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

Dear Vice-President Joe Biden, Dear leaders responsible for the future of our planet, I’ll cut straight to the point. I answered positively to you request however, there was a problem with the small amount you suggested. Please quickly read the following six lines, look at the attached one page Table, look at the links at the bottom of the table where you can find the source information used to build the table. Please write an email to the NIH Director for Extramural Research, Michael Laurer and if he and his reviewers cannot refute any of those values please ask him to organize a scientific review so I can answer any additional question supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries proving that the 3D-CBS is more efficient and costs 1/10 the Explorer,

however, the most important breakthrough features is that it can save many lives because it has the capability to acquire and process over 40,000 TB data from the tumor markers per day and store results in 1 GB hard drive or memory, while the Explorer does not have this capability it can only process 40 TB data per day, it requires 40 TB data storage per day, and cannot save many lives. Ask Dr. Laurer to stop immediately funding of the explorer with taxpayer money because the existence of the superior 3D-CBS project proves the Explorer to be a waste of money, effort and driving the solution of the cancer problem in the wrong direction, meaning, it is not driving to a solution.

 

I agree with your words Mr. Biden: “Let’s go get ’em,”  (reviewers …and let’s go get “cancer” and defeat it).

 

 

Thank you for your email. Yes, we cannot make the REASON/SCIENCE prevail over POWER/MONEY without you and without everyone who should stand up for Justice and Science. It is evident that a) the disappearance at DOE of many of my documents, email, including entirely my proposal and emails from Crawford and Siegrist as it is documented in writing by the DOE-FOIA b) the elimination of a fair competition by giving every year from $3 to $4 million to Wesley Smith for over $50 million to build 4,000 electronic data processing boards for the CMS Level-1 Trigger that did not work and eliminating the competition by impeding to send email, and/or wiping them out if sent officially via U.S. postal service or via Grant.gov it is unfair to taxpayer because is wasting their money and is depriving them from the benefits of innovations.

 

It is clear that Wesley Smith’s CMS Level-1 Trigger costing over $100 million did not work because it was trashed. This was reported on the first page of the article presented at the Real-Time conference on June 6, 2016, where it states that Smith’s 4,000 electronic data processing boards were replaced on February 26, 2016, with a 100 board SWATCH system. Further proof is that the 40 Higgs-like boson out of over 100,000 generated by the LHC collider, announced on July 4, 2012 were found by analyzing trillions of events recorded casually and it was not merit of Smith’s Level-1 Trigger. All this waste of time and money could have been prevented with an analytical study as it was done publicly with my 3D-Flow invention that had been recognized and endorsed by hundreds of scientists, the concepts have been proven feasible and functional in hardware, providing staggering performance improvements as confirmed in a public scientific review held at FERMILAB in December 1993.

 

We cannot stop the waste of money and loss in benefits without you and everyone standing up requesting transparency in science and an investigation about the disappearance of documents at DOE and the practice of eliminating the competition by destroying the evidence or impeding the presentation and analytical discussion of more cost-effective innovative approaches than the projects funded by Glen Crawford, DOE Director of Research and Technology who is clearly violating DOE rules as it is evident from his self-incriminating email dated May 19, 2016.

Thank you for your email. I understand your disappointment in the words of people who promise to take care, be respectful and reliable to taxpayers that make you state in your email dated October 5, 2016: “I’ve had about enough of it [Trump], Dario”. Just imagine how would feel during all these years, people who are waiting for a fair competition to use their tax-dollar to fund the research projects which show higher scientific merit in a public scientific, transparent procedure, waiting for receiving a REASON why the 3D-CBS solution with the capability to process over 40,000 TB data from tumor markers per day, enabling an effective early cancer detection that can save many lives is not funded, although has 1/10 the cost of the Explorer which does not have this capability and cannot save many lives and is instead funded with $15.5 million by NIH. The basic technology used in the 3D-CBS as well as in all PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices is based on particle detection that is handled by the Department of Energy. I just called The Office of the Secretary  of Energy and I made a test with Ms. Teresa Casey who answered the phone if she could receive a short email message with the word “test”. She could not and she did not receive all my past email sent yesterday and today. Most likely is due to DOE Director of Research and Technology who is giving every year about $4 million to Wesley Smith and he eliminates the competition by blocking the email of competitors like myself and apparently someone has also wiped out all my documents, proposals and emails from the DOE record as I was notified in writing by DOE-FOIA. I informed Ms. Casey that DOE can read a copy of my email at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1891 , she could not take and pass on this information, Ms. Casey switched me to another phone extension, no one answered and I left a message on the answering machine. Please anyone reading this email, forward the email to the leaders at DOE listed below. Thank you.

 

During the past months I am receiving an average of eight emails per day from you, your, President Obama, his wife, Donna Brazile, or others from DNC. I am respectful to you and the people you represent that you are able to express your ideas sending millions of emails more than eight times a day. I am respectful to people who express and send ideas opposite to yours such as “Free Bacon” and others or to the New York Times for informing us about the More Than 150 Republican Leaders Don’t Support Donald Trump, comforting us with an example that shows a world of REASON in a civil country is more important than a party line.

 

Dear leader responsible for the future of our planet, on behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients please support the request to receive an answer/REASON/resolution to the seven questions reported below. Please take action to correct unfair, illegal action by DOE Director of Research and Technology Glen Crawford in order to be able to give $4.2 million to Wesley Smith this year and taxpayer money to others among his friends he eliminates competitors by blocking their email to any DOE employee as he did with me, and surprisingly someone has also wiped out all my information from DOE records.

 

On July 2016 I formally requested to the DOE Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to provide all records at DOE that mentioned: my name, United to End Cancer, my 413 page application #0000222704, the 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern Recognition Algorithm) the 3D-CBS, the evaluation of my proposal, Crawford’s reasons why in his opinion my proposal is not sound and feasible or any evaluation he might have.

 

On October 6, 2016, I received a CD from FOIA containing very few documents. Not a single page for the #0000222704 proposal for which I have receipts it was received, nothing about the 3D-Flow OPRA, 3D-CBS, its evaluation by the reviewers. No trace of the email Crawford sent me on May 19, 2016 with statements incriminating himself. None of my emails exchange with Jim Siegrist from May 2015 where he solicit me to submit a formal proposal of my invention to DOE (last of his email dated December 3, 2016), I asked him what was new in the Level-1 Trigger of CMS and Atlas, Siegrist responded that there was nothing new, they are working on the Region of Interest (ROI). I replied that ROI was discussed 24 years ago when I was at the Superconducting Super Collider… It looks like everything has been wiped out from the DOI records.

 

Please anyone of you receiving this email, could you forward it to the Secretary of Energy and other leaders at DOE because Crawford blocked my email (I tested yesterday with Ms. Teresa Casey from the office of the Secretary General and also with the DOI FOIA office while we were on the phone, none received a simple email with the word “test”), so he can give $4.2 million to Wesley Smith with no competitors: The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov ; sc.science@science.doe.gov  ; camurray@seas.harvard.edu ; patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov ; Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov ; IGHOTLINE@hq.doe.gov ; foia-central@hq.doe.gov ;  and also support receiving an answer/REASON/resolution of the seven questions below?

 

Please, Vice-President Joe Biden, could you appoint someone to investigate on Glen Crawford’s not doing his job, obstructing advancement in science and possibly replacing him with someone who can take responsibility for the job description of his position so we can provide taxpayers “the biggest bang for their buck”, to “defeat once and for all cancer” as you and President Obama stated in your speech?

 

I respectfully ask the recipient of this email not to take any action that would be harmful to taxpayers, cancer patients or to the advancement in science by silencing the following legitimate questions. Also, I am asking people who filter SPAM on the internet not to filter this message which is not SPAM since they do not filter thousands of messages sent by the leaders listed above to millions of people 8 times a day. There may be reports by some who do not like the messages who want to shut them down, but these negative reports are not censuring and/or silencing the freedom of expression.

 

This is the beauty of a civilized democratic country; let’s not have these rights of freedom of expression of ideas and innovations taken away by people with personal interests who take taxpayer and donation money allocated for research, break the ethics of a scientist, without going through a public scientific procedure of a fair competition, who are pursuing instead their and their friends greed for power and money to the detriment of taxpayers, cancer patients and humanity.  Here are the questions for which citizens of a civilized, democratic country should be receiving the answer for a world of REASON/SCIENCE:

 

  1. Why did the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) give $4.2 million of taxpayer money in 2016 to Wesley Smith after he wasted over $50 million building hundreds of crates with 4,000 electronic data processing board of the CMS Level-1 Trigger systems costing over $100 million which did not work and had to be trashed knowing that it can be replaced with one 3D-Flow OPRA crate at 1/1000 the cost with staggering performance improvements?

 

  1. Why did the U.S. National Institutes of Health give $3,314,184 of taxpayer money in 2016 (out of $15.5 million, $3,054,873 delivered in 2015) to the team of the Explorer project made of 491,520 expensive LYSO crystals, 12 crates with 120 data processing boards and 6 racks of computer processing 40 TB data acquired and stored on hard drives every day for a total power consumption of 60 kW, which cannot save many lives because it cannot acquire and process 40,000 TB data per day, knowing that the 3D-CBS device can make a paradigm change in molecular imaging because it has the capability to acquire and process over 40,000 TB data each day, using one 3D-Flow OPRA VME crate for a total power consumption of the entire system of only 4 Kw, at less than 1/10 the cost of the Explorer? Why, knowing that the 3D-CBS could have saved millions of lives with an effective early cancer detection, reduce radiation dose to less than 1/50, reduce healthcare costs and these results can be proven on a sample population, has it not been funded?

 

  1. Why, after informing President Obama that more than one year after having proof that Glen Crawford, Director of Research and Technology at DOE is not doing his job and five months after his 8-line email incriminating himself with statements in violation of DOE rules and contradicting his own statements, does he still hold the same position and continues to waste taxpayer money and be the internal arm of a circle of friends of corrupted scientists? Why, after Crosetto notified the DOE FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) agent by phone about this document published at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1880 proving that Crawford ordered DOE Security to block Crosetto’s messages to all DOE employees, including the Secretary of Energy, FOIA and OHA so he and his group (e.g. Helmut Marsiske) could continue to give millions of dollars to Wesley Smith and others without accountability is illegal and an abuse of power, Crosetto cannot send these facts to DOE?

 

  1. Why, after Informing President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden that Michael Laurer, Director of the Extramural Research at the National Institute of Health, does not want to hear Crosetto’s inventions, does not want to organize a public scientific review of the 3D-CBS because he believes this would not be fair to all scientists, but does not give the same importance to be fair to the public or to serve the President and Vice-President who promise to give the public the greatest benefits for their tax-dollars, no action is taken depriving instead taxpayers from the benefits from innovations that would emerge from a fair scientific competition?  Why, after proving in this document that the $15.5 million given to the Explorer project is a waste of money because the 3D-CBS can acquire and process over 40,000 TB data in one day providing an effective early cancer detection and a much more powerful research tool at less than 1/10 the cost, does Laurer not respond to hear about Crosetto’s invention, organize a scientific review or consider resigning if he is being impeded from doing his job by someone, instead of complying with the ethics of a scientist and do what it is best for taxpayers?

 

  1. Why, 3 days after Crosetto explained the reason of the great damage to the advancement in science and benefit to humanity for the rejection of his papers and providing facts proving reviewers of this year as well as previous years were either incompetent or did not tell the truth because facts and documents refute reviewers claims that they did not know about Crosetto’s work, do leaders of the Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference in Strasbourg which takes place in 2 days, still not respond to let Crosetto know if he can present his inventions for the benefit of humanity at the Conference or if they will consider resigning if they are being impeded from doing their job by someone, instead of complying with the ethics of a scientist and do what it is best for taxpayers?

 

  1. Why, 3 days after Crosetto informed the Presidents and board of Directors of IEEE, the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity, that facts show that the organizers of the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Strasbourg which takes place in 2 days, have rejected three papers regarding innovations proving to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost and provide staggering performance improvement that has  been proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries, still do not respond about the logic and compliance with the scientific integrity that would call for IEEE to disassociate itself from the Strasbourg’s conference organizers who are contrary to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity, and remove its endorsement of the conference.

 

  1. Why, a) after Crosetto and two friends drove to Davos, Switzerland, to hand-deliver a letter containing Crosetto’s 271-page proposal and 155-page report of 59 quotes from reputable industries to Vice-President Joe Biden who organized a forum among scientists of the Cancer Moonshot task force, b) after Crosetto sent an additional copy of the proposal to the physical address provided by Ms. Brazile who Crosetto met at an event at the University of Arlington in Texas, and c) after Mr. Charles Conner, a veteran who worked for Lyndon B. Johnson from 1959 to 1964, wrote a personal letter to Vice-President Joe Biden asking him to address the specific items in Crosetto’s letter, clear out bureaucratic hurdles and have Crosetto be part of the Task Force to defeat cancer, did Mr. Conner not receive a reply, the specific items in Crosetto’s letter were not addressed, and Crosetto was not included in the Task Force to defeat cancer?

 

161,765,000 people have died from cancer since Crosetto’s invention was crushed (11,984,000 were Americans), many of them could have been saved with his 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technology and hundreds of millions of dollars of tax-payer money could have been saved in High Energy Physics experiments, while providing a very powerful tool to discover new subatomic particles and advance science in different fields. This needless loss of lives, waste of taxpayer money, and loss of advancement in science calls for the reform of the peer-review process to be independent from money and politics as expressed by the National Academy of Science.

 

Mr. Biden we can’t do this without you, please respond to this message to implement a world of REASON, in particular to defeat cancer.

 

Mr. Biden, this can work also to defeat the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer. It is not sufficient to send a one-time email, but it is necessary to send millions of emails, eight times a day, every day for several months so that the scientific truth for the benefits of humanity emerge and cancer is defeated once and for all.

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dario

 

 

 

From: Joe Biden [mailto:democraticparty@democrats.org]

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 4:04 PM

To: Dario Crosetto <crosetto@att.net>

Subject: Real quick, Dario

 

Dario —

 

I’ll cut straight to the point.

 

Democrats have a major FEC deadline tomorrow at midnight — the last end-of-quarter deadline of this election. Chip in $3 or whatever you can right now to help hit our team’s targets.

 

But your donation is about more than money. Your donation is the concrete proof that there is a team here standing strong and doing our part — standing up for an America we can all believe in.

 

Hillary needs you before tomorrow. She has to win this, and it’s on us to help her across the finish line. Help her team and Democrats across the country out right now so we can make that extra phone call, knock on that extra door, and get folks registered and ready to vote and win on Election Day.

 

Let’s go get ’em,

 

Joe

 

 

[See this document at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1891   or at the Google Drive]

 

Respectfully bringing to your attention facts proving that:

 

Innovations saving millions of lives and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are suppressed and its inventor threatened to involve security instead of providing scientific and economic reasons why hundreds of chasses of electronics that do not provide a powerful tool to save lives and to discover new subatomic particles are funded knowing that breakthrough 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries can replace them in one chassis at a fraction of the cost providing a staggering performance improvement.

 

Hundreds of millions of taxpayer and donation dollars are being wasted and millions of lives are being needlessly lost from cancer because innovations are suppressed by a flawed peer-review process and funding agencies are complicit with scientists who do not have scientific integrity and break their professional ethics instead of making them accountable.

 

The value of Crosetto’s inventions have been recognized and endorsed by hundreds of scientists, the concepts have been proven feasible and functional in hardware, providing staggering performance improvements as confirmed in a public scientific review held at FERMILAB in December 1993, where Crosetto answered objections from other scientists. Recently it was  proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost.

