaway Pl
DeSoto, TX 75115
From: 3D-Computing, Inc. [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 4:21 PM To: ‘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>; ‘Alessandro.Thea@stfc.ac.uk’ <Alessandro.Thea@stfc.ac.uk> Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Respectfully requesting a meeting on June 24, 2016, to discuss the work supported by STFC presented at RT2016 on June 6, 2016 and my lower cost and more performant breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention
Dear Dr. Womersley,
Because I have not received an answer to my request for a meeting with someone of the STFC CMS Level-1 Trigger group for June 24, 2016, I assume that no one is available on that day.
May I suggest that you or the person appointed by you will set up a teleconference at your earliest convenience after June 30, 2016, to discuss the article and slides STFC_SWATCH.pdf presented by STFC at the RT2016 in Padova, Italy on June 6, 2016, and compare it with my two slides for the 3D-Flow-OPRA.pdf. (See pp. 3-4)? To avoid writing several emails, I will appreciate if you could let me know if there is any reason that this teleconference should not take place.
It is my understanding that is legitimate and is part of our professional ethic for each author of a scientific article to be available to address his approach, findings, results with a colleague.
I was surprised that Dr. Voortman refuse to provide over the phone the email and phone number of the authors of the paper that I would like to discuss and I had to search their address on the web.
I was surprised that one author, Alessandro Thea deleted my previous email with such request without reading the email. I hope that Thomas Williams will be available or other people of the STFC CMS Level-1 Trigger Group.
Thank you for letting me know.
_____________________________________________ From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 10:12 AM To: email@example.com Subject: Not read: RE: Respectfully requesting a meeting on June 24, 2016, to discuss the work supported by STFC presented at RT2016 on June 6, 2016 and my lower cost and more performant breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention
To: Thea, Alessandro (STFC,RAL,PPD)
Subject: RE: Respectfully requesting a meeting on June 24, 2016, to discuss the work supported by STFC presented at RT2016 on June 6, 2016 and my lower cost and more performant breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 4:06:00 PM (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London
was deleted without being read on Friday, June 17, 2016 4:12:21 PM (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 10:06 AM To: ‘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>; ‘Alessandro.Thea@stfc.ac.uk’ <Alessandro.Thea@stfc.ac.uk> Cc: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ <email@example.com> Subject: RE: Respectfully requesting a meeting on June 24, 2016, to discuss the work supported by STFC presented at RT2016 on June 6, 2016 and my lower cost and more performant breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention
Dear Dr. Williams,
Dear Dr. Thea,
I just spoke on the phone with Dr. Womersley’s assistant, Dr. Voortman who informed me that Dr. Womersley will be travelling on June 24 and will be out of his office until June 30.
Please could you let me know if you or any of your associates from STFC who are working on the CMS Level-1 Trigger would be available for a meeting at your location on June 24, 2016 at a time convenient to you to discuss the material provided in this email?
Thank you for letting me know,
From: United To End Cancer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:04 PM To: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ’email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Suzanna.Taverne@bbc.co.uk’ <Suzanna.Taverne@bbc.co.uk>; ‘Michael.Williams@bbc.co.uk’ <Michael.Williams@bbc.co.uk>; ‘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’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk’ <Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Mark.Damazer@bbc.co.uk’ <Mark.Damazer@bbc.co.uk>; ‘Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk’ <Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>; ‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com> Subject: Respectfully requesting a meeting on June 24, 2016, to discuss the work supported by STFC presented at RT2016 on June 6, 2016 and my lower cost and more performant breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention
Subject: Respectfully requesting a meeting on June 24, 2016, to discuss the work supported by STFC presented at RT2016 on June 6, 2016 and my lower cost and more performant breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention
June 16, 2016
To: Prof. John Womersley, CEO of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) in UK.
Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, SN2 1SZ. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Tel: +44 (0)1793 442 000
Cc: Mr. Simon Stevens, Chief Executive of NHS England; Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP Secretary of State for Health; Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive, Cancer Research UK; Sara Hiom, Director of early diagnosis Cancer Research UK; Ms. Nicola Harley, The Sunday Telegraph; Ms. Sarah-Kate Templeton, The Sunday Times; Mr. Jonathan Ungoed-Thomas The Sunday Times; Guardian email@example.com; Observer firstname.lastname@example.org; Mr. Ben Spenser, The Daily Mail; Associated Press, email@example.com, The Honorable Lord Williams of Baglan, CBS 60 minutes, The New York Times
Dear Dr. Womersley,
This message relates to my previous correspondence with you on July 15-20, 2015, regarding the advantages and benefits of my inventions in High Energy Physics for the discovery of new particles, and in Medical Imaging applications for saving millions of lives through an effective early cancer detection, and in response to the July 19, 2015 articles in The Sunday Telegraph, The Sunday Times, etc. “Cancer reforms to save 30,000 lives per year…”, “NHS plan to slash cancer deaths…”
Because we the public are informed through the media (newspapers, television, online news and blogs, the cinema, etc.) about the British tradition to give anyone an opportunity to be heard who has a breakthrough invention before experts in the field, and follow a fair, open, public scientific procedure to discuss analytically new ideas based on calculations and scientific evidence, I am respectfully requesting a meeting on June 24, 2016, at STFC to discuss the work supported by STFC and compare it to my breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention to discover new particles and benefit many other applications which advance science including significantly reducing cancer deaths and cost through an effective early detection.
In particular, I would like to discuss the work supported by STFC presented at several conferences (e.g. CHEP2015, RT2016) which is summarized in the two attached slides for the STFC_SWATCH.pdf and my two slides for the 3D-Flow-OPRA.pdf. (See pp. 3-4).
I am providing a link to the details of my breakthrough 3D-Flow-OPRA invention https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MlpkbUpjbEIybUk/view?usp=sharing and a link to the STFC_SWATCH approach http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/664/8/082012/pdf (See also STFC article presented on June 6, 2016, at the RT2016 Conference; please provide any additional STFC articles that would provide relevant information to compare it with the 3D-Flow OPRA).
My 3D-Flow OPRA invention detailed in the above mentioned document, whose feasibility is supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries that can build all its components, can replace hundreds of crates containing 4,000 data processor boards developed in the past 22 years (1993-2015) for the Level-1 Trigger of CERN-CMS experiment, can replace the CMS Level-1 Trigger SWATCH upgrade developed by STFC and other universities installed on February 26, 2016 and still being tested, and can replace the triggers of several other High Energy Physics experiments with one higher performing VXI crate (a cube of 36 cm) containing 9 electronic boards at approximately 1/1000 the cost.
In Medical Imaging applications the 3D-Flow OPRA allows my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) lifesaving technology to be built which is hundreds of times more efficient than the over 6,000 existing PET devices and its components costs 1/10 less than the Explorer device for Medical Imaging funded recently for $15.5 million by a circle of friends who obstructed my idea for 15 years and then copied it using NIH-NCI taxpayer money to fund their less efficient more expensive Explorer that cannot significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost.
Based on its increased efficiency, the estimated cancer death reduction achievable with my 3D-CBS is 33% in 6 years from funding and 50% in 10 years.
At this link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5OEowTjZMN1J5dzA/view?usp=sharing) you can find three Abstracts and Summaries that I submitted on May 3rd, 2016, to the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in November 2016 (all my abstracts to the IEEE-NSS-MIC were rejected from the year 2000 except when Ralph James was General Chairman of the conference in 2003 when three articles on IEEE-MIC and one article on 2013 IEEE-RTSD were accepted, respectively).
My basic invention was recognized valuable and approved by academia, industry and research centers at a major international PUBLIC scientific review held at FERMILAB in 1993 (see pp. 56-74), acclaimed and endorsed (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83) valuable by several top experts in the field, presented at several international conferences, and published in a 45-page peer-review article in 1999. Then beginning in the year 2000, it became slowly and painfully clear to me that several scientists in my field belonging to Universities and who had an interest in seeing the benefits to taxpayers provided by my superior invention being crushed so they could receive funding to support their own projects, pursue their personal interests and those of their circle of friends, began treating me unfairly by denying my requests for presentations at conferences, and rejecting my articles as well as rejecting my grant proposals to DOE, NIH, NSF, CPRIT, when in the past I had received over $1 Million in grants from 1995 to 1998 from DOE and DOD.
I wish this were just a perception on my part but I will give here a few concrete examples: all my submissions since 2000 to the IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences have been rejected (with the exception of the abstracts submitted to MIC in 2003 and to RTSD in 2013 when Ralph James was the Chairman as I mentioned before); the microphone was taken away from me on several occasions at conferences and workshops while I was asking legitimate, pertinent questions to the keynote speakers at IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences and presenters of projects at workshops (e.g. at the “Physics for Health” Workshop held at CERN on 2010); my two proposals for workshops at the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference where young and senior scientists could present their work and then question each other publicly for a time longer than one hour were rejected (Typically there is only 5 minute Q&A at the end of each presentation which does not allow for an in depth analytical discussion of calculations or the existence of scientific evidence of benefits): my numerous requests for an opportunity to address the advantages and benefits of my invention with experts in the field who are funding and building less performant and more expensive approaches have gone unanswered or were consistently rejected.