 

 

350 years after Galileo was threatened for stating scientific truths, Crosetto is threatened for stating scientific truths.

     I.        SUMMARY: Innovation is suppressed when scientists do not stand up for SCIENCE.

Galileo was threatened by the Church for asserting that the Earth is not at the center of the Universe.

Dario Crosetto has been threatened by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Citigroup to involve Security if he continues to insist on the feasibility of his inventions in medical imaging, high energy physics and other fields capable of replacing hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost, while providing staggering performance improvements: in discovering new subatomic particles, saving millions of lives with a cost-effective early cancer detection and reducing healthcare costs.

Why did it take 350 years for the Church to recognize Galileo was right, and why for 25 years have hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money continued to fund less efficient, more costly systems than Crosetto’s life-saving and money-saving inventions, which continue to be ignored? Why does Crosetto receive threats as Galileo did?

History repeats itself. If influential scientists of his time had stood strong in defense of science, Galileo might not have been forced to recant empirical evidence to avoid the consequences of the Church’s threat to chop off his head, and humanity would have received the benefits of his discoveries earlier.

If the majority of scientists (and specifically those handling taxpayer and donated funds) stood in defense of science today, Crosetto would not receive threats from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Citigroup, and humanity would enjoy the benefits of his inventions.

The value of Crosetto’s inventions have been recognized and endorsed by hundreds of scientists, the concepts have been proven feasible and functional in hardware, providing staggering performance improvements as confirmed in a public scientific review held at FERMILAB in December 1993, where Crosetto answered objections from other scientists. Recently it was  proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost.  Yet Crosetto is boycotted, ignored and prevented from presenting his papers at conferences, even having his microphone removed when he asks legitimate and pertinent questions.

It is akin to an athlete with superior skill being blocked from Olympic competition by competitors who would lose the competition should the better athlete be allowed to participate.

Instead of implementing a world of reason/science, critical members of the scientific community are succumbing to a world of power/money and influence because of the rigged peer-review process which invites corruption.

To implement independence for the peer-review process expressed by the National Academy of Science, reform is needed. See Crosetto’s answer to the President of IEEE, the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.

Decision makers in the field of medical imaging research who consider Crosetto a competitive adversary and prevent him from publicly discussing the utility of his 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention, should realize there is only one true adversary and it is one we share – the plague of cancer. Everyone must cooperate to advance science and technology against cancer at every opportunity, which will enable us to reduce the economic burden, suffering, and loss of lives which this calamity represents. We must allow the science of medical imaging to proceed freely through fair, open, public competition.

Likewise, colleagues in high energy physics research at DOE and at CERN should not consider Crosetto an adversary, but a collaborator who can provide experimental physicists the most powerful tool available for efficiently executing their preferred Level-1 Trigger algorithms, enabling them to quickly and economically confirm or rule out the existence of new particles, and do so with the highest certainty.

Governments allocate vast sums of money for eradicating cancer, while leaders of funding agencies do not want to hear solutions from inventors, giving the excuse that they want to be fair to all scientists, while their circle of scientist friends meet behind closed doors to split taxpayer money among themselves for their own interest and are not fair to the public. The Media and everyone should take responsibility by passing along this information and stand up for JUSTICE. Support the Crosetto Foundation with a tax-deductible donation at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?page_id=185.

Be the change you want to see in a world of reason and respect for your children and future generations by demanding that the DOE Director or Research and Technology who wrote an 8-line email in which he incriminates himself and proves he cannot do his job, reflect and resign because he broke government rules and reveals how corruption works in assigning taxpayer money to research projects. Demand also NIH organize a PUBLIC scientific review to learn how Crosetto’s invention which can slash cancer mortality by 50% and reduce healthcare costs compares to the Explorer project funded by NIH for $15.5 million that can do neither. (CLICK HERE FOR FULL DOCUMENT)

    II.        Crosetto’s inventions endorsed by top world experts in the field and other professionals

Research scientist Dario Crosetto worked on leading edge physics experiments at the world’s largest laboratories (CERN in Geneva, Superconducting Super Collider -SSC- Texas, FERMILAB and Brookhaven National Laboratory -BNL-), won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for his invention for early cancer detection, was awarded one million dollars in government grants, and received $10,000 for the best Business Plan reviewed by Venture Capitalists in a start-up competition.

His inventions were endorsed in writing by over 50 top scientists and experts in the field as reported in excerpts from their letters.  Here is a list of a few letters in their entirety which represent less than 50% of the entire set:

  • Andrew Lankford, University of California, Irvine, former Deputy Spokesman of the CERN-Atlas experiment, now Chairman of the HEPAP (High Energy Physics Advisory Panel), who was charged in 2013 by DOE and NSF to develop an updated strategic plan for the U.S. High Energy Physics (HEP) that can be executed over a 10-year timescale, in the context of a 20-year global vision for the field, and was recently charged by the DOE Director of the Office of Science, Dr. Cherry Murray, to assemble a COV committee to assess the operations of HEP during fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015;
  • Joel Butler, head of the Computing Division at FERMI National Laboratory, now Spokesman of the CERN-CMS experiment;
  • Barry Barish, California Institute of Technology (see in session 3, pp. 15-23 an interview about the SSC, CERN-Courier GDE 2008, and Dr. Barish’s lecture at CERN 2016), now Plenary Speaker at the 2016 IEEE-NSS Conference on October 31, 2016;
  • Ralph James, Associate Director of Science and Technology at the Savannah River Nat. Lab., Co-Chair of the 2016 IEEE-RTSD workshop;
  • Livio Mapelli, CERN leader in Atlas experiment, member of the review panel of the 3D-Flow basic invention held at FERMILAB in 1993;
  • Maris Abolins, Michigan State University, who endorsed Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention to be used in the D0 experiment in 1994;
  • Michael Shaevitz, Columbia University, Co-leader, electronic group at the SSC-GEM experiment;
  • Mike Harris, Chief Engineer at the SSC-GEM experiment;
  • John People, Director of the SSC (also Director of FERMILAB and representing Universities Research Association, Inc. and the U.S. DOE)
  • Sergio Cittolin, CERN Group Leader, Readout Architectures Group;
  • Francoise Bourgeois, Deputy Division Leader of CERN Electronics and Computing for Physics;
  • Pier Giorgio Innocenti, Division Leader of CERN Electronics and Computing for Physics;
  • Walter Selove, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Pennsylvania offers collaboration.
  • Laura Mantegazza, Medical Information Division, Radiology Department, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland
  • Paul Jerabek, University of Texas, PET Division Chief, San Antonio, TX, who endorsed Crosetto’s 3D-CBS to be used at his Research Imaging Center,
  • Joseph Dent, Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
  • Hon. Jane Nelson, Texas State Senator, who raised $3 billion for cancer research, however, Crosetto’s 3D-CBS was triaged out and not even reviewed
  • Stephen Fluckiger, Partner at Jones Day, among the world’s largest law firms covering 5 continents, Dallas, Texas
  • Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, United State Senator,
  • Robert Turner, Partner at Jones Day, among the world’s largest law firms covering 5 continents, Dallas, Texas
  • Paul Bartholdi, Observatory of Geneva, Switzerland;
  • Catharinus Verkerk, Group Leader Data Handling Division at CERN and Director of the ICTP Colleges on Microprocessors;
  • Domenico Scannicchio, Medical Physics Director at University of Pavia, Italy, who endorsed Crosetto’s 3D-CBS to be used at his hosp.

The superiority in efficiency of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) medical imaging invention made Siemens take a second look at their PET (Positron Emission Tomography) devices and had to agree that the electronics could be improved after insisting (in a meeting with Crosetto that lasted an entire day) the efficiency of their electronics had reached the limit.

Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention was recognized valuable by a major public scientific review held at FERMILAB in Dec. 1993, endorsed for the D0 experiment at FERMILAB, adopted by thousands of scientists at the GEM experiment at the SSC and the LHCb experiment at CERN, but never funded to completion, while alternative projects were funded, ultimately failed and were trashed. Recently the 3D-Flow was proven feasible by 59 quotes from industries to replace 4,000 CERN electronic boards with 9 boards.

Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention that can slash cancer mortality by 50% was endorsed for use in hospitals in S. Antonio, TX, the RHD hospital and Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, TX, and S. Matteo hospital in Pavia, Italy, but was never funded, while NIH funded the Explorer project for $15.4 million that cannot make such a claim.  Crosetto’s 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions along with his subsequent inventions were recognized valuable in several scientific reviews including most notably:

Crosetto has also proved the concepts of his inventions feasible and functional in hardware.

To support transparency in science, request a PUBLIC review of Crosetto’s inventions and make a tax-deductible donation to the Crosetto Foundation at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?page_id=185 or at: ABA: 114000093, SWIFT: FRSTUS44, cc. 98-2046679

350 years after Galileo was threatened for stating scientific truths, Crosetto is threatened for stating scientific truths.

Table of Contents

  1. SUMMARY: Innovation is suppressed when scientists do not stand up for SCIENCE. 1
  2. Crosetto’s inventions endorsed by top world experts in the field and other professionals 2

III.           Here is how corruption works because the majority of the scientists (including those handling taxpayer and donation money) do not stand up in support of transparent, public scientific procedures similar to the 1993 major public scientific review of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention requested by the Director of the SSC (also Director of FERMILAB). 6

  1. How the current peer-review system opens the door to a grand avenue of corruption. 6
  2. Comparison of the scientific peer-review system to the judicial system whose aim is to uncover the truth. 7
  3. Are scientists more trustful than judges? Should scientists also be held accountable?. 8
  4. What is needed to implement the independence for the peer-review process expressed by the National Academy of Science and President Obama 8
  5. Physics Research: Here is how corruption works in crushing innovations that reduce the cost of HEP experiments, create powerful tools to discover new subatomic particles and advance science 9
  6. Smith’s ambition is killing science, wasting taxpayer money, crushing innovations depriving humanity of benefits. 10
  7. Facts proving Government’s internal arm of the corruption in HEP. 12
  8. Facts that triggered Crawford’s 8-line self-incriminating email 12
  9. Crawford’s 8-line self-incriminating email and line-by-line comments 13
  10. Questions regarding fundamental inconsistencies within DOE and the scientific community 16
  11. Crawford documents and actions proving he is not doing his job 16
  12. Tricks used by Crawford to reject Crosetto’s proposals are common to other funding agencies anywhere in the world and have roots in the international scientific community 17
  13. Le Du’s actions and non-actions crushing innovations. 17
  14. The actions of several scientists prove that their ambition to be remembered in the history of the largest physics experiment ever built make them blind to the ethics of a scientist by imposing their own “approach” (“circuit”) with “power/money” rather than “reason/science” because in a $50 billion project the name linked to a component becomes more important to them than the most cost-effective solution to advance science and bring advantages to taxpayers. 17
  15. Cancer Research: Here is how corruption works in crushing lifesaving technological innovations for early cancer detection 18
  16. The 3D-CBS that can slash cancer mortality by 50% did not receive funding, while the less efficient, more costly Explorer project that cannot do this, received $15.5 million funding from NIH.. 18
  17. Craig Levin: The Claims & Projects of the Deputy Chairman of the IEEE-MIC Conference DO NOT ADD UP. 19
  18. Unethical scientists in Medical Imaging powered by taxpayer money ignore scientific evidence. These inconsistencies could be resolved with transparency in science in public, open workshops. 20
  19. Implicit admission that Crosetto’s 3D-CBS was the solution that could have saved millions of lives but remain unfunded, while the EXPLORER that cannot save many lives, is less sensitive and 10 times as expensive, is funded. 21

VII.         Responsibility of scientists to stand up for SCIENCE to stop taxpayer and donation money from being wasted and innovations that would benefit humanity from being crushed   21

VIII.        Responsibility of the media and everyone to pass on this information and stand up for JUSTICE  24

  1. Stand up for justice to stop the waste of $4 million per year of your money to Wesley Smith who has already wasted over $50 million because he makes power/money triumph over science/reason depriving humanity of the benefits from the 3D-Flow OPRA invention which offers a more powerful tool to discover new particles at a fraction of the cost. 24
  2. Stand up for justice to stop the waste of $15.5 million of your money for the Explorer project funded by NIH which is flawed whether used for research or clinical examinations because its authors make power/money triumph over science/reason depriving humanity of the benefits from the 3D-CBS invention offering a more powerful tool, safe to the patient, to detect minimum abnormal biological processes in the body at an early curable stage and at a fraction of the cost. 25
  3. Take responsibility for solving the most deadly and costly calamity by asking for help to identify the solutions that have more impact in solving the problem and stand up for justice, for what is right and serves the interest of solving the cancer problem.. 27
  4. For your interest, write to Texas Senator Jane Nelson 27
  5. For your interest, write to the Foundation Compagnia di San Paolo, 28
  6. For your interest, write to WOKC 30
  7. For your interest, write to the Fondazione CSR 31
  8. For your interest, write to Citigroup 32
  9. For your interest, write to The Rockefeller Foundation 33
  10. THREATS rather than scientific reasons to explain why reviewers and funding agencies refute Crosetto’s claims that his inventions are sound and feasible. Reviewers imply that all scientists who endorsed Crosetto, the FERMILAB international review panel, engineers and industries who wrote the 59 quotes showing feasibility, are all foolish and incompetent. 35
  11. Here are the facts regarding the DOE threat. 35
  12. Here are the facts for the Citigroup threat. 37
  13. Why it is important to know the consequences of the THREATS and how to circumvent them.. 39
  14. Who is hurt the most?. 40
  15. Crosetto’s Response to the President of IEEE, the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity 40
  16. Statements made by Crosetto on 9/19/2016 in an email to Dr. Verboncoeur which support his abstracts/summaries with quantitative details Technical Merit, Originality & Innovation and Significance. 41
  17. Quantitative data & technical merit provided in the text of my email dated 9/19/2016. 41
  18. Innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text of my email dated 9/19/2016. 41
  19. Figures available in the  Abstracts/Summaries of papers 2484, 2493 and 2505 are worth thousands of words. 41
  20. Review of paper 2493 by Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers submitted to the 2016 IEEE-NSS Conference: 42
  21. Response to Eckhard Elsen, Susanne Kuehn and their reviewers’ opinion/question/concern: 42
  22. Quantitative data & technical merits of the project/research provided in the text of the 2493 abstract. 43
  23. Innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text of the 2493 abstract 44
  24. Supporting material to the quantitative data, technical merits, innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text and the figures worth a thousand words in the 2493 summary 45
  25. Crosetto’s comments to Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject the 2493 paper 46
  26. Review of paper 2484 by Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers submitted to the 2016 IEEE-NSS Conference: 48
  27. Responses to Eckhard Elsen, Susanne Kuehn and their reviewers’ opinions/questions/concerns: 48
  28. Quantitative data & technical merits of the project/research provided in the text of the 2484 Abstract 51
  29. Innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text of the 2484 Abstract 52
  30. Supporting material to the quantitative data, technical merit, innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text and figures worth a thousand words in the 2484 summary 53
  31. Crosetto’s comments to Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject paper 2484 55
  32. Review of paper 2505 by Dimitris Visvikis and Suleman Surti responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers submitted to the 2016 IEEE-MIC Conference: 55
  33. Response to Dimitris Visvikis and Suleman Surti and their reviewers’ opinions/questions/concerns: 56
  34. How the peer-review system suppressed my innovations and enabled reviewers to copy them.. 58
  35. It took fifteen years to recognize that the electronics in PET was a problem.. 59
  36. How many years will it take to recognize that the 3D-CBS can save millions of lives, is more efficient and over ten times less expensive than the Explorer that cannot save many lives?. 60
  37. Several senior scientists who know the leaders in Medical Imaging and appreciate my invention have tried to bring my invention to their attention, even inviting them to a dialogue addressing scientific issues in an open forum, but they always refused. 61
  38. Reviewers and leaders were aware of the advantages and benefits of my inventions. 61
  39. After crushing my inventions for more than a decade which would have been a TRUE PARADIGM CHANGE in oncology research, the same people now claim a paradigm change after copying several of my ideas to build the Explorer which cannot make a paradigm change in saving lives, cannot reduce healthcare costs and advancing research because it is less sensitive and over ten times more expensive than my 3D-CBS. 62
  40. Who decided to give $15.5 million to the Explorer project and how was it decided?. 64
  41. My consideration in the 2505 Abstract/Summary to satisfy the comments/requests from previous rejections. 66
  42. Crosetto’s communication with Dimitri Visvikis, Chairman of the 2016 IEEE-Medical Imaging Conference (MIC). 66
  43. Quantitative data & technical merits of the project/research provided in the text of the 2505 Abstract 67
  44. Innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text of the 2505 Abstract 68
  45. Supporting material to the quantitative data, technical merits, innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text and figures worth a thousand words in the 2505 Summary 70
  46. Crosetto’s comments to Dimitris Visvikis and Suleman Surti responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject the 2505 paper 71
  47. Conclusion of the response to the President of IEEE. 72