Recently, I watched the newly released movie “The Man Who Knew Infinity” which gives the true account of Srinivasa Ramanujan who overcame adversities and was given an opportunity in England to discuss his ideas with experts in the field; last year I watched “The Imitation Game” about Alan Turing’s struggle to build the Enigma machine which he ultimately succeeded in doing because he was heard by British government officials who understood it was superior to all others approaches and realized it would save millions of lives and accelerate the end of World War II; and in a previous year, I watched “Castles in the Sky”, the true story of Robert Watson Watt, a Scotsman who was heard by government officials and for the same reason his Radar project was funded saving countless lives.
These are three examples in Cinema which show the British tradition of giving everyone an opportunity to present their ideas and discuss them analytically based on calculations and scientific evidence. Now I am respectfully asking you to give me an opportunity to introduce my 3D-Flow OPRA (see pp. 3-4) invention to the decision body of the STFC and compare it to the system STFC and other projects that research centers and universities have developed for the CMS experiment at CERN. The same technology which requires experts in particle detection to discuss the details can be used in Medical Imaging applications and will save millions of lives.
On June 24, 2016, I will be in Europe for another meeting and because I am on a tight schedule and a very strict budget, I would appreciate it if you could organize such a meeting with your experts in particle detection who could address the attached slides on the STFC_SWATCH and who would discuss my 3D-Flow OPRA invention with me.
Looking forward to your positive answer.
Dario Crosetto, President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths
Crosetto’s breakthrough invention: 3D-Flow OPRA
-a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: advancing science, saving lives, fighting terrorism, …
3D-Flow OPRA: A revolutionary electronic instrument capable of executing programmable, fast, multidimensional Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) by analyzing ALL data arriving at ultra-high speed from a matrix of thousands of transducers at 1.3TB/sec for each VXI or ATCA crate (a cube of electronics of 36 cm) with 8,192 electronic channels.
This performance is achieved with 3D-Flow processors implemented with standard technology housing 64 processors per chip (or ASIC, Application Specific Integrated Circuit) costing $1 per 3D-Flow processor.
Using more advanced technologies to implement the 3D-Flow OPRA invention, performance reaching over 20TB/sec in the execution of Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithms can be achieved in a single VXI or ATCA crate (a cube of electronics of 36 cm).
See the 3D-Flow OPRA project at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5MlpkbUpjbEIybUk/view?usp=sharing
At this link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5OEowTjZMN1J5dzA/view?usp=sharing) you can find three Abstracts and Summaries submitted on May 3rd, 2016, to the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in November 2016.
I. Advantages & Benefits of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA breakthrough invention to discover new particles:
A. Technical advantages:
Capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation at the lowest cost per valid signal captured.
Allows experimenters to cost-effectively implement their desired Level-1 Trigger Algorithm identifying any particle with specific characteristics and effectively filter uninteresting signals (Providing a very high S/N ratio).
C. Analytical Proof by following analytical procedures based on calculations and scientific evidence
An analytical examination of Crosetto’s two attached 3D-Flow-OPRA slides (See pp. 3-4) and those by STFC_SWATCH and the previous CMS Level-1 Trigger implementation, coupled with a dialogue between the authors where they may question each other, verify calculations and scientific evidence supporting their claims, will identify any errors, differences, limitations, advantages and benefits of one system with respect to the other.
For example, one can verify before construction of the hardware whether the 4,000 electronic data processing boards of the CMS Level-1 Trigger (developed from 1994 to February 26, 2016), the new 100 electronic data processing boards of the CMS SWATCH (used from February 26, 2016), or the 9 electronic data processing boards of the 3D-Flow OPRA can execute several experimenters’ desired algorithms with highest probability to identify the new particle with specific characteristics and at what cost. Each parameter and component of the system should be verified for its performance and feasibility (e.g. the 59 quotes supporting feasibility of the 3D-Flow OPRA).
Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention underwent a thorough analytical process, was approved by academia, industry and research centers (including a representative from CERN) at a major international PUBLIC scientific review held at Fermi National Laboratory on December 14, 1993 (see pp. 56-74), acclaimed and endorsed (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83) valuable by several top experts in the field to create a fully programmable Level-1 Trigger with zero dead-time, a powerful tool for experimenters to discover new particles. Furthermore, it received awards and passed subsequent scientific reviews (pp. 84-101), was proven feasible and functional in hardware (pp. 142-144), and proven scientifically advantageous and beneficial in many applications (pp. 1-2 & 24-29) ― but funding went to less efficient and more costly approaches.