From: John Verboncoeur [mailto:johnv@egr.msu.edu]  Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 12:23 PM To: United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org> Subject: Re: per Your request I am resending the 3 questions. RE: Breakthrough invention: 3D-Flow OPRA -a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: advancing science, saving lives, fighting  74

From: John Verboncoeur [mailto:johnv@egr.msu.edu]  Sent: Monday, September 5, 2016 2:27 PM To: United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org> Cc: Marie Hunter <m.m.hunter@ieee.org>; Julie Amodeo <julie.amodeo@ieee.org> Subject: Re: per Your request I am resending the 3 questions. RE: Breakthrough invention: 3D-Flow OPRA -a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: advancing science, saving lives, fighting terrorism    75

  1. As Galileo could not make science and justice prevail alone and the benefits of his discoveries were delayed for years after his death and he was recognized to be right by the Church only 350 years later, Crosetto cannot make science and justice prevail by himself but media and everyone need to pass on this information and stand up for the interest of their children, grandchildren and loved ones 76

  III.        Here is how corruption works because the majority of the scientists (including those handling taxpayer and donation money) do not stand up in support of transparent, public scientific procedures similar to the 1993 major public scientific review of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention requested by the Director of the SSC (also Director of FERMILAB).

After a discussion about the more general cause of corruption in the scientific community that requires a reform of the peer-review system, you will be able to read details of Wesley Smith and Patrick Le Du who are some of several people linked to IEEE, the U.S. Department of Energy and CERN, whose actions or inactions contributed to this corruption by their rejection-approval of articles and funding in the field of creating powerful tools to discover new subatomic particles and reduce the cost of experiments in physics; and then read details of Bill Moses, Steve DeRenzo, Simon Cherry, Joel Karp, Alberto Del Guerra and Craig Levin who are some of several linked to IEEE, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), whose actions or inactions contributed to this corruption by their rejection/approval of articles and funding in the field of Medical Imaging to create powerful tools to save lives and reduce healthcare costs: A deeper investigation will reveal others responsible for wasting taxpayer money, crushing inventions and depriving humanity of benefits.

The President of IEEE, the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity, in a recent communication with Crosetto and the reviewers of his three abstracts/summaries attempted to facilitate dialogues between inventors and reviewers which would be essential to reforming the peer-review system; however, without the support of large numbers of scientists standing up in defense of science, it will be unlikely that the IEEE President can enforce to independent organizers of a conference to comply with scientific procedure.

See  “Crosetto’s Response to the President of the IEEE,” the statements made by the IEEE President and Crosetto’s response to him and to the reviewers of his abstracts/summaries.

A.     How the current peer-review system opens the door to a grand avenue of corruption

Whether government or private funding agencies that are handling taxpayer or donation money are in good faith believing and blindly trusting the honesty and professional integrity of their scientists reviewing research projects or in bad faith such as Crawford who writes and 8-line email revealing he is acting as the internal arm of a corrupted circle of friends of scientists a typical peer-review process to approve/reject articles and funding research projects works like this.

The agent working for the funding agency receives the applications from applicants, gives them to anonymous reviewers who approve the application or reject it without providing a scientific reason or with vague feedback such as “it is not sound”, “it is not feasible” without further explanation.  Furthermore, they are not willing to provide any scientific reason for their rejection if asked or listen to the explanations of other professionals who disagree with their conclusion of unfeasibility for example. In some cases, there is a back and forth between applicant and reviewers for a limited number of times but the reviewers keep the knife from the handle and are not required to support their verdict with calculations or scientific arguments, or required to answer pertinent questions asked by the applicant to make the scientific truth emerge.

After one, two, or zero iterations between applicant and reviewers, this process stops with the conclusion that applicant and reviewers have to agree to disagree and the opinion of the reviewer is imposed without having to take responsibility for being wrong. The reviewer who wants to reject a project for personal interest can take advantage of this process because research projects typically do not have data as they need funding to build the device that will provide the data.  However, the merit of one project with respect to another comes after an analysis of calculations and scientific evidence that can be done without data, but some reviewers do not want to hear about this evidence, even silencing applicants at conferences who seek to address the reviewers’ doubts or concerns.  These reviewers will also not listen to experts who support the applicant’s claims. The scientific integrity, incompetence and reputation of the reviewer in the event of mistakes in calculations, expertise, etc. cannot be scrutinized in real-time by colleagues and will never hurt the reviewer because of his anonymity.

Agents like Crawford and Marsiske who organize and chair the review process can be the internal arm of the government that manipulates the outcome of a review and favors one applicant over another, or implements the desire of a circle of scientist friends because they have all the freedom and power to do so without the accountability.

B.     Comparison of the scientific peer-review system to the judicial system whose aim is to uncover the truth

If one compares this review process with the juridical system of most civilized countries in the world it would be difficult to find a country that has a juridical system as unfair as the scientific review process. It should be easy to make it fair because the laws of nature (science) are the same for everyone and can be checked at any time scientifically, with calculations, scientific evidence and ultimately with an experiment, so why have we created a scientific review processes that leaves so much room for corruption?

In the process (or procedure) of a court of law that compares the behavior of a person against the rule of law to determine if the plaintiff has broken any laws there is the plaintiff, the judge, the defense attorney, the jury, the prosecutor, and the public. Everyone is involved even the public if they are called as witnesses to try to have a fair trial that will uncover the truth.

Despite these provisions to implement justice mistakes are made and innocent people are condemned for actions they did not commit are discovered after 30 years of prison such as the recent case http://www.cbsnews.com/news/30-years-on-death-row-exoneration-60-minutes-2/ or the case of Robert Davis who was free after 13 years because his lawyer Steve Rosenfield fought for the TRUTH http://www.c-ville.com/robert-davis-receives-pardon/#.V9v3AI-cFrQ. We should all fight for the TRUTH that will save millions of lives and relieve taxpayers from the burden of billions of tax dollars wasted.

In the process (or procedure) of a scientific review the stakes are not just the life of one person who could spend the rest of his life in prison, but the lives of millions of people who could be saved and millions of dollars too, in the case of Crosetto’s inventions.

In the scientific procedure that compares calculations and scientific evidence presented by a researcher/inventor (plaintiff) against the laws of nature to determine if there are any errors, if the project is sound and feasible and the claimed results can be achieved, there is only the reviewers (playing the role of the jury) and the agent from the funding agency responsible to maximize results with taxpayer and donation money (who is playing the role of the prosecutor). Two players compare to six in the judicial system.

The judicial system does not only rely on the ethics and personal integrity of the judge and prosecutor but has more checks and balances to guarantee a fair trial allowing information that will help uncover the truth from several sources and checked publicly for inconsistencies. (Despite all these checks and balances still there are errors and innocent people are wrongly convicted. Just imagine how many additional wrong convictions will occur if everything would be put in the hands of judges and prosecutors and the plaintiff would not be allowed to present and discuss facts and evidence proving his innocence).

Instead, in the peer-review system, fairness and uncovering the truth is left to the ethics and professional integrity of the reviewers and the agent from the funding agency who nowadays are pressured by the billion-dollar research market often succumbing to a world of power/money and influence with no checks and balances from other players.

If the reviewer is incompetent or deliberately states that an article or project is not sound and feasible, there are no provisions like in the judicial system to call for experts to provide proof that the applicant’s calculations and data from technology are correct, but inconceivably the reviewer is not even requested to prove that his claims are supported by any calculations or scientific evidence. A reviewer can crush an innovation just by stating an opinion and not responding to the applicant.

Instead of the transparent, public procedure with six players of the judicial system, the majority of peer-reviews require two players in secret correspondences or who meet behind closed doors.  However, to give the appearance of a fair system, some funding agencies are providing the possibility to call an expert and to appeal the outcome, although still not public.

The NIH offers the possibility for the applicant to appeal and call on experts; however, its effectiveness to offer a fair review is nullified by its implementation. Crosetto has exercised all these provisions with the NIH, has suggested an expert, has appealed the rejections, has had an extensive written correspondence with NIH Directors and Program Managers, even using the provision to have a one-on-one meeting with a few of them. The ineffectiveness of all these appeals, even the one-on-one meeting with NIH Program Managers were caused by the impossibility of the applicant to discuss scientific issues with the reviewers in a setup that made reviewers accountable. During the one-on-one meeting with NIH Program Managers they were just repeating Crosetto to listen reviewer’s recommendations declaring themselves incompetent to discuss scientific issues and not having the authority to make reviewers’ accountable.

Crosetto also involved Senators and Representatives from his State to intervene in his case at NIH; however, NIH responded that Crosetto needed to listen to the recommendations of the reviewers – in other words asking him to follow their traditional approach, give up his inventions and his request to explain to the reviewers the advantages of his inventions when compared to the traditional approaches and in the benefits to taxpayers in saving lives and reducing healthcare costs.

Only an in depth investigation can reveal how these provisions of apparent fairness are nullified by their implementation. Such an investigation would uncover the corruption and identify the flaws in the peer-review process that opens the door to corruption.  Then the process can be corrected to make the process fair in the interest of taxpayers.

C.     Are scientists more trustful than judges? Should scientists also be held accountable?

Are scientists and the agents of the funding agencies responsible to maximize benefits to donors and taxpayers more trustful then judges and prosecutors? Why is there such a big disparity in the procedures they follow that appears to make one more trustful than the other?  In the case of the scientific review it is like giving only the prosecutor judge and jury a voice and not listening to the plaintiff, defense attorney or witnesses.

We make judges accountable for the fate of one life (the plaintiff) by creating a fair process (or procedure) where evidence presented by the defense, the plaintiff and the public can be analyzed, openly, publicly, to make the truth emerge, while scientists are not made accountable in the decision of the fate of millions of lives and billions of taxpayer and donation money and a fair review process where evidence presented by the applicant, supported by experts to make the scientific truth emerge not only are not analyzed, but are not allowed to be presented.

Furthermore, in a fair trial the prosecutor need to answer questions and provide comments on DNA, alibi, etc. evidence before stating that the plaintiff is guilty, while it is the norm in all a peer-review procedure that the reviewer is not requested to answer questions and provide comments on calculations and scientific evidence (find the error in calculations and invalidate with scientific reason what was presented as evidence), he/she can ignore everything and reject a paper or project with the excuse that it would be too time consuming to provide a scientific reason for all rejections.

  IV.        What is needed to implement the independence for the peer-review process expressed by the National Academy of Science and President Obama

Our leaders including President Obama call for: “Independence for the peer-review process” without realizing that the current peer-review system leaves a wide-open door to a grand avenue of corruption. The typical excuses by some scientists to keep their privileged trust from the public are:

  1. within the private communication between reviewers to accept/reject articles and within the meetings behind closed doors to decide which applicants/projects receive funding, the scientists will all comply with the ethics of scientists.
  2. it will be too time-consuming to address all rejections of papers and requests for funding by adopting a process which allows a dialogue between peers either in writing, orally or in person.

This past century things have changed in scientific research, however the peer review system has not changed substantially. There are many more reasons to create accountability in a peer-review process for scientist than for a judge/jury because their decision may affect not one, but millions of people and billions of dollars. Scientists cannot fund their research as Leonardo, Galileo, Newton, etc. might have done as research projects nowadays cost from hundreds of thousands of dollars to a million dollars and beyond to develop for example a new drug it takes more than $1 billion, and physics experiments have cost over $50 billion.

The second excuse that it will be too time consuming to address all rejections of papers, could have been a problem in the 20th century sending envelops through the postal service containing articles to be reviewed and spending time and money to travel to a location where a review panel would assign funding to projects, but is easily solved with the technology available in the 21st century.

The number of minutes per day users spend on SkyPe is 3 billion. The number of free SkyPe video minutes used during the past ten years is 2 trillion. There are several web conferencing services providing best features to share slide presentations, virtual rooms, via the internet that allow meetings to be held across the world for free or at a very low cost.

The number of cases in the U.S. juridical system in one year is over 100,000 cases. One of the largest scientific conferences in the world in the field of particle detection and medical imaging that is related to the $50 billion LHC project and Crosetto’s invention that provides a 3D-CBS technology effective for early cancer detection with the potential to save millions of lives and reduce healthcare cost is the IEEE-NSS-MIC which submits every year approximately 2800 papers among in which approximately 1600 are accepted, leaving 1200 for a fair procedure similar to the judicial system.

Many of these 1200 cases are not contested by the authors, some may be resolved with a ten to twenty-minute free teleconference meeting like the trial broadcasted on television about the dispute over a fence with the neighbor, a loan that was not returned, a rent that was not paid, etc.

While a case such as

  1. Crosetto’s proposal providing experimental scientists a powerful tool replacing hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost, while providing staggering performance improvements for the discovery of new subatomic particles that will save hundreds of millions of dollars to the scientific community (and DOE), and a tool in medical imaging saving millions of lives,
  2. The $15.5 million funding provided by NIH to the Explorer PET project which is less efficient and more costly than Crosetto’s 3D-CBS technology for a cost-effective early cancer detection

justifies a presentation of Crosetto’s inventions in person and an in depth discussion allowing the inventor to answer all doubts regarding feasibility and cost-effectiveness in comparison with alternative approaches that have received funding.

What is needed to implement the “Independence for the peer-review processexpressed by the National Academy of Science is to win the resistance to transparency and accountability by influential scientists in the peer-review system who do not realize that the scientific environment has changed from previous centuries.

This change in the peer-review system needs to be done swiftly in order to prevent a wave of distrust from the public when legitimate scientific issues such as Crosetto’s case are addressed with THREATS rather than resolved with an open public scientific review.

   V.        Physics Research: Here is how corruption works in crushing innovations that reduce the cost of HEP experiments, create powerful tools to discover new subatomic particles and advance science

In the next paragraphs you will read an example of how the corruption has worked among the circle of friends of scientists in the field of physics experiments.  The circle of friends reject/approve articles and fund projects in secret communications with each other and then meet behind closed doors to split taxpayer and donation money among themselves without any transparency or accountability to science and the public. This circle of friends has control over taxpayer and donation money because of the complicity of government agents who handle taxpayer money and together they continue to crush Crosetto’s inventions which would advance science, provide a powerful tool to confirm or rule out the existence of a theorized new subatomic particle and provide an effective, moneysaving and lifesaving early cancer detection.