The DOE missed several opportunities (see pp. 104-141) to save millions of dollars and create a more powerful tool for discovering new particles at a fraction of the cost and benefit many other applications such as saving millions of lives with early cancer detection because an analytical and scientific discussion of Crosetto’s inventions was denied.
D. Proof by experimental results
After determining through the analytical process which Level-1 Trigger project(s) is more cost-effective, one should envision designing an instrument that is generating data as the LHC detectors do to be able to test repetitively, under controlled conditions the new Level-1 Trigger unit, and verify experimentally if the calculations and feasibility study performed during the analytical process were correct.
Crosetto’s proposal (see pp. 158-170) provides the design of such a unit called “Trigger Event Recorder & Detector Simulator Unit” (TER/DSU) which can test the three trigger systems in the attached slides (STFC_SWATCH.pdf, 3D-Flow-OPRA.pdf) as well as any Level-1 Trigger system.
An 8,192 channel TER/DSU @ 640Mbps per channel system costing approximately $50,000 (this price is based on the quotes received from three competing companies to whom Crosetto provided the specifications and design of this instrument that can be configured in any size through its modular 512 channels boards) can provide the functionality of the LHC collider and detector that required over 20 years of development at a cost of over $50 billion.
One 8,192 ch. TER/DSU unit could be installed at each CERN-LHC detectors to record real data from an experiment (from 0.2 to 1.6 seconds, depending on the size of memory used in the TER/DSU modules). Data could then be transferred to a similar unit installed at each university that is developing data processing boards for the Level-1 Trigger.
The data recorded from a real experiment will provide the user the possibility to test if their Level-1 Trigger design has the capability to filter the non-interesting signals generated from the background radiation, and furthermore, the user will have the possibility to edit these data and add events with the specific characteristic of a Higgs boson-like particle or other particles. To test whether the proposed Level-1 Trigger System provides zero dead-time, Higgs boson-like events can be edited in two consecutive bunch-crossing memory locations of the TER/DSU unit.
Unfortunately, this TER/DSU unit was not conceived or planned to be built during the past 22 years with the result that, because collisions at the LHC are not controllable, the same patterns cannot be repeated forever to test the Level-1 Trigger unit by looking at signals at the oscilloscope or at a logic state analyzer, the CMS Level-1 Trigger made of 4,000 data processing boards could not be tested properly in the lab before installing at CERN-LHC-CMS detector. In the end the CMS Level-1 Trigger could not find Higgs boson-like particles. The 40 Higgs boson-like particles found in 2011-2012 from the 100,000 generated by the LHC collider and used to publish the article in 2012 claiming victory were found by analyzing trillions of data recorded casually, not by merit of the Level-1 Trigger.
II. Advantages & Benefits of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS breakthrough invention based on the 3D-Flow OPRA to save lives with a cost-effective early cancer detection:
A. Technical advantages:
Capable of extracting ALL information from the radiation associated with tumor-markers at the lowest cost per valid tumor-marker captured.
Provides a cost-effective screening device with the potential to save millions of lives with an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases, providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and improve the monitoring of diseases.
C. Analytical Proof by following analytical procedures based on calculations and scientific evidence
An analytical examination of Crosetto’s two articles presented at the 2000 IEEE-MIC conference in Lyon, France, the technical-scientific book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost Cancer Screening” (patent pending), 200 copies of which were distributed free of charge to leaders in the field, Crosetto’s 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention being recognized superior and more cost-effective than other approaches in several PUBLIC international scientific reviews, winning the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis, calculations and scientific evidence, all prove analytically the advantages and superiority of the 3D-CBS compared to any other PET devices or approaches.
The design, construction, and testing in hardware of two modular photon detection boards, each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors capable of extracting all information from the radiation associated to the tumor-markers and presented at the IEEE-MIC Conference in 2003 is further proof that calculations during the analytical process of examining Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention are correct.
Now scientists who obstructed Crosetto’s project and rejected his articles by claiming it was not necessary to improve the electronics in PET but to improve the characteristics of the crystal detectors and to intensify computational resources at the back-end of PET (see reviewer’s rejections statement of Crosetto’s request for funding), as well as to improve spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity (Crosetto’s proposals provide intensive computation at the front-end of PET and the accurate measurement of all parameters: spatial, time, energy resolution as well as maximizing sensitivity) – these same scientists and their circle of friends are copying Crosetto’s idea. This is even further proof that calculations during the analytical process of examining Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention are correct.
Still today taxpayers and cancer patients cannot receive the benefits of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention because it is not funded, while those who crushed his inventions and his 3D-CBS idea for 15 years and then copied it with their Explorer as they admit in slide 6 presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference received $15.5 million from NIH through their circle of friends who are approving NIH funding despite the fact that their device cannot significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost because it is less efficient and ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS.
The Explorer project which uses 500,000 expensive crystals together with other expensive components described in articles and press releases by its authors is less efficient and over ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS invention which uses less than 1,000 economical crystals and achieves higher efficiency with a significantly greater potential to reduce cancer deaths and healthcare costs. The problem is that these peers meet behind closed doors to split NIH taxpayer money among themselves, a circle of friends – wasting public money in pursuit of their own agendas and personal interests.
Crosetto’s 32-page article and poster presented at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTDS conference in Seoul, South Korea provides calculations and references of the superiority and cost-effectiveness of his 3D-CBS invention compared to other PET devices commercially available and those presented at conferences as future designs.
Unfortunately, 158,868,000 people have died from cancer since Crosetto’s inventions intensifying computation at the front-end of PET, accurately measuring all parameters of the radiation associated to tumor markers, etc., were rejected. Many of these people could have been saved with Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention effective for early cancer detection.
After 19 years, the authors of the Explorer and their circle of friends who obstructed Crosetto or refused to address analytically, based on calculation and scientific evidence their rejection claims, now seem to understand that the direction needed is to change from improving PET crystals to improving the electronics at the front-end rather than at the back-end. Their new statements compared to their past statements are reversed in their press release: «We’re developing the electronic interface between the detectors and the computer algorithm—and the electronics for this scanner is an order of magnitude more complicated than what’s been done before,” says Moses».
However, if the peer review system of articles, NIH and other funding agencies continue to assign taxpayer money in closed door meetings among a circle of friends, how many more deaths and years will it take before an analytical and scientific discussion of Crosetto’s invention is accepted instead of funding the Explorer which is less efficient and over ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS?
D. Proofs from experimental results
One way to maximize cancer deaths and cost reduction would be to demand that funding agencies which use taxpayer and donation money to fight cancer, whether through a new drug, vaccine, medical imaging device, or healthy lifestyle promotion, etc., estimate the reduction of cancer deaths and cost they expect to attain with their project (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.
Funding agencies should determine: What, When, and How they will provide taxpayers a return in cancer death and cost reduction by asking applicants submitting a request to fund a cancer research project:
- What 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?
- When can the first results be expected?
- How much will your project cost to develop? How much are the operating costs?
- How does it compare to other worthy projects to reduce cancer death and cost?
- Is there a link to support the analytical and scientific evidence of your claims?
Crosetto plans to build three 3D-CBS devices, then place them in three different locations to test 10,000 people per device (as detailed before).
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 within three years from funding for a total cost of $20 million including testing costs.
Based on the increased efficiency, the estimated cancer death reduction achievable with the 3D-CBS is 33% in 6 years from funding and 50% in 10 years. In summary, Crosetto’s answers to the above questions are the following:
- Estimate of 33% cancer death reduction in 6 years from funding and 50% in 10 years.
- First results expected in 3 years from funding.
- $20 Million to develop 3 x 3D-CBS units (compared to billions of dollars for drug developments). Operating costs estimated at $400 per exam.
- It is hundreds of time more efficient than current over 6,000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography), its components costs 1/10 less than the Explorer device for Medical Imaging funded recently for $15.5 million by a circle of friends who obstructed Crosetto’s idea for 15 years and then copied it using NIH-NCI taxpayer money to fund their less efficient more expensive Explorer that cannot significantly reduce cancer deaths and.
- Supporting analytical and scientific evidence are available in a 413-page document (271-page publicly available) describing the basic components of the inventions whose feasibility are supported by 59 quotes from several reputable companies
Based on the description from articles and press releases by 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 in full production. In summary, the construction of three Explorer units will cost over $200 million, over ten times the cost of the $20 million needed for three 3D-CBS units. Plus the impact of the Explorer to save lives will be much lower compared to the 3D-CBS and will increase healthcare costs.
III. Advantages & Benefits of Crosetto’s breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention for several other applications:
The 3D-Flow OPRA system allows accurate quality control in the manufacturing industry. It opens the door to advance research in many other fields by analyzing, identifying and/or triggering on specific frames in fast chemical processes, or from normal cells mutating into cancerous cells from biological or chemical processes sent from movie cameras operating at over 100 million frames per second. It provides a tool to understand the dynamics before and after metals or other material under stress break the structure of their molecules, etc.