D.    Smith’s ambition is killing science, wasting taxpayer money, crushing innovations depriving humanity of benefits.

Wesley Smith had the ambition to be remembered in history for the discovery of the “God particle”, (the theorized Higgs boson). His ambition made him the leader of the Level-1 Trigger of the half-billion dollar SDC experiment at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in Texas. After the U.S. congress terminated the SSC in 1993, he became leader of the Trigger at the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider, the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet, at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. The Level-1 Trigger is the crucial electronic decision unit that must analyze billions of collisions (objects) per second from millions of frames per second and decide to store only the frames that confirm or rule out the existence of the Higgs boson, because it is not possible to store all this data as it would fill all hard drives of the planet in one day.  If the Level-1 Trigger was not able to select the frames with valuable data, the other billions dollar LHC apparatus and thousands of scientists would be capturing and analyzing mostly garbage data.

Despite Crosetto’s breakthrough invention, Digital Programmable Level-1 Trigger with 3D-Flow Assembly, being recognized and endorsed by hundreds of scientists (51-55 & 75-83) and the panel of experts at the formal, official, public, transparent scientific review on December 14, 1993 (56-74), Smith wrote that programmability was not necessary at the Level-1 Trigger. Instead of competing like athletes at the Olympic showing publicly their superior skill and Smith showing the merit of his Level-1 Trigger compared to Crosetto 3D-Flow invention, he worked with his circle of friends to destroy as an adversary Crosetto’s invention.

In science the common “adversary” is understanding the laws of nature that enables us to reduce the economic burden, the suffering and the loss of young lives. Scientists should work together to reduce the cost of physics experiments to reduce the burden to taxpayers and provide more powerful tools enabling the discovery of new particles to advance in science that would provide benefits to taxpayers and not boycott, crush inventions of a colleagues to impose a more expensive and less efficient approach dictated from personal ambition, interests or agenda.

After Crosetto received his first million-dollar grant from the U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE) in 1995-1998, he developed software tools (simulator, assembler, test vectors, etc.) proving feasibility of his technology-independent 3D-Flow invention in four hardware platforms (three in FPGAs and one in 350 nm cell/gate array), the money was not provided to translate the design into silicon 350 nm cell/gate array that was necessary to achieve good cost-effective performance in HEP and Medical Imaging applications. However, later the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2002, the NIH on 8/1/2002, 3/31/2003, 7/31/2003 and the DOE on 1/13/2003 even rejected funding Crosetto’s $100,000 proposals to build the proof of concept in FPGA hardware or any other component of the advanced PET system such as A/D and DAQ boards. Crosetto therefore had to spend his own money to prove his invention was feasible and functional in FPGA hardware.

Wesley Smith as Chairman, together with Co-Chairman Peter Sharp prevented Crosetto from presenting his results at the 1999 Workshop on Electronics for LHC experiment at Snowmass, Colorado, although Crosetto’s results were found valuable and published in a 45-page article in the peer-review journal Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research vol. A 436 -1999- pp. 341-385. This article did not bring funding because the decision as to which trigger would be adopted for the LHC experiments (and therefore would present a stronger case to receive funding) was made at this 1999 Snowmass workshop. By preventing Crosetto from presenting at the Snowmass workshop, Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp deliberately removed the competition having known superior skills in order to win. Smith has since copied many of Crosetto’s ideas without acknowledgement and recanted several non-scientific statements, such as the one said to Crosetto that programmability is not necessary at the Level-1 Trigger. It is like an athlete with known skill superior to all other athletes who is boycotted to participate to the Olympics by the competitor who is going to lose the competition if the athlete with superior skill will participate.

Colleagues encouraged Crosetto to submit a paper showing side-by-side the differences and advantages of his technology compared to others. He subsequently presented a paper at the 1999 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference showing side by side in Figure 5 and Figure 6 the advantages of the orderly backplane connections of his 3D-Flow system compared to the spaghetti connections of Smith’s Level-1 Trigger system. Although IEEE senior scientists intervened in defense of a fair review to make scientific merit prevail, and despite having the majority of the reviewers approve Crosetto’s paper for publication in Transaction in Nuclear Science, the paper was never published because two anonymous reviewers claimed (without providing scientific reasons) that the 3D-Flow was flawed (instead it was simulated and proven in hardware not to be flawed).

After the year 2000 all of Crosetto’s papers have been rejected at the IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences, except when Ralph James was the General Chairman of the 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference when all Crosetto’s papers were approved, and in 2013 when James was Chairman of the IEEE-RTSD and one of his papers was approved. In 2008, IEEE-NSS-MIC General Chairman Uwe Bratzler noticed the unfair, unjust and non-scientific procedure rejecting Crosetto’s papers the previous years and insisted that Crosetto resubmit his papers promising that his reviewers would provide a scientific reason in the event of rejection. When Crosetto’s papers were rejected, Bratzler’s attempts to receive scientific reasons from his reviewers, and his effort to setup a forum to discuss the different ideas with the experts in the field failed.

Wesley Smith, his circle of friends and an internal agent at the DOE government agency acted as an internal arm to implement his corrupted plan against advancement in science and was able to secure $50 million of taxpayer money for his Level-1 Trigger (See from page 12 to 16 of Smith’s curriculum vitae which lists grants totaling approximately $50 million received from DOE with Shidhart Dasu, Don Reed and Matt Herndon. $4.2 million in 2016, $3.18 million in 2015, $2.8 million in 2014, $3.38 million in 2013, $4.1 million in 2012…). He was also able to drag into the ditch other scientists into convincing their funding agencies in other countries participating at the CMS LHC project to chip in a sum even greater than $50 million to build a Level-1 Trigger made of 4,000 electronic data processing boards and over 40 computers running 200 processes which did not work and had to be trashed.

Smith has been in several Panels deciding the future of (his) High Energy Physics. For example you can read at page 6 of his curriculum vitae that he was the “Panel Member, DOE National Laboratory Energy Frontier Program Review in 2015”. While in 2016 was the “US CMS HL-LHC Calorimeter Trigger Upgrade Project Manager,… Panel Member, DOE Comparative Review of HEP supported National Laboratory Detector Research and Development, … Panel Member and Reviewer, Canada Foundation for Innovation, …Referee, Journal of High Energy Physics

Smith’s work did not go through a public, open, scientific review like Crosetto’s public scientific review held at FERMILAB in December 1993, and neither did he provide scientific answers to the colleagues who pointed out potential flaws and limitations in his system, however, these evaluations and judgements of Smith’s work and ideas became unavoidable when experimental results proved the failure of his Level-1 Trigger system and then judgements also arrived from his peers. The 40 Higgs-like boson announced by CMS on July 4, 2012, were selected through analysis of trillions of events (frames) captured casually and not for merit of the Level-1 Trigger that did not work and missed all 100,000 Higgs-like boson particles generated by the LHC Collider (The Nobel Prize should have been assigned to the people who built the LHC Collider that worked). It is scientific irresponsibility to build a 4,000 electronic boards Level-1 Trigger system costing over $100 million without thinking to build a data recorder costing $50,000 as Crosetto designed in his proposal to DOE (pp. 149-153 & 162-170), recording real-data from the LHC apparatus and playing them back testing the Level-1 Trigger on a test bench before installing it on site at CERN. This test would further prove that Smith’s money was wasted.

His work also received judgement from his colleagues (including C. Lazaridis from his University of Madison, WI) on the first page of the article presented at the Real-Time conference on June 6, 2016, where it states that Smith’s 4,000 electronic data processing boards were replaced on February 26, 2016, with a 100 board SWATCH system and added: “The legacy trigger [Smith] was organised into subsystems. Only a small fraction of the control and monitoring software was common between the different subsystems; the configuration data was stored in a database, with a different schema for each subsystem. This large proportion of subsystem-specific software resulted in high long-term maintenance costs, and a high risk of losing critical knowledge through the turnover of software developers in the Level-1 trigger project. … So, the Level-1 trigger system has been upgraded during 2015 and early 2016, in order to improve its efficiency for searches and precision measurements, compared with the previous run.”

Wesley Smith might have wasted over hundred million dollars of taxpayer money, wasted the time of thousands of scientists in the world, stepped on science, crushed innovations, deprived humanity of benefits but he achieved his ambition as he proudly stated in his biographical sketch: “He was responsible for the selection of all of the data producing the recently announced discovery of a Higgs-like boson by CMS and also used for over 300 publications.” This is an inconceivable claim from a scientist whose ambition does not stop before results showing evidence of a failure.

Since his $100 million instrument did not work as there was no systematic, coherent way to select events containing the subatomic particle physicists were seeking, nor did he build an instrument showing reproducibility of events that he was seeking, Smith used the electronics of the data acquisition designed and built by others that stored casually trillions of events and then the words used in his biographical sketch is like stating that he personally and manually selected “all of the data producing the recently announced discovery of the Higgs-like boson by CMS and also used for over 300 publications”.

If DOE, NSF and other funding agencies would have known this personal skill of Smith in selecting Higgs-like boson events out of trillions of events, they could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in building electronics that did not work and just give Wesley Smith the task to personally and manually select the Higgs-like boson particles because:

«Wesley Smith “IS” the Trigger».

Although Smith got what he wanted, one thing must change after revealing these facts: the books reporting the History of the Higgs boson. And perhaps it would be prudent for other scientists to question the scientific integrity of Mr. Smith and double check his method of selecting personally and manually all of the data producing the over 300 publications on the Higgs boson.

Nevertheless, Smith continues to receive between 3 and 4 million dollars every year from DOE, NSF, etc. as he reports on pages 12 to 15 in his curriculum vitae ($4.2 million in 2016, $3.18 million in 2015, $2.8 million in 2014, $3.38 million in 2013, $4.1 million in 2012…), while all Crosetto’s  three abstracts/summaries papers submitted to 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference were rejected for no scientific reason as turned out to be clear from the responses Crosetto provided to the President of IEEE. Furthermore, Crosetto’s proposal submitted to DOE on December 22, 2015, to build a 3D-Flow OPRA Level-1 Trigger System with staggering performance improvement replacing Smith’s hundreds of crates and 4,000 electronic data processing boards with one crate and 9 x 3D-Flow OPRA data processing boards, proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries at 1/1000 the cost, underwent a rigged review by DOE Division Director of Research and Technology, Dr. Glen Crawford, who wrote an 8-line email essentially incriminating himself and revealing corruption.  (See below)

E.      Facts proving Government’s internal arm of the corruption in HEP

Explanation of how Dr. Glen Crawford, Director of the DOE Research of Technology Division, and his predecessors in his position managed to crash Crosetto’s 3D-Flow breakthrough inventions and gave $50 million to Wesley Smith for the CMS Level-1 Trigger, which provided him power to convince and drag into the ditch other scientists who applied for funding in other universities in other countries, for an additional $50 million to build the CMS Level-1 Trigger, a system made of 4,000 electronic data processing boards and 40 computers running 200 processes that had to be trashed because incapable to select subatomic particles with specific characteristics.

On November 16, 2015, Crosetto asked on the phone DOE Director of Detector R&D, Dr. Helmut Marsiske, who works in Dr. Crawford’s Division, if the current Level-1 Trigger systems they were funding provided zero dead-time and he answered that they were close to designing and implementing a Level-1 Trigger with zero dead-time. Dr. Marskiske was not aware that Crosetto’s invention solved this problem in 1992, providing also other powerful features of programmability, higher flexibility and capability to execute complex object pattern recognition algorithms at a lower cost, all characteristics that were formally and officially recognized valuable in a major scientific review paid for by DOE, whose scientific merits were praised and published in DOE 1994 publication DE94005148.

Zero dead-time means that the Level-1 Trigger system has the capability to analyze all frames arriving every 25 nanoseconds, instead of being blind for three to four 25 nanosecond cycles after the Level-1 Trigger fired. Because the probability for the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) to generate a Higgs-like boson particle is one out of 10 billion events, if the Higgs-like boson occurs during those three to four cycles when the Level-1 Trigger system is blind, those events are lost forever.

Despite Smith failure having wasted $50 million taxpayer’s money, DOE having funded for 25 years Level-1 Trigger systems not providing zero dead-time, whereas Crosetto had solved this problem 25 years ago and designed a more efficient system at a lower cost, Dr. Crawford continued to give Wesley Smith from $3 to $4 million per year as Smith reports on pages 12 to 16 in his curriculum vitae ($4.2 million in 2016, $3.18 million in 2015, $2.8 million in 2014, $3.38 million in 2013, $4.1 million in 2012…), eluding a fair scientific competition.

1.    Facts that triggered Crawford’s 8-line self-incriminating email

In 2014, The Director of DOE-SBIR, Manny Oliver, sent an email to Crawford and Crosetto asking Crawford to answer a question related to particle detection but he never responded.  Other emails followed but each time Crawford ignored the emails even though Crosetto was told by many that Crawford should answer Crosetto’s questions and address his arguments as this is one of the duties of a DOE Program Manager like Crawford which are defined in several DOE documents (e.g. DE-FOA-0001414).

Since May 5, 2015, Crosetto was solicited both verbally and in writing to formally submit a proposal of his inventions to the Department of Energy by his former supervisor at the Superconducting Super Collider, Dr. Jim Siegrist, who is now Director for the Office of High Energy Physics -HEP- at the Office of Science of the Department of Energy. During this time, Dr. Siegrist and several DOE employees told Crosetto he would need to communicate with Glenn Crawford as he is responsible for Research and Technology.  However, he never once answered Crosetto’s technical emails, phone calls, or addressed/discussed any scientific issues with Crosetto.

To satisfy Siegrist’s request, Crosetto worked hard from August to November 2015 with several reputable companies who prepared 59 quotes showing feasibility of a 8,192-channels Level-1 Trigger for LHC in 9 electronics data processing 3D-Flow OPRA boards replacing at 1/1000 the cost the CMS Level-1 Trigger system made of 4,000 boards or the most recent SWATCH made of 100 boards (two slides).

He then submitted a formal proposal of his 3D-Flow OPRA invention (see pp. 1-36, and  pp. 125-271) to DOE on December 22, 2015, whose review was assigned to Dr. Glen Crawford

Then on May 16, 2016, Crosetto was shocked to be told by the executive officer of the office of Director of Science, Dr. Cherry Murray, that he was not being cooperative in providing information to HEP Office of Science. This is false; Crosetto had never received any requests from Dr. Crawford or any other DOE department – therefore, he could not have been uncooperative.

Crosetto realized that he was trapped in a rigged review that would reject his proposal based on false accusations and then banned it forever, based on the following flaws:

  1. a) During the past years Crawford has never discussed scientific issues with Crosetto and has never answered Crosetto’s emails but continued to fund projects significantly less efficient than Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention,
  2. b) Helmut Marsiske, who works on his team told Crosetto on November 16, 2016, that he was funding Level-1 Trigger projects that were not yet dead-time free, hoping to solve that problem and build a dead-time free Level-1 Trigger system (unaware that Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention solved that problem in 1992),
  3. c) When a project is rejected some Program Managers write the statement: “Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review” (See details at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1745)

As there was no possibility to talk to Crawford, the only choice Crosetto had to uncover the scientific truth through a DIALOGUE was to withdraw his proposal so he could be in the position of being able to talk to DOE agents to clarify these false accusations and to answer any questions or concerns regarding its feasibility and to explain the quotes, if necessary, involving the professionals from the reputable companies who made the quotes and then resubmit his proposal.

This unexpected withdrawal caught Crawford off guard and triggered a series of events which reveal how corruption is alive and well.

Crawford’s use of the words “Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review” were not valid as Crosetto withdrew his proposal on May 17, 2016, his project was no longer up for review and Crawford made this statement on May 19, 2016 before Crosetto’s review was completed as Crawford admitted in the same email that he wanted to complete the “technical merit review” in the following days – in fact after May 17, 2016 Crosetto was now legally in a position to discuss scientific issues with the DOE Office of Science.