It can measure all kinds of phenomena and identify all kinds of objects in 3-D that create an electrical signal in response to physical stimuli. For example, a shape of different colors, a shape of different levels of heat, a shape of different levels of sound volume and frequencies, a shape of different energies, a shape of different mechanical stress, a shape of different pressure, a shape of different light, the characteristics of a specific subatomic particle measured from signals generated by CCD, APD, PMT, SiPM, PADs, silicon strip detectors, wire-chambers, drift-chambers, etc.
IV. Obstacles preventing transferring benefits from Crosetto’s inventions to taxpayers and humanity
Beginning in the year 2000, after Crosetto’s publication of his 45-page peer-review article on Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, it became more and more clear that several scientists in the field of particle detection and Medical Imaging belonging to Universities and who had an interest in seeing the benefits to taxpayers provided by Crosetto’s superior invention being crushed so they could receive funding to support their own projects, pursue their personal interests and those of their circle of friends, began treating Crosetto’s research work unfairly by denying his requests for presentations at conferences, and rejecting his articles as well as rejecting his grant proposals to DOE, NIH, NSF, CPRIT, when in the past he had received over $1 Million in grants from 1995 to 1998 from DOE and DOD.
This is not just Crosetto’s perception as there are several documented facts to supporting it; listed here are a few of them:
- In 1998 Crosetto was prevented from participating and presenting his 3D-Flow invention at the Workshop on Electronics for LHC experiment at Snowmass, Colorado, because the co-Chairmen argued that Crosetto’s invention was not adopted by Atlas or CMS experiments. Atlas and CMS experiments should have been asked why they endorsed and funded less efficient and more expensive approaches…, e.g. building 4,000 electronic boards for the CMS level-1 Trigger that did not work, while Crosetto’s invention was recognized valuable by a major public scientific review (see pp. 56-74), acclaimed and endorsed in many letters (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83) from top experts in the field, and could execute any programmable object pattern recognition algorithm with zero dead time. Thereafter, Crosetto has been prevented from presenting his innovations at all IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences except in 2003 and 2013 when Ralph James was the Chairman.
- In 1999 anonymous reviewers rejected Crosetto’s paper for publication claiming that his 3D-Flow invention was flawed. An IEEE senior scientist appointed renowned scientists to review Crosetto’s 3D-Flow paper and they approved it for publication. However, the paper was never published because the editor considered the judgement of the anonymous reviewers more important even though they did not explain why the 3D-Flow architecture in their opinion was flawed. The 3D-Flow architecture was proven feasible and functional by simulation in 1997 and starting from 2001 in FPGA hardware.
- In 2002 the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference rejected all Crosetto’s abstracts relative to his 3D-Flow and his 3D-CBS idea, then asked Crosetto to send him his technical-scientific book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost Cancer Screening.” Now this same Chairman is among the authors who copied Crosetto’s idea with their Explorer device which, in spite of being less efficient, ten times more expensive and not useful to significantly reduce cancer deaths, has received $15.5 million taxpayer money through a circle of friends among the NIH-NCI reviewers during the funding process. (See the Chairman’s problems he faced before reading Crosetto’s book and how Crosetto’s idea was copied in the Explorer device 13 years later by the Chairman https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5c001X3NFLXM4MTQ/view?usp=sharing)
- In 2008 after Crosetto wrote a letter to the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, he recognized the value of Crosetto’s inventions and urged him to submit the abstracts that were rejected the previous years. The Chairman promised to provide a scientific reason in the event they were rejected again and to help organize a forum via internet through the EVO web meeting system from CERN. Instead, he received inconsistent non-scientific reasons from his reviewers and experts in the field whom he contacted for the forum to address the most innovative ideas that would provide technological advantages in medical imaging to the benefit of cancer patients. He was powerless in implementing scientific procedures to the benefit of mankind. Scientific arguments were not provided to support the rejections and he could not find anyone to participate in the public forum. (See at this link the correspondence and facts about the Chairman’s attempts to implement scientific procedures that failed)
- In 2010 Crosetto was stopped from asking a legitimate, pertinent question at the workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN and the microphone was taken away from him. His question was related to improving PET efficiency by maximizing the accuracy in the measurements of all its parameters rather than improving only spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity as the presenter of the Axial PET project did. The presenter of the Axial PET project won the first prize assigned by his supervisor, CERN director of Research, who was the managing Director of the Axial PET project and also a member of the committee assigning the prize for the best project. Practically speaking, he awarded himself.
- In 2013 Crosetto’s abstract of the 3D-CBS innovation which is hundreds of times more efficient than current PET submitted to the IEEE-MIC conference was again rejected, while a copy of his idea, the Explorer, but ten times more expensive, was accepted. Crosetto exchanged several email with the Deputy Chairman of the conference who had accepted from his circle of friends 17 of his articles to improve PET special resolution to the detriment of sensitivity. Another reason his papers were accepted is because he received millions of dollars from NIH grants. NIH grants R01 CA119056, R01 CA119056S1 (ARRA), R01 CA120474, and R01 EB011552 and DOE grant DESC0005290 which funded the Deputy Chairman’s “block detector” with 1x1x1 mm3 crystals with many holes between the crystals that cannot capture the photons generated from the tumor markers. This NIH million dollars cannot reduce cancer deaths because this PET is very inefficient, requiring administration of high radiation to the patient and a high examination cost.
- In 2014 Crosetto was stopped by the Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference from asking a legitimate question to the NSS keynote speaker about the discrepancy between CMS 125.3 GeV and Atlas 126.5 GeV measurement of the energy of the announced Higgs boson-like particle that was published before calibrating the instruments. After the event, Crosetto asked the Chairman why he stopped him from addressing this issue with the keynote speaker. The Chairman replied it was because Crosetto was wrong in asking the question and claiming CMS and Atlas billion dollar instruments did not perform accurate measurements. He stated that CMS and Atlas measurements are very accurate and that they have made extensive measurements. He stated that even the same instrumentation never gives the same measurement when performed at different times because differences in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, tides caused by the moon, etc., can make a difference at 15-digit decimal point. Crosetto agreed with the Chairman, but said CMS at 125.3 GeV and Atlas at 126.5 GeV have a 0.91% difference in their measurements, which is 100 trillion times greater than the error the Chairman indicated of 0.00000000000000091%. At that point, instead of resolving the issue based on the evidence of the calculations, the Chairman ran away with the excuse that he had other important things to do. The following year ALL Crosetto’s papers were again rejected as you can see on page 245 of Crosetto’s proposal with claims of “propaganda” but refusing to discuss his equations, calculations, and scientific evidence that would demonstrate the solid scientific evidence which is not propaganda.
- In 2014 Crosetto’s microphone was again taken away by the Deputy Chair of the IEEE-MIC Conference while asking a question to the MIC keynote speaker who presented a PET with sub-millimeter spatial resolution and very low sensitivity and efficiency in capturing signals from the tumor markers. Crosetto pointed out that his PET technique presents intrinsic errors of the path travelled by the positron before encountering an electron (from 1.4 mm to 13 mm) and the collinearity error that are affecting spatial resolution which are due to the natural phenomenon that cannot be eliminated. Therefore, developing expensive electronics and crystal block detectors that cannot capture all signals from tumor markers is a disadvantage to the patient who receives high radiation and to the physician who cannot receive the information from the instrument related to the minimum abnormal metabolism. The speaker answered that he was a chemist and was not aware of these nuclear phenomena. Crosetto asked if he would agree to have a public workshop within the conference where he and others could present their ideas and resolve this issue scientifically among scientists. (The issue if PET development should go in the direction of higher spatial resolution or higher sensitivity). At that point the microphone was taken away from Crosetto and the discussion interrupted before the speaker could answer. Crosetto later in the day met the speaker and his team and realized that they were satisfying the requirements of a pharmaceutical company that was interested in knowing the minimum shrinkage of the tumor as a consequence of the use of their drugs because that is a selling point, but were not concerned about saving people’s lives for the long term. However, because the organizers of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD impeded Crosetto from further discussion during the public session, thousands of scientists participating at the conference were denied hearing the outcome of a dialogue among scientists that would have made the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge. This explains why it takes decades to change the trend of scientists focusing on improving spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity to improving PET sensitivity at the lowest cost per valid tumor marker captured.