2.    Crawford’s 8-line self-incriminating email and line-by-line comments

Here in its entirety is Dr. Crawford’s 8-line email sent to Crosetto on May 19, 2016, where he reveals how the corruption works in eliminating from a fair competition other projects such as the most recent 3D-Flow OPRA invention which can replace hundreds of crates of Smith’s electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost providing staggering performance improvements of a programmable Level-1 Trigger with higher flexibility capable of executing more complex object pattern recognition algorithms at a lower cost per valid object recognized.

Crawford’s 8-line email states one thing and the opposite in the next of following lines. It refers to several false or inexistent rules that neither he or his colleagues can refer the source. He might have invented these rules in serving his plan of corruption, demonstrating that if an innovation conflicts with his own plans or those of the circle of friends of scientists he is serving, it can never be funded by DOE, which clearly fall into an investigation of abuse of power.

 

 

On May 19, 2016 Crosetto received the following 8-line email from Dr. Crawford.

################# Dr. Crawford’s 8-line email ####################

  1. We will honor your request to withdraw application #0000222704 as a matter of professional courtesy.
  2. The withdrawal will be made effective upon the completion of the technical merit review you consented to by submitting the application.
  3. We plan to take no action on this application: it will neither be declined nor recommended for award.
  4. All current and future funding opportunities will be published on our website and the Government-wide portal at www.Grants.gov.
  5. In the interest of fair competition, we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications:
  6. our processes are described in each Funding Opportunity Announcement.
  7. The work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible, as required by 10 CFR 605.10.
  8. Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review.

Sincerely, Glen Crawford glen.crawford@science.doe.gov. Director, Research and Technology Division. Office of High Energy Physics. Phone 301 903 4829

################### end Dr. Crawford email ##########################

This is Dr. Crawford’s technique to bypass any accountability and any DOE rule, to fund the projects he likes, crush innovations and waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money. In his email, Dr. Crawford reveals the path of abuse of power, stating one thing and the opposite in the next or following lines, inventing and/or referring to non-existent DOE rules serving his plan of corruption, and demonstrating that if an innovation conflicts with his own plans or those of his circle of friends, it can never be funded at DOE.

  • Line 7: Crawford’s statement “The work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible” without detailing what in his and his reviewer’s opinion is not sound and feasible would mean that all scientists who endorsed Crosetto’s inventions, the FERMILAB international review panel and engineers and reputable industries who wrote the 59 quotes showing feasibility, are all foolish and incompetent. If Crawford would specify what in his opinion is not sound and feasible, either Crosetto or engineers who wrote the quotes could provide calculations and explain the technology used that he or his reviewers might not be aware of, that prove to be sound and feasible;
  • Line 7 contradicts what he stated in line 3: “We plan to take no action…” because line 7 is making a judgement/evaluation of the project while in line 3 says it will take no action;
  • Line 7 is inconsistent with the fact that he writes this evaluation on May 19 when the review is not completed as he stated in line 2: “…upon the completion of the technical merit review…” and its completion was confirmed on May 31 when Crosetto received a message that his proposal was withdrawn. Crawford evaluation/rejection before completion of the review can only be a prejudice or part of a plan to reject it to serve a priori a circle of friends of scientists.
  • Rule 10 CFR 605.10. lists requirements that Crosetto’s proposal proves to satisfy. Following are the 10 CFR 605.10 requirements:

DOE shall evaluate new and renewal applications based on the following criteria which are listed in descending order of importance:

(1) Scientific and/or technical merit or the educational benefits of the project; (The scientific merits to advance science and benefits to humanity of Crosetto’s inventions have been recognized in several PUBLIC scientific reviews)

(2) Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach; (Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA invention can replace hundreds of crates of electronics funded by DOE for the Level-1 Trigger at High Energy Physics experiments with one crate of electronics at 1/1000 the cost while providing a staggering performance improvement)

(3) Competency of applicant’s personnel and adequacy of proposed resources; (Crosetto’s competence has been proven in scientific articles, in public scientific reviews and endorsed by many letters of top experts in the field (51-55 & 75-83). Outsourcing the construction of the ASIC, electronic boards, cables and other components which will be assembled by a team of 12 professionals, 10 of whom will be hired on a competitive basis, and purchasing new instrumentation integrating the one already in house will assure adequacy of the proposed resources)

(4) Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget; and (The cost of the components outsourced to companies at an average cost of the labor of $110/hours on a competitive basis with at least two quotes for each component, the cost of the new instrumentation, travel and all items specified in DE-FOA-0001414 solicitation (page 227), including the five-year salary for a team of 12 people at an average cost of $38/hour, totally to $13.4 million is reasonable and appropriate for developing, building and testing an ASIC, a hardware simulator with the functionality in generating signals similar to a $50 billion LHC apparatus and two Level-1 Trigger systems one in VXI and the other in VME crate which could also be used for three 3D-CBS units, each with 8,192 electronic channels with 32-bits per channel at 40MHz, capable of executing with zero dead-time experimenters’ complex programmable Level-1 Trigger algorithms in real time). Additional Level-1 Trigger systems for other HEP experiments would cost approximately $100,000 per unit.

(5) Other appropriate factors established and set forth by ER in a notice of availability or in a specific solicitation.” (No other requests were made by DOE to Crosetto).

  • Line 1 states: ““We will honor your request to withdraw application #0000222704” but in the next line Crawford states that he will continue the technical merit review and did not execute the withdrawal immediately on May 17 as Crosetto was told by several DOE officers, including Procurement Director, Dr. Patricia Schuneman, Grant Analyst, Dr. Kimberlie Laing, and Contracting Officer, Dr. Jason Dozier would happen. No one, not even Crawford can cite the DOE rule that the technical merit review should continue so as to prevent the applicant from submitting the same or a similar proposal in the future.
  • Line 5: Crawford states “…we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications”. One should notice Crawford’s words “potential applicants” and “potential applications” which means outside the review process. The statement that DOE Program Managers cannot exchange emails on scientific issues, talk and/or meet with potential applicants outside the review process is false.

This would be contrary to DOE’s mission to maximize results with taxpayer money by learning from groups and individuals through meetings and presentations the details of the best project/technology that would solve their problem.

It would not be in the interest of taxpayers, for DOE records shows several minutes of meetings between DOE staff and applicants discussing details of projects of interest by DOE before submission.

It would make no sense for DOE distributing public money to influential scientists without discussing the technical details, comparing it with other projects and asking authors questions and quotes from industries proving feasibility of their claims.

During review of the project DOE rules allow DOE staff and applicants to discuss details as also stated in the rules.

This statement from Crawford is false because Crosetto gave a seminar to his predecessors in his office on September 2, 1999, and no one cited a change of rule in this regard.

Crawford’s supervisor, Jim Siegrist, stated the opposite during several phone conversations and in emails with Crosetto from May through July 2015 when he was attempting to set up a presentation at DOE with Crosetto in July or August 2015 (most likely he was prevented by Crawford).

On July 23, 2015, Jim Siegrist wrote to Crosetto: “Too many people are out of the office so no date has been set. We are working on arrangements and will let you know.”

On August 3, 2015, Jim Siegrist wrote to Crosetto: “Dario, I began the process of arranging your visit last week…”

On August 4, 2015, Jim Siegrist wrote in an email to Crosetto: “…it may be possible to make a future arrangement if we have a compelling case for you to visit. The most important ingredient is your presentation containing a description of the work plan and scope you plan to propose to DOE. If you can send that to Glen and I we will take a look and get back to you about the need for a visit.”

On May 6, 2016, Jim Siegrist told Crosetto over the phone that they will resume their conversation when his proposal is not under review.

Crawford’s statement “…we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications” is false because it is stated in several documents (page 32 of DE-FOA-0001414) and he also advertises at his seminars around the Nation (his slide 20) regarding the duty of all Program Managers like him who must communicate by phone, email, or in one-on-one meetings with potential applicants. This statement by Crawford prohibits any future analytical, scientific discussion of the project based on calculations and scientific evidence with the applicant. No one, not even Crawford can cite the rule that DOE cannot discuss science, calculations or scientific evidence with applicants.

  • Line 8: “Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review” contradicts what is stated in line 3 “We plan to take no action…” This action is devastating to the advancement of science and to serving taxpayers. Crawford prohibits any resubmission of Crosetto’s application that was never evaluated because it was withdrawn. This is really crushing an invention forever without analytical discussion, without working through calculations, scientific evidence and comparison with other projects.

Recently, Crosetto updated the advantages/benefits of his inventions in three abstracts/summaries papers submitted to the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference which were rejected for no scientific reason.

3.    Questions regarding fundamental inconsistencies within DOE and the scientific community

Here are listed a few questions regarding fundamental inconsistencies.

  • Why has the DOE, which has knowledge of the official, formal review paid for by DOE of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention held at FERMILAB in 1993, knowing it was recognized a breakthrough invention superior to any other approaches for Level-1 Triger, capable of solving the Level-1 Trigger of several experiments and also published in the DOE Technology Transfer book DE94005148 in 1994, stopped funding the NRE to build the 3D-Flow ASIC which was proven feasible and in 2001 proven functional in FPGA and $50 million in taxpayer money was given to Wesley Smith to build a Level-1 Trigger made of 4,000 electronic data processing boards, 40 computers that had to be trashed?
  • Why didn’t the DOE provide any calculations or scientific evidence to show how they came to their conclusion that Crosetto’s invention to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost and provide staggering performance improvement was not sound and feasible (which would mean that all scientists who endorsed Crosetto’s inventions, the FERMILAB international review panel and engineers and industries who wrote the 59 quotes showing feasibility, are all foolish and incompetent), but instead appointed Security to threaten Crosetto into never contacting any DOE employee regarding this issue?
  • Why, instead of addressing publicly very important scientific issues that can provide staggering advancements in science and benefit taxpayers in lower costs for physics experiment and save millions of lives with early cancer detection, have scientists and those with personal agendas and/or interests for over 20 years opposed transparency in science for the benefit of humanity and attempted to crush inventions by trying to destroy Crosetto’s inventions and eliminate evidence? Is it just a casual coincidence that out of the entire website only the slides of the seminar given by Crosetto on September 2, 1999 at the DOE Office of Science received a cyber attack? Is it just a coincidence that when Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths pursued the crowd-funding initiative, checks from the Crosetto foundation were counterfeited causing the Foundation to close the account? Or is the evidence concrete and clear from the rejections of his presentation of papers at conferences, rejections of articles in scientific journals, rejections of funding, having the microphone taken away from him when he asks legitimate and pertinent questions and the threats he received if he continues to state that his invention proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries can replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost while providing staggering performance improvements?

4.    Crawford documents and actions proving he is not doing his job

Analyzing the facts during the past year, it becomes clear how Crawford’s corruption works in eliminating from a fair competition other projects. He does not answer to any email addressing scientific issues for the past two years when Crosetto was referred to him by his colleagues as the person responsible to do so. He creates all possible obstruction not to receive scientific information from Crosetto, blocking his emails, denying a presentation of his technology at the DOE office as Crosetto did to Crawford’s predecessors in 1999, promising phone appointment and never setting a date and time, forcing Crosetto to send material via certified U.S. mail. Asking Crosetto to submit a formal application, giving the application to his reviewers to be evaluated and formulating a judgement that “it is not sound and feasible” before the evaluation is completed, continuing the evaluation after Crosetto withdrew it. Crawford did not stop the technical merit evaluation because he wanted to formulate the key sentence: “Any further submission of substantially the same work will be declined without review” (which he did even before the technical merit review was completed) and also stating that “we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications”. All this strategically planned to be in the position to request DOE Security to make a threat to Crosetto if he contacts by email, phone or any form any DOE employee, contractor or associate.

These facts, documents and data should make Crawford reflect that he cannot do the job that he signed for and for respect to the taxpayers who have been paying his salary and provided their money he distributed with no accountability, without doing his job properly, he should reflect, take responsibility and resign. Crawford’s job was to maximize the use of taxpayer money to advance science for the benefits of taxpayers, he should communicate with inventors and researchers who can contribute to DOE programs as stated at page 32 of DE-FOA-0001414 and also advertised by him at seminars he gives around the Nation (his slide 20) and not to ignore or crush innovations. He didn’t have the courage or knowledge to address scientific issues and answering Crosetto’s emails, talking to him over the phone, organizing a meeting with experts in different fields who could address scientifically Crosetto’s contributions to make the scientific truth for the benefit of taxpayer and humanity prevail. Crawford’s methodology/actions show that he is not suitable for his job.

5.    Tricks used by Crawford to reject Crosetto’s proposals are common to other funding agencies anywhere in the world and have roots in the international scientific community

This trick of eliminating other projects from a fair competition is not only used by Crawford but is the result of the rigged peer-review process in approving/rejecting articles and in assigning taxpayer money to research projects which exposes to corruption several other government agencies and/or cancer organizations because at the end, the circles of friend experts in Trigger or PET who meet behind closed doors splitting taxpayer and donation money among themselves are always the same.

Whether the review or evaluation of a project/idea/innovation is requested by Agency A, B, or C, or is requested by a philanthropist or cancer organization A, B or C in any country in the world, the circles of friends of scientists controlling a specific field are always the same, they are the ones who meet at international conferences such as IEEE-NSS-MIC.

This explains why Crosetto after his $906,000 grant received from DOE could not receive any other grants from any scientific organization, cancer organization, philanthropist or Bank Foundations, not even $2,150 as he applied on July 2016 to the Rockefeller Foundation. Those who control the field have decided to ignore it, to label and spread the words: “not sound, not feasible” without looking at the details and crush his innovations because it might subtract money to their projects, take away their control in the field and overall losing the trust from the public for the scientific community.

In fact, journalists told Crosetto that they were not informing their readers about these facts because they were told by experts in the field that Crosetto’s invention was flawed, but did not want to provide their names.

F.      Le Du’s actions and non-actions crushing innovations

Wesley Smith is not the only scientist unwilling to have an analytical scientific discussion where everyone would gain. For example, over the years I have tried having an analytical scientific discussion on the Level-1 Trigger with Patrick Le Du, a senior organizer of the IEEE-NSS conferences. Our relation has always been cordial; however, the typical course of events at the IEEE conferences is the following:  day one I ask him for a meeting; he schedules our meeting during a coffee break but then never shows up; we set another meeting, and again he does not show up. He never answers emails on technical-scientific issues. When he has spoken a few words to me, it is to lament that the government does not give him enough funds to keep the bright students at the university after graduation, or that he had some bright idea like Crosetto’s for the trigger; but he never wants to discuss and compare his ideas with Crosetto’s inventions, providing the excuse that he is very busy attending several meetings to plan the future.

At the 2013 conference in Seoul, I noticed that he was the convener at the Trigger Session. Hoping to be able to address analytically trigger issues, I went to the session and asked the presenters questions.  They clearly stated that Level-1 Triggers for Atlas were not fully programmable nor did they operate with zero dead-time. Le Du did not chair this session because he was attending meetings to plan the future which he apparently believed is more important than discussing analytically the essence of the future in HEP with his colleagues, presenting different trigger ideas and hearing comments from other participants.

G.    The actions of several scientists prove that their ambition to be remembered in the history of the largest physics experiment ever built make them blind to the ethics of a scientist by imposing their own “approach” (“circuit”) with “power/money” rather than “reason/science” because in a $50 billion project the name linked to a component becomes more important to them than the most cost-effective solution to advance science and bring advantages to taxpayers

Wesley Smith and Patrick Le Du are not the only scientists unwilling to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail through a public, open, transparent scientific review similar to the 1993 FERMILAB scientific review (see 56-74).

During the past 25 years Crosetto has gathered facts, actions and documents (which are available upon request) proving that there are several scientists who behaved similarly to Wesley Smith and Patrick Le Du and the best way to correct this corruption is to change the anonymous peer review system of articles and projects to be funded by not having the reviewers meet behind closed doors with their circle of friends of scientists who split taxpayer and donation money without accountability to the public, but rather make them accountable with public, open, scientific reviews.

 

 

  VI.        Cancer Research: Here is how corruption works in crushing lifesaving technological innovations for early cancer detection

In the next paragraphs you will read an example of how the corruption has worked among the circle of friends of scientists in the field of medical imaging preventing millions of lives from being saved and reducing healthcare costs. 

The circle of friends reject/approve articles and fund projects in secret communications with each other and then meet behind closed doors to split taxpayer and donation money among themselves without any transparency or accountability to science and the public.

This circle of friends has control over taxpayer and donation money because of the complicity of government agents who handle taxpayer money and together they continue to crush Crosetto’s 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention, hundreds of time more efficient than current PET, which could have saved millions of lives with a cost-effective early detection of cancer and many other diseases, requiring the administration of very low radiation to the patient during an affordable 4- minute examination replacing several screening procedures such as mammogram, colonoscopy, PAP-test and PSA test.

More detailed information about the rigged peer-review process are reported in regard to the abstract/summary 2505, titled: “3D-CBS: Breakthrough Invention based on the 3D-Flow System, Capable of Extracting ALL Valuable Information from Radiation with the Potential to Save Millions of Lives and Reduce Healthcare Costs” submitted to the 2016 IEEE-MIC Conference and the funding of the Explorer project at Section: “How and who decided to give $15.5 million to the Explorer.”

H.    The 3D-CBS that can slash cancer mortality by 50% did not receive funding, while the less efficient, more costly Explorer project that cannot do this, received $15.5 million funding from NIH

The advantages and superiority of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention compared to any other PET devices or approaches is standing out from 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”, 200 copies of which were distributed free of charge at the same conference 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 5 of paper M03-1 stating that what they presented is “Not a New Idea! citing his previous article. The Explorer project presented on October 30, 2013 at the 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 3,000 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, 160 million people (12 million were American) 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, including from DeRenzo who stated in the review of Crosetto’s bookWe do not view the electronics as a problem, either in terms of performance or cost” are reversed in their recent 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?

I.        Craig Levin: The Claims & Projects of the Deputy Chairman of the IEEE-MIC Conference DO NOT ADD UP

Craig Levin, Deputy Chairman of the most important Medical Imaging conference at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, rejected the only Crosetto’s abstract of the 3D-CBS, hundreds of times more efficient than current PET (maximizing the measurements of all parameters, including spatial resolution) titled: “3D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) for Early Cancer Detection Targeted to Reduce Premature Cancer Death at a Lower Cost per Life Saved Compared to Current Cost”, while his circle of friends approved 16 of his articles of projects funded by NIH for millions of dollars for submillimeter PET spatial resolution which did not help to reduce cancer deaths.

Levin’s research was a duplicated work of McIntyre in 1994 (3/4 mm spatial resolution PET available in the conference record of 1994 IEEE-NSS-MIC pp.1357-1361), and of the PET detector developed earlier at CERN with 0.3 mm spatial resolution which both did not have a commercial application of PET for human because they require a very high radiation dose to the patient and do not provide benefits in saving lives. PET should provide physicians information related to minimum abnormal biological processes which is related to sensitivity.

Crosetto and Levin began what became a series of emails that were copied to numerous leaders holding top scientific positions and to a few philanthropists and politicians who have the public trust in handling their tax-money.

Before NIH assigned over $3 million to Levin to develop his submillimeter PET block detector, it should have been clear from the scientific arguments discussed from page 55 to 79 in the documents and email that Levin’s claims just DID NOT ADD UP.

This was admitted by Levin himself after his presentation M25-4 on November 2, 2013, at the 2013 IEEE-MIC conference, when Crosetto was able to ask him four questions to help explain or deny how his very high spatial resolution PET module could reduce cancer deaths and cost.

Levin had to ADMIT it could not reduce cancer deaths and cost because the efficiency of his PET module was too low, the radiation to the patient too high, and the examination cost too expensive.

Transparency in science when open and public would have made it clear to the scientific community that Crosetto’s claims were correct and that Levin’s project and articles should have been stopped immediately. Instead, dishonesty, corruption and cover ups, kicked in again.

In this specific case, a possible explanation why many scientists pursue improvements to PET spatial resolution, detrimental to high sensitivity and to lower costs, is that the cancer industry needs to support the products they sell (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, medical imaging devices…), so they request instrumentation which can measure the smallest shrinkage of a tumor attributed to their drug.  However, studies show it is not localized tumors that kill people but the process of metastasis that kills people. While we understand the request for a parameter that increases sales, scientists should be faulted for not providing their ethical and professional knowledge of which measuring technique is more cost-effective to accurately measure this parameter without putting patients’ health and lives at risk.

Supporting the implementation of transparency in science clarifies the role of science and industry in a society which should always aim to bring maximum benefit to humanity.

Following is a list of the wasted taxpayer money NIH gave to Craig Levin in over $3 million which did not achieve a record in submillimeter PET detector because block detectors with similar or even better spatial resolution were developed years earlier and none could claim contributing significantly to the reduction of cancer deaths and costs because their efficiency was too low and could only see large tumor at a late, not curable stage, while requiring to administer high radiation dose to the patient.

 

List of the grants funding Craig Levin submillimeter PET detector: http://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-CA119056-04

NIH 2010 R01 CA119056-05 Advanced PET System Dedicated to Breast Cancer Imaging Levin, Craig S. / Stanford University $570,077
NIH 2009 R01 CA119056-04 Advanced PET System Dedicated to Breast Cancer Imaging Levin, Craig S. / Stanford University $579,324
NIH 2009 R01 CA119056-04s1 Advanced PET System Dedicated to Breast Cancer Imaging Levin, Craig S. / Stanford University $413,741
NIH 2008 R01 CA119056-03 Advanced PET System Dedicated to Breast Cancer Imaging Levin, Craig S. / Stanford University $521,793
NIH 2007 R01 CA119056-02 Advanced PET System Dedicated to Breast Cancer Imaging Levin, Craig S. / Stanford University $482,304
NIH 2006 R01 CA119056-01a1 Advanced PET System Dedicated to Breast Cancer Imaging Levin, Craig S. / Stanford University $483,316

 

J.       Unethical scientists in Medical Imaging powered by taxpayer money ignore scientific evidence. These inconsistencies could be resolved with transparency in science in public, open workshops

Without providing scientific reasons, several chairmen and/or reviewers of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008, etc., rejected Crosetto’s abstracts. 2014 IEEE-MIC Chair, Georges Alfakhri, Deputy Katia Parodi, and their team of reviewers rejected Crosetto’s Abstract of a ultrasensitive, low cost 3D-CBS and his proposal for a workshop to allow senior scientists, young scientists and PhD students to present their project/idea and question each other in a two-hour discussion.

The communication between Crosetto and 2014 IEEE-MIC Chairmen is reported at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=956.

Inconsistent with the ethics of science, Alfakhri and Parodi approve Levin’s Abstracts, even though he admitted the inadequacies of his PET module for high spatial resolution after his 2013 IEEE-MIC presentation. Likewise, scientists who have obstructed and prevented Crosetto from presenting his ultrasensitive, low cost 3D-CBS at past IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences such as Joel Karp are now presenting the EXPLORER project, similar to the 3D-CBS, in that it offers a complete body examination, but less sensitive and ten times more expensive, therefore unable to save many lives. Despite the disadvantages compared to the 3D-CBS, the authors of the EXPLORER project are among those who have the power to assign taxpayer money and thus receive funding.

This proves that today credibility in science is not derived from valuable inventions and scientific merit but from the power to have some control over taxpayer money, receiving funding regardless of the usefulness of the project/idea to society and/or to the advancement in science.

Funding allows some projects to be built which justifies reviewers to accept abstracts (e.g. seventeen from Craig Levin at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in 2013, eighteen in 2016…), and these abstracts increase their credentials to receive more funding, which justifies the approval of more papers…, and so on. All this self-approving promotion process among a circle of friends avoids the real evaluations on scientific merit that would come from an open workshop where scientists could question each other publicly.

 

K.     Implicit admission that Crosetto’s 3D-CBS was the solution that could have saved millions of lives but remain unfunded, while the EXPLORER that cannot save many lives, is less sensitive and 10 times as expensive, is funded

These past 15 years Crosetto’s approaches, claims, calculations and hardware verification are turning out to be correct and those who opposed him have had to recant explicitly or implicitly by results provided by third parties or by results obtained by the same individual who obstructed Crosetto after he pointed out their misconceptions and his inventions.

For over ten years Crosetto’s proposals to NIH, were rejected by NIH reviewers who were requesting an improvement to PET spatial resolution and the “Block Detector” which would have reduced sensitivity.

These rejections were proven to be a mistake when PET sensitivity was shown to be more important than PET spatial resolution and after the superiority of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention and his other related inventions in the simplified detector assembly, real-time algorithm, etc., made the “Block Detector” concept obsolete.

Steve DeRenzo had written a negative review of Crosetto’s technical-scientific in the year 2000, but his claim that in order to improve PET efficiency, crystal detectors should be improved and there was no need to improve the electronics, was proven wrong by many articles and projects built by third parties after DeRenzo’s review. Even Siemens, a leader in this industry, had to recant their statements after Crosetto had a one-day meeting with the President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine and Director of PET, followed by conference calls with Siemens Head of Research and Chief of electronics. They stated that it was impossible to improve PET efficiency by improving the electronics, and there was no need anyway. Five years after the meeting, Siemens recanted all their statements when they published on their website they increased PET efficiency by 70% by improving the electronics.

Most recently, the same persons who obstructed Crosetto’s ultrasensitive, low cost 3D-CBS technology are proposing and receiving taxpayer money to build the EXPLORER which is less sensitive, ten times more expensive and cannot save many lives.

 

VII.        Responsibility of scientists to stand up for SCIENCE to stop taxpayer and donation money from being wasted and innovations that would benefit humanity from being crushed

After Crosetto was solicited verbally and in writing beginning on May 5, 2015, to formally submit a proposal of his inventions to the Department of Energy from his former supervisor, Dr. Jim Siegrist (now Director for the Office of High Energy Physics -HEP- at the Office of Science of the Department of Energy, but a former supervisor when they both worked at the Superconducting Super Collider), Crosetto worked hard for four months to explain under NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) his inventions to several reputable companies who prepared 59 quotes based on their component/technology data sheets and results from their simulations.

After the several months Crosetto worked with these companies, he provided their reliable information in the 59 quotes to Dr. Siegrist. On a regular basis, Crosetto received inquiries from the companies asking if he had received any comments/questions from Dr. Siegrist regarding their work. These professionals who spent a great deal of time to perform simulations and provide information about components and technology data sheets, had a legitimate right to know whether there were any technical concerns/objections/questions from Dr. Siegrist or the DOE about the work described in their quotes.

Dr. Siegrist or anyone from DOE ever expressed any concern regarding any component or technology used in the proposal.

These 59 quotes proved it is feasible to build a 3D-Flow OPRA system for Level-1 Trigger at LHC:

  1. a) in one VXI (or ATCA) crate with a 36 cm cube of electronics and 8,192 x 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) with data arriving at 80 million frames per second (or 40 million 8,192 x 32-bit frame per second, equivalent to a data rate of 1.3TB/sec), with the capability of executing up to 20 OPRAS at an approximate $100,000 production cost per crate, (OPRAS: Object Patter Recognition Algorithm Step executing up to 26 operations such as add, subtract, compare with 24 values, etc. in a single cycle of 3 nanosecond) or
  2. b) in two VME crates each with a 16 cm cube of electronics and 4,096 x 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) with data arriving at 80 million frames per second (or 40 million 8,192 x 32-bit frame per second, equivalent to a data rate of 1.3TB/sec), with the capability of executing up to 30 OPRAS at an approximate $160,000 production cost in total.

The value of Crosetto’s inventions have been recognized and endorsed by hundreds of scientists, the concepts have been proven feasible and functional in hardware, providing staggering performance improvements as confirmed in a public scientific review conducted in December 1993 (see pp. 56-74) where Crosetto answered objections from other scientists.

The recent 59 quotes from top engineers of several reputable industries based on components and technology data sheets prove with calculations and simulations that Crosetto’s innovations can use in synergy the components and technology to break the speed barrier in real-time applications in object pattern recognition data processing systems with staggering advantages in higher performance and lower costs. Two examples are provided here:

  1. Replacing hundreds of crates of electronics of the Level-1 Trigger systems at LHC such as the CMS costing over $100 million made of 4,000 data processing boards, 40 computers running 200 processes (or the most recent SWATCH made of 100 data processing boards) with one 3D-Flow OPRA VXI crate described above at 1/000 the cost with staggering performance improvements. The 3D-Flow OPRA can provide experimental physicists the most powerful tool available for efficiently executing their preferred Level-1 Trigger algorithms, enabling them to quickly and economically confirm or rule out the existence of new particles, and do so with the highest certainty.
  2. Changing the molecular imaging paradigm with the 3D-CBS device, the first truly “total body” PET.  Replacing the Explorer device recently funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) for $15.5 million made of 491,520 expensive LYSO crystals, 12 crates with 120 data processing boards and 6 racks of computer processing 40 TB data acquired and stored on hard drives every day for a total power consumption of 60 kW, which cannot save many lives because it cannot acquire and process 40,000 TB data per day, with the 3D-CBS device which makes use of the recent 3D-Flow OPRA invention capable of acquiring and processing over 40,000 TB data each day, by 9 data processing boards housed in one 3D-Flow OPRA VME crate capable of extracting all valuable information from tumor markers, from fewer than 3,000 economical BGO crystals, requiring only 1 GB data storage per day, zero racks with computers, for a total power consumption of the entire system of only 4 kW, at less than 1/10 the cost of the Explorer. The 40,000 TB data acquisition and processing per day of the 3D-CBS enables an effective early detection of cancer and several other diseases at a curable stage which can save many lives and reduce healthcare costs.

 

Why waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money on less efficient, more costly technologies knowing that Crosetto’s inventions described in a 271-page proposal proven feasible by 59 quotes form reputable industries can save millions of dollars to taxpayers, advance science and save millions of lives?

Scientists should stand up and request a PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC review of Crosetto’s new 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions similar to the one requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider of Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention that was recognized valuable by the panel of experts from academia, industry and research centers at the 1993 FERMILAB review.

Instead of following scientific procedures and addressing analytically calculations, scientific evidence where scientists can question each other and compare in a public forum Crosetto’s 3D-CBS and 3D-Flow inventions, Smith’s and SWATCH CMS Level-1 Trigger, Atlas Level-1 Trigger and Moses et al., the Explorer’s project description, data processing boards, components and technology data sheets, scientists do not take responsibility, do not answer emails when they have to recognize the advantages of inventions, ignore improved scientific approaches, do not do their job, but take action to suppress inventions for the power, personal interest and/or agenda, even copying ideas, breaching basic professional ethics rules.

Because scientists do not stand up for science, Crosetto Foundation received several cyber- attacks and when he tried to raise money through crowdfunding — his Foundation’s checks were counterfeited causing the Foundation to close the account; his papers with valuable innovations are rejected for no scientific reasons, funding of his innovations are rejected for less efficient and more costly projects, and when he has attempted to point out these facts to prove all of the above and legitimately ask for scientific reasons why less efficient and more costly approaches are being funded, he is threatened with security being called.

In other words, the louder Crosetto speaks up in defense of science and humanity, spelling out the scientific benefits that can be received from his inventions, the more he receives threats and actions to silence him.

The scientific truth for the benefit of humanity could prevail if enough scientists STOOD UP FOR SCIENCE, but many more would be needed than the number of scientists who wrote letters of endorsement to Crosetto and people who supported his inventions such as Antony Montgomery, head of the Office of Research and Technology Transfer at the Superconducting Super Collider and his wife Ann Montgomery, who in an interview with the Dallas Morning News on July, 12, 2013, stated: “You had to be someone special to get Tony’s attention …He wouldn’t reach out to just anyone.”  See the article at: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/best-southwest/headlines/20130712-desoto-inventor-crosetto-eyes-early-cancer-detection-technology.ece. Or the scientific truth could prevail by placing people in key positions who consider it more important to serve the public than to be complicit in corruption.

For this specific case, Crosetto respectfully requests from the bottom of his heart, in defense of science, taxpayer and cancer patients that Crawford, Marsiske and Laurer refer to the ethics of scientists, and be fair to taxpayers and cancer patients by allowing the judgement of analytical discussions, calculations, scientific evidence and ultimately the judgement of experimental results. Because the actions or non-actions reported below show they are not able to do their job or believe their job is to be fair to scientists who are unfair to the public, Crosetto is respectfully asking them to reflect and resign their positions of responsibility to others who can maximize benefits to taxpayers through public scientific procedures that make the scientific truth emerge for the benefit of humanity.

Their leaders, U.S. President Barack Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden and many others are promising in their speeches to the public to “provides the biggest bang for their buck”, to “defeat once and for all cancer”, etc. and Crawford, Marsiske, Laurer’s actions or non-actions reported below do not use their position of responsibility to achieve what was promised by their leaders and what is expected from taxpayers. Following is the list of the actions or non-actions from Crawford, Marsiske and Laurer:

  1. Glen Crawford with his 8-line email revealed how he is the internal arm in the government agency of corrupt scientists.
  2. Helmut Marsiske who stated on November 16, 2015, that they were getting close to designing a Level-1 Trigger with zero dead-time without being aware that Crosetto solved this problem 24 years ago and Marsiske continues to waste taxpayer money on less efficient projects and
  3. Michael Laurer, Director of extramural Research of the National Institute of Health who does not want to listen to Crosetto’s inventions that go a long way to defeating cancer, not even when it was explained to high school students because Laurer says he wants to be fair to the scientists, without realizing that he is being unfair to the public because the scientists are unfair among themselves and toward humanity. The last information that Crosetto received from the office of the Director of NIH, Dr. Collins, was that they had a meeting on July 19, 2016, to find a person at NIH responsible to address scientific issues justifying the giving of $15.5 million for the Explorer which is less efficient, ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS device. He promised an answer late afternoon on July 19, 2016, or on the following day; however, to date Crosetto has not receive an answer.

 

 

 

VIII.        Responsibility of the media and everyone to pass on this information and stand up for JUSTICE

Everyone should STAND UP FOR JUSTICE to stop wasting taxpayer money and to stop the damage to humanity by those who suppress innovations preventing benefits which would advance science, reduce cancer deaths and healthcare costs.

The damages listed below is just the tip of the iceberg of the much greater damage caused by a rigged peer-review system of articles and the funding of research projects with taxpayer and donation money because scientists control both through a peer-review system that has no accountability.

It is not necessary for the media or laymen to be expert in particle detection, photons, electronics, etc. to understand the inconsistencies and the injustices to taxpayers and humanity. The inconsistencies are easy to understand so if everyone takes responsibility and demands they be addressed and fixed, corruption will be eliminated and everyone will benefit.

Write to President Barack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden who have given speeches promising the public to “provide the biggest bang for their buck”, to “defeat cancer once and for all”, and ask them why after more than a year of having proofs that Crawford is not following his job description and five months after his self-incriminating and self-contradictory email containing statements in violation of DOE rules, he still holds the same position and continues to waste taxpayer money and be the internal arm of a circle of friends of corrupted scientists.

Ask them why the government has given $6.3 million to the Explorer project that has a prohibitive cost as admitted by its authors and plans to give an additional $9.2 million in the coming years although it cannot save many lives because it cannot acquire and process 40,000 TB data per day.  Ask them why they are doing this when they have known of the existence of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS superior invention which has proven functional in FPGAs and feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries with the ability to acquire and process over 40,000 TB data per day from tumor markers at less than 1/10 the cost, creating a paradigm change in molecular imaging, with the potential to save millions of lives with an effective early cancer detection and reduce healthcare costs.

Stand up for justice for yourself and your loved ones and ask for accountability of your tax dollars and why public officers deprive them of the benefits of inventions that would greatly benefit you, your children, grandchildren and grand-grandchildren.

L.      Stand up for justice to stop the waste of $4 million per year of your money to Wesley Smith who has already wasted over $50 million because he makes power/money triumph over science/reason depriving humanity of the benefits from the 3D-Flow OPRA invention which offers a more powerful tool to discover new particles at a fraction of the cost

Why did DOE give $4.2 million of taxpayer money in 2016 to Wesley Smith (as he reported on page 16 of his curriculum vitae, as well as $3.18 million in 2015, $2.8 million in 2014, $3.38 million in 2013, $4.1 million in 2012…) after he wasted over $50 million building hundreds of crates with 4,000 electronic data processing board of the Level-1 Trigger systems at LHC such as the CMS costing over $100 million which did not work and had to be trashed (as reported on the first page of the May 2016 article by his colleagues) knowing that it can be replaced with one 3D-Flow OPRA VXI crate (described in 2 pages summary, detailed in 271 pages) at 1/1000 the cost with staggering performance improvements.

If reviewers who gave Wesley Smith $4.2 million this year and over $50 million the previous years for the CMS Level-1 Trigger were not corrupt, they should demonstrate that all scientists who endorsed Crosetto, the FERMILAB international review panel of his 3D-Flow invention, engineers and industries who wrote the 59 quotes showing feasibility, are all foolish and incompetent and point out errors in the simulations, components and technology data sheets of the industries who wrote the quotes.

For your interest, read the 8-line email by DOE Research and Technology Division Director, Glen Crawford which reveals abuse of power with contradictory statements, inventing and/or referring to non-existent DOE rules, demonstrating that if an innovation conflicts with his own plans or those of his circle of friends, it can never be funded at DOE.

(DOE Director of the Office of High Energy Physics, Dr. James Siegrist (301) 903-3624 Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov – U.S. Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz (202) 586-5230, The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov  –  (- Write to the President and Vice-President at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact – You can send a copy of your letters to UnitedToEndCancer2@gmail.com).

M.  Stand up for justice to stop the waste of $15.5 million of your money for the Explorer project funded by NIH which is flawed whether used for research or clinical examinations because its authors make power/money triumph over science/reason depriving humanity of the benefits from the 3D-CBS invention offering a more powerful tool, safe to the patient, to detect minimum abnormal biological processes in the body at an early curable stage and at a fraction of the cost.

Why did NIH give $3,314,184 of taxpayer money in 2016 to the team of the Explorer project (as well as $3,054,873 in 2015, out of the $15.5 million) made of 491,520 expensive LYSO crystals, 12 crates with 120 data processing boards and 6 racks of computer processing 40 TB data acquired and stored on hard drives every day for a total power consumption of 60 kW, which cannot save many lives because it cannot acquire and process 40,000 TB data per day, knowing that the 3D-CBS device can make a paradigm change in molecular imaging, because it has the capability to acquire and process over 40,000 TB data each day, using one 3D-Flow OPRA VME crate for a total power consumption of the entire system of only 4 Kw (described in 2 pages summary, detailed in 271 pages), at less than 1/10 the cost of the Explorer.

The 3D-CBS also offers the 3D-CBS ER/DSU unit at a production cost of approximately $23,000 per unit as described in Table 3 on page 12 and from page 149 to 170 of the proposal capable of acquiring raw data from tumor markers for research studies at a higher detector granularity and time resolution than the Explorer.

The 40,000 TB data acquisition and processing per day of the 3D-CBS enables an effective early detection of cancer and several other diseases at a curable stage which can save many lives and reduce healthcare costs.

Write to the Director of NIH, NCI and NIH Director for Extramural Research and ask them to provide the response promised to Crosetto on July 19, 2016, regarding who is responsible at NIH for handling taxpayer money that will maximize health benefits and reduce healthcare costs and who is competent to discuss analytically with Crosetto the technological differences and performances of the Explorer vs the 3D-CBS.

Calculations and scientific evidence irrefutably show before construction that the design of the Explorer project reviewed by NIH on April 21, 2015, and approved for $15.5 million, with a start date of September 25, 2015, has a prohibitive cost as admitted by its authors because it is made of 491,520 expensive LYSO crystals, 12 crates of electronics with 120 data processing boards and 6 racks of computer processing 40 TB data acquired and stored on hard drives every day for a total power consumption of 60 kW, which cannot save many lives because it cannot acquire and process 40,000 TB data per day.

Calculations, scientific evidence and 59 quotes from reputable industries irrefutably show before construction that the 3D-CBS device which makes use of the recent 3D-Flow OPRA invention is capable of acquiring and processing over 40,000 TB data each day, by 9 data processing boards housed in one 3D-Flow OPRA VME crate capable of extracting all valuable information from tumor markers, using fewer than 3,000 economical BGO crystals, requiring only 1 GB data storage per day, zero racks with computers, for a total power consumption of the entire system of only 4 kW, at less than 1/10 the cost of the Explorer. The 3D-CBS also offers the 3D-CBS ER/DSU unit for research studies at a higher detector granularity and time resolution and at a fraction of the cost than the Explorer. The 40,000 TB data acquisition and processing per day of the 3D-CBS enables an effective early detection of cancer and several other diseases at a curable stage which can save many lives and reduce healthcare costs.

The public needs to know that NIH did not fund Crosetto’s inventions submitted in ten proposals for nine years since 1995, and his 3D-CBS implementation from the year 2000 which created a paradigm change in molecular imaging with the first truly “whole body” PET as recognized by colleagues in peer review articles in 2010 could have saved millions of lives.

The public needs to know that Crosetto used all available means provided by NIH such as appeals, talking to and exchanging emails with leaders at NIH and NCI, meeting NIH and NIBIB Directors at a press conference on Medical Imaging, requesting the help of U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas State Senator Jane Nelson, Senator John Cornyn, U.S. Congressman Michael Burgess, U.S. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, and many others to request transparency in science by having a fair public scientific procedure similar to the one given for his basic 3D-Flow invention held on December 14, 1993, at FERMILAB.

The answer received from NIH executives, directors and employees to Crosetto or anyone enquiring on his behalf was that he should follow the reviewers’ guidance and modify his research, approach, objectives toward improving spatial resolution (to the detriment of sensitivity), and improve crystals rather than electronics, essentially giving up on his invention. This turned out to be wrong because it has been recanted by influential leaders in the field who are now receiving $15.5 million from NIH to build the Explorer.

NIH always denied scientific procedures; they denied an analytical public discussion of Crosetto’s approach/ideas/inventions/claims based on calculations, scientific evidence with NIH executives and their reviewers responsible for handling taxpayer money to maximize improvement in healthcare and reduction of healthcare costs.

Many of the 160 million people who have died from cancer (12 million were Americans) since Crosetto first claimed to improve PET medical imaging efficiency, increase the FOV, improve the electronics, etc., could have been saved if NIH would have requested a public review of Crosetto’s invention similar to the major scientific review held at FERMILAB in 1993 with an open analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidences.

It took 15 years from when Crosetto wrote his technical-scientific book and 19 years from the first rejection for funding by NIH, for those in power in the field such as Bill Moses, leader of the Explorer project, to reverse their position toward Crosetto’s approach and direction of research that they had obstructed for decades.  Moses’ 2015 press release states: «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, the influential leaders in the field such as Moses, DeRenzo, etc. who set the main stream approach of research in medical imaging pursued the opposite direction during the past decades as it was also stated by DeRenzo in his review of Crosetto’s book: We do not view the electronics as a problem, either in terms of performance or cost. NIH reviewers were reflecting this opposite direction in rejecting all Crosetto’s proposals as well as the reviews of papers at IEEE conferences, for more than a decade, supported by Joel Karp, the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in 2002 (who is also among the authors of the Explorer project) who rejected all Crosetto’s papers.

The Explorer, headed by Moses, has an extended FOV, improved electronics, and focuses on sensitivity. The authors now praise the advantages of these features that they objected to with Crosetto, telling him to focus instead in improving only spatial resolution and to reduce the cost of the PET device.

These were all ideas copied from Crosetto which the authors of the Explorer and their supporter of the main stream research in medical imaging had rejected and obstructed for decades and for which Crosetto received no recognition in references in their articles. However, the conceptual design of the Explorer is flawed because the influential people who will build it refused an analytical discussion and do not understand what it takes to save lives and reduce healthcare costs. Yes, it has improved electronics, extended FOV, increased sensitivity, and intensified computation, but at the back-end, without understanding that in order to be able to use economical crystals and extract all valuable information (signals) from radiation (tumor markers) at the lowest cost per valid signal captured, it is necessary to increase computation at the front-end with the 3D-Flow invention.

The Explorer is a monstrous device costing over $15.5 million with a farm of computers in six racks, processing an enormous amount of data at the back-end. The conceptual design of the Explorer is flawed whether it is intended for research study or for clinical use. If intended to be used in list mode, recording raw data to be analyzed by a farm of computers in six racks for research study, then the 12 crates with 120 Explorer detector boards can be replaced with one crate with 5 VME 3D-CBS ER/DSU boards described in detail from page 149 to 170 of Crosetto’s proposal capable of acquiring raw data from tumor markers at higher detector granularity and time resolution than the Explorer. If intended for clinical study, then the cost of the Explorer is prohibitive and cannot save many lives because it does not have the capability to acquire and process over 40,000 TB data per day. For clinical use, the six racks of computers and 120 detector boards of the Explorer can be replaced by 9 VME 3D-Flow data processing boards described on pages 154-155 and 142-147 of the proposal.

If it took 19 years from Crosetto’s first submission to understand some of his ideas of the 3D-CBS, how many more years and how many more needless cancer deaths will be lost before leaders of NIH allow the science of medical imaging to proceed freely through fair, open, public competition?

Despite all the above facts which confirm that the NIH peer-review system is rigged, that many people have died needlessly, that scientists are not fair to each other and more importantly are not fair toward the public because they obstruct colleagues’ inventions that would bring them benefits, the NIH Director of Extramural Research Michael Laurer, still does not want to hear Crosetto’s inventions, does not want to organize a public scientific review to maximize results for taxpayers which would eliminate corruption because he believes this would not be fair to all scientists and does not give the same importance to be fair to the public.

On January 22, 2016, after hearing the Forum on the Cancer Moonshot Taskforce led by Vice-President Joe Biden, Crosetto and two friends drove to Davos, Switzerland, to hand-deliver a letter his 271-page proposal and 155-page report of 59 quotes from reputable industries to Vice-President Joe Biden. The Grisha Hotel in Davos later confirmed Crosetto’s envelope with the proposal was given to the American Delegation. Crosetto met Ms. Donna Brazile at an event at the University of Arlington in Texas, where she provided the physical address to send the proposal so it would be assured that delivery to Vice-President Joe Biden. The USPS confirmed Crosetto’s additional copy of his proposal reached its destination on March 28, 2016.

Mr. Charles Conner, a veteran who worked for Lyndon B. Johnson from 1959 to 1964, wrote a personal letter to Vice-President Joe Biden asking him to address the specific items in Crosetto’s letter, clear out the bureaucratic hurdles and have Crosetto be part of the Task Force to defeat cancer. Mr. Conner did not receive a reply, the specific items in Crosetto’s letter were not addressed, and he was not included in the Task Force to defeat cancer.

Take responsibility, stand up for justice, write to Vice-President Joe Biden and your representatives and journalists telling them that it is not fair to taxpayers for leaders to ask for money to be spent on solving the cancer problem and for NIH and Cancer Moonshot task force to refuse to listen to presentations of innovations that have been endorsed by top world experts, which have the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs, and which were proven to be functional and feasible in 59 quotes from reputable industries.

(NIH Dr. Michael Laurer (301) 496-1096 Michael.Lauer@nih.gov – NIH Director, Dr. Francis Collins – (301) 496-2433  Collinsf@od.nih.gov or francis.collins@nih.gov Write to the President and Vice-President at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact – You can send a copy of your letters to UnitedToEndCancer2@gmail.com).

N.    Take responsibility for solving the most deadly and costly calamity by asking for help to identify the solutions that have more impact in solving the problem and stand up for justice, for what is right and serves the interest of solving the cancer problem

Following are some examples of inconsistencies which damage taxpayers, cancer patients and humanity that everyone should feel responsibility to stand up for justice.

6.    For your interest, write to Texas Senator Jane Nelson

For your interest write to Texas State Senator Jane Nelson who was instrumental in the approval of Bill 14 in Texas in 2007 and who was very active in selling bonds to raise the $3 billion for cancer research to request a public review of Crosetto’s invention similar to the major scientific review of Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention held at FERMILAB in 1993 with an open analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence.

After serving his local community in Texas where Crosetto lives since 1991 and his friends from his home town in Italy organizing a cultural exchange free of charge for ten years from 1997-2007, providing free hospitality for ten days to Texans at his friend’s house in Italy and the following year free hospitality for the Italians at his and his friend’s house in Texas, Crosetto was hoping to find collaboration to help cancer patients as well. His mission was to remove, through the DIALOGUE, the barriers between countries, parties to create a better understanding and cooperation among people around the world in order to achieve prosperity of mankind and build world peace. In fact, a competition in generosity was created, with attention to each other, practicing the golden rule to anticipate the guest’s desires and to make them feel at home. Among the participants there has been since 1997 until today, Texas Senator Jane Nelson, her extended family including relatives and staff from her office. You can see this spirit in the movie made by Senator Nelson’s brother in law who died from cancer at the age of 58, five months after being diagnosed. Crosetto was hoping to have the same collaboration to fight cancer. He was pleased and gave full support to Senator Nelson’s initiative of House Bill 14 to raise $3 billion for cancer research (Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas – CPRIT).

Crosetto always believed in science and served to help create fair scientific procedures that would make the scientific truth prevail. On September 2009 CPRIT asked for public comments to the draft of the rules for assigning grants. Crosetto noticed that the rules were asking applicants to “capture reviewer’s attention” without specifying that should be by demonstrating the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. He provided his remarks to modify the rules to prevent corruption in assigning grants on page 43 of https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5RXhPQmhBNmlnZjQ/edit?usp=sharing. His remarks were ignored, corruption had an open path and in 2012 CPRIT was under investigation.

In 2009 Crosetto was invited to submit a proposal to CPRIT that would be spending Senator Nelson’s $3 billion project.

He was not expecting any favoritism. His desire has always been to have the opportunity to discuss analytically his project based on calculations, and scientific evidence, comparing it to other projects in a fair competition where the project with highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost should win to benefit cancer patients and not someone else. He felt reassured that this fairness would be guaranteed by Senator Nelson and by the letter received by the CPRIT CEO who encouraged Crosetto to submit the proposal because the CEO stated in the letter that Crosetto’s goal was the same as CPRIT’s goal.

However, despite CPRIT CEO’s promise that his proposal would receive rigorous scientific review, it was extremely disappointing as well as heartbreaking when Crosetto was notified that his proposal was not even examined. It was “triaged out” with 400 other proposals out of 800 submitted based on the Title of the proposal and the 235 word abstract and significance.

The title of Crosetto’s proposal was: “3D Complete Body Screening (3D‐CBS) for Early Cancer Detection Targeted to Reduce Premature Cancer Death at a Lower Cost per Life Saved Compared to Current Cost” He was surprised that CPRIT did not want to find the best solution to reduce cancer deaths and costs and didn’t even read the 15-page proposal. A few years later, newspapers reported that CPRIT was under criminal investigation and all leaders, including the CEO and two Nobel laureates had to resign. In April 2012 the CPRIT CEO wrote an email to the Nobel laureate, Director of CPRIT Scientific Review asking him to resign because of serious matters. In May of 2012 Nobel Laureate wrote the letter of resignation. By December 11, 2012, the two Scientific Directors (both Nobel Laureates), the CEO and the Director of Commercialization were no longer in their positions at CPRIT.  More details are available in several newspapers. Comments from the public to the articles are no longer available, however, some articles are available at these links:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Anatomy-of-a-grant-Emails-indicate-cancer-agency-3622443.php;

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5cUZsMHo4d3YySVk/view?usp=sharing

This article in 2013 is a summary of the CPRIT events in 2012:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5NGpLRDJjaVd5UEU/view?usp=sharing .

Take responsibility, stand up for justice for you and your loved ones to receive benefits from your taxpayer money by funding innovations that reduce cancer deaths and costs, by writing to Senator Jane Nelson requesting a public review of Crosetto’s invention similar to the major scientific review of Crosetto basic 3D-Flow invention held at FERMILAB in 1993 with an open analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence. Demand justice that the $3 billion be used for your benefit and the benefit of your children and grandchildren.

(Senator Nelson Address: jane.nelson@senate.tx.state.us   –  You can send a copy of your letter to UnitedToEndCancer2@gmail.com)

7.    For your interest, write to the Foundation Compagnia di San Paolo,

For your interest, write to the Foundation Compagnia di San Paolo, first thanking the Compagnia for the activities they list on their website to pursue “purposes having a social usefulness, with the goal of favoring civic, cultural, and economic development … within the theme areas of … research and education; arts, cultural heritage and activities; healthcare; social policies.” Next, tell their scientific advisor, Prof. Giorgio Palestro that he is not only committed to serving the Compagnia  by best implementing their Mission listed on their website but must also be committed to serving you and your loved ones by providing information with professional ethics and scientific integrity because of the trust people give scientists like him.

Facts and documents show that Giorgio Palestro has not taken responsibility to uncover the scientific truth to serve the mission of the Compagnia, which is to be beneficial to humanity, but on occasion appears to be paving the way to achieve the opposite goal.

Here are a few facts: On October 17, 2012, Giorgio Palestro, within the Catholic Center for Bioethics organized a forum on Cancer Research which was reported in local newspapers and where he invited researcher Dario Crosetto from Dallas, Texas; an oncologist from Gradenigo Hospital in Turin, Alessandro Commandone; an oncologist from New York University, Antonella Surbone; After their presentations a round table discussion with questions from the public was planned. However, despite the public having questions and wanting to stay for the discussion, Palestro cancelled the panel discussion and the Q&A session.

Palestro was always interested in Crosetto’s material, publications, etc. and could not avoid expressing agreement on several logical approaches and methodologies that would solve the cancer problem such as the one in the brochureOne way to minimize cancer deaths and minimize costs is to demand that funding agencies using taxpayer and donation money or anyone raising or spending money to fight cancer, whether it be for a vaccine, a new drug, medical imaging device, or healthy lifestyle promotion, etc., answer the five questions below which include to 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 (e.g. 0.5%). A difference or no difference in the mortality rate will quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution.”

However, Palestro only seems to show interest in Crosetto’s methodologies to solve the cancer problem so that he can counter them. He does this by using tactics such as rejecting them by not taking responsibility to respond or participate at official presentations, analytical discussions or reviews with other professional experts in the field, ultimately not approving the expenses (approximately $2,500) that would allow Crosetto to go to a conference on life-sciences where other scientists recommended he present his 3D-CBS invention.

Palestro always refused to discuss analytically with other professionals in the field of particle detection on how to advance medical imaging for an effective early cancer detection to save the most lives. All Crosetto’s attempts to find a date convenient to Palestro to discuss at his office at the Compagnia or at the University of Physics in Turin were futile. He refused the invitation to participate or to name a representative from the Compagnia who would be in charge of providing scientific evaluation to the leaders of the Compagnia or to attend a meeting or presentation at the University of Physics regarding Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention.

If the scientific advisor of the Compagnia is not interested in learning about an invention that has high potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs compared to other approaches that he knows, and he does not provide a professional scientific evaluation based on calculations and scientific evidence that the 3D-CBS is advantageous compared to all other approaches, the Compagnia does not have a reason to give a contribution to the project.

Regretfully, Giorgio Palestro did not even consider a grant of approximately $2,500 that would have served to further assess the value of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention in an international forum of the IEEE Life Science Grand Challenges Conference in Singapore on December 2-3, 2013, where projects with the same objective were presented. Senior Scientist Aaron Brill attended the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD in Seoul, South Korea, noticed Crosetto’s article and poster, wrote him an email recommending he attend the IEEE Life Science Grand Challenges conference which is the way to pursue the solution of a problem scientifically. The best way is to have scientists present and discuss publicly and analytically their ideas with colleagues at the appropriate conferences and forums. To serve the community and achieve the same goals of the Compagnia , Crosetto did not ask for any additional money but only asked for his air ticket and a 3-nights hotel stay which normally can be found for less than $50 per night. Even this time the support to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity was denied by Palestro who was well informed over the phone by Crosetto about this conference in Singapore. He then asked Crosetto to send an email to which he never replied so Crosetto could not attend the conference.

Take responsibility, stand up for justice for yourself and your loved ones so they may receive benefits from the generous contributions of the Compagnia  by writing to Giorgio Palestro letting him know that his role is important not only for giving the right scientific advice to the Compagnia , but also to many people who want to contribute in a small way so they continue to trust the professional ethics and scientific integrity of scientists.

Tell Palestro that if he is not expert in all fields related to providing the greatest impact in reducing cancer deaths and cost, he can involve experts in particle physics, in electronics etc., however, by avoiding answering pertinent legitimate questions from Crosetto, he is crushing innovations and benefits to you and your loved ones; therefore, invite him to reflect, and if he does not feel competent to do this job of finding the information and experts who can discuss analytically with Crosetto the evidence that will uncover the scientific truth for your benefit and the benefit of humanity, he should resign and be replaced by other professionals.

(Palestro Email: giorgio.palestro@unito.it  – web Compagnia: http://www.compagniadisanpaolo.it/eng  –  You can send a copy of your letter to UnitedToEndCancer2@gmail.com)

8.    For your interest, write to WOKC

For your interest, write to Wipe Out Kids Cancer (WOKC), first thanking them for the Mission in their website to “Work relentlessly for the day when all children are living …cancer free”

Among the committee of group that is organizing cultural activities in Dallas Crosetto has known a friend who was touched by cancer when he was a child and now he is active in the WOKC organization. Crosetto’s invention drew his genuine interest for his health and the one of people like him and invited one of his colleagues at WOKC and Crosetto to dinner on June 2014 so Crosetto could explain his 3D-CBS invention, its advantages and benefits in particular to children for the very low radiation (less than 1/50 than current PET) and very high sensitivity to find recurrence at a very early curable stage. A machine like that is extremely useful to find cancer in children and then monitor with regular safe screening for a long time of 70 to 90 years where the accumulated dose of radiation from repetitive exams in a person’s body can become very high.

On August 29, 2014, Crosetto submitted a proposal requesting $147,852 to “Study of how the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) can Wipe Out Kids’ Cancer and how it compares with other projects/approaches/ideas”

Regretfully on December 11, 2014, Crosetto receive an email from Evelyn Costolo, CEO of WOKC stating: “Thank you for your application to the WOKC Medical Grant Program.  We have carefully reviewed each application and are unable to fund your request at this time.

To avoid possible misunderstandings about Crosetto’s role serving children and adults (and WOKC mission) working relentlessly on detecting cancer at an early curable stage so that everyone would be able to live cancer free and that he would be available to explain to doctors’ reviewers (and be confident to be understood as he was understood by high school students) the superiority of his invention compared to any other approach he replied the same day with a message stating: “As we all work in the same direction to Wipe Out Kids Cancer, I trust your cooperation in kindly providing information about the reason of the rejection that are useful to achieve the common goal. There are several people who are asking me which is the aspect of the attached grant application that qualified lower with respect to the other applications that you have funded, or if you please make a list of the higher potentials in reducing cancer deaths and cost among KIDS of the other WOKC projects that received funding with respect to the attached proposal. Thank you for your cooperation that will help everyone who believes in our WOKC objective.

He then received a message from WOKC CEO Ms. Costolo on December 16 stating: “Due to the amount of applications, we do not provide specific feedback. Best of luck, Evelyn E. Costolo, CEO Wipe Out Kids’ Cancer

Costolo was not realizing that she was wishing “best of luck” to kids with cancer after choosing which projects to fund.

Instead of providing the reason to the kids with cancer (present and future) why she chose the project that she believes is providing the highest impact in the elimination of kids’ cancer and why she rejected the others, she practically is telling them “good luck!” with what I chose and if I cannot prove it has the highest capability to wipe out kids’ cancer, too bad for you.

Costolo would reduce her risk to make a mistake in depriving kids with cancer who would benefit from the 3D-CBS breakthrough technology, far superior to any other approach existing in the world, including the Explorer project led by three universities, by making her decision transparent and informing kids with cancer, their parents, their donors and the applicants for a grant about her reason to choose one vs another. This would give an opportunity to applicants, kids’ parents and donors to provide their input, clarify what was not understood and make the scientific truth for the benefit of the kids with cancer emerge.

However, this misconception that the grant is considered a “gift” to the applicants, rather than the applicant is serving the mission of the funding agency is common to many funding agencies who consider themselves the carrot instead of being the rabbit looking for (taking responsibility to find through an analytical discussion) the best project that will best satisfy what is stated in their mission statement.

Wishing “good luck” to Crosetto is inappropriate at this time because fortunately he has not been diagnosed with cancer yet and if someone will address the issue of maximizing reduction of cancer deaths and cost analytically, proving with calculations and scientific evidence that another project has much higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost, the scientific integrity of any true scientists should recognize the evidence or agree to build an experiment whose result would prove who is right.

First we should determine which projects offer more advantages/benefits to the patient. Next, the funding agency should fund those projects. Crosetto requests funding agencies to discuss analytically, that the 3D-CBS consuming 4 kW with the capability to acquire and process 40,000 TB per day offers more advantages/benefits to kids’ with cancer than the Explorer consuming 60 kW with the capability to process only 40 TB per day. The 3D-CBS has more potential to save lives than any other approach.

Take responsibility, stand up for justice for your children and grandchildren to receive benefits from breakthrough innovations with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs, by writing to Evelyn Costolo telling her to place in contact Crosetto with her reviewers so they can analyze different approaches. They can compare data of Table I between the Explorer and the 3D-CBS and determine in an analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence the best combination of a device for early cancer detection and the existing cures proven to work when cancer is detected at an early stage. This will provide the highest impact to Wipe Out Kids’ Cancer.

(Costolo Email: ecostolo@wokc.org – WOKC website: http://www.wokc.org/ – You can send a copy of your letter to UnitedToEndCancer2@gmail.com).

9.    For your interest, write to the Fondazione CSR

For your interest, write to the Fondazione CRS (Bank: Cassa di Risparmio di Savigliano), first thanking the Fondazione CRS for the activities they list on their website for pursuing