- In 2015 Crosetto’s abstract submitted to the PSMR2015 conference was rejected by reviewers and confirmed by the conference Chairmen without them providing any scientific reasons how they determined the score. When Crosetto asked one of the Chairmen how the peer-review (articles and funding) system works, he talked about psychology, the human factor, friends and enemies, “scientific opinions”, instead of a scientific review process based on the accuracy of calculations, analyzing scientific evidence, etc. He told Crosetto that this is how the scientific community is – using his exact words: “…but this is the procedure. I will be happy to see the European Union improving the procedure, but I do not think that there is a way to leave the human outside…” (by human he is referring to friends and enemies instead of sticking to analytical and scientific merits of an article or proposal). He applauded Crosetto for trying to improve this procedure with his exact words: “If you think this procedure needs to be revised, it is very good that you make the effort to have them improve it, but until then…” From the Chairman’s last words it is clear the consequences from the meaning, implementation and power of the word “rejection” of an article or funding a project with the type of peer-review described before: (a “scientific opinion” instead of a PUBLIC scientific review process based on the accuracy of calculations, analyzing scientific evidences…; “friends and enemies” which explains approving articles and funding to a “circle of friends” and rejecting those “who are not within a circle of friends”. Here are the Chairman last words: “if the proposal is rejected and there is no money, so the machine will never be made, so we will never know who was wrong and who was correct”. This is the way innovations are crushed and humanity is deprived from its benefits because of a rigged peer-review system. At the end of the conversation, Crosetto asked if he could share the Chairman’s vision with others and he gave his permission. Therefore, you can find the transcript and recorded voice at the web site http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363
It is undeniable that funding agencies funded inefficient and inadequate approaches in HEP wasting $50 billion and 20 years of work because the current Level-1 Trigger of the large CMS and Atlas experiments need to be trashed. This is stated in the CMS and Atlas 2013 detector upgrade documents. It is undeniable that now funding agencies are making the same mistake in funding the new Level-1 Trigger of these large experiments with FPGA implementations. This time they will waste $30 billion and the work of 12,000 scientists over the next 10 years.
It is undeniable that millions of lives and trillions of dollars have been lost because of inefficient medical instrumentation and that many could have been saved with Crosetto’s 3D-CBS technology hundreds of times more efficient than current PET (Positron Emission Tomography) technology.
Because Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention Crosetto’s underwent a thorough analytical process, was approved by academia, industry and research centers (including a representative from CERN) at a major international PUBLIC scientific review held at Fermi National Laboratory on December 14, 1993 (see pp. 56-74), acclaimed and endorsed (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83) valuable by several top experts in the field, it should be the interest of government officials handling taxpayer money, the media who provide information in the public interest, and for everyone to request a PUBLIC scientific review of the new 3D-Flow OPRA Crosetto’s inventions described in the proposal dated December 22, 2015, in a way similar to the one requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider (also Director of FERMILAB) held at FERILAB on December 14, 1993.
Officials from government funding agencies responsible for assigning taxpayer money to research projects who claim they cannot allow this PUBLIC scientific review to occur because they want to be fair to all scientists should make an exception because 1) of the staggering breakthrough of Crosetto’s inventions that can replace 4,000 electronic data processing boards in hundreds of crates with 9 electronic boards in a single crate at 1/1000 the cost and with higher performance, even when compared to the most recent upgrade of the CMS Level-1 Trigger, 2) of all the people that can be saved with the 3D-CBS cost-effective early cancer detection and 3) of all the benefits Crosetto’s inventions can provide in many different fields.
There are too many facts, circumstances and cases showing that the current government (and non-government) scientific peer-review process where reviewers meet behind closed doors to split taxpayer money is rigged and needs to be reformed.
This reform may take years. Right now it is more important TO BE FAIR to taxpayers, to cancer patients and to government leaders who are promising their citizens significant results in cancer death reduction.
Because over the past 24 years several reputable scientists and professionals have placed their names in the open endorsing Crosetto’s innovations in a written report of the 1993 FERMILAB PUBLIC scientific review of his invention stating “The committee finds this project and interesting and unique concept for construction programmable level-1 trigger system. We believe the concept will work for calorimetry and may work for level-1 tracking. We see no technical reason why the proposed ASIC processor could not be built in approximately one year. We do not believe that there are any major flaws in the proposed system, …there were some feeling that given this feature experimenters would probably think of clever uses not now possible” (see pp. 56-74), and in many letters of endorsement (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83), if other scientists do not agree with their professional evaluation, it would be fair to ask for a PUBLIC review of the new 3D-Flow OPRA similar to the FERMILAB review in 1993, and the anonymous scientists who have opposed Crosetto’s invention all these years should come forward and stand behind their claims with calculations and scientific evidence.
Several of the scientists who obstructed the implementation of Crosetto’s invention appropriated millions of dollars of taxpayer money which was wasted because they failed to deliver a system capable of identify particles satisfying the characteristics defined by theoretical and experimental scientists, and failed to provide a Medical Imaging device that could significantly reduce cancer deaths and cost.
Therefore, it should be the interest of everyone to ask government officials in charge of assigning taxpayer money to remove their resistance to a PUBLIC scientific review of Crosetto’s inventions because it is fair to everyone and is in everyone’s best interest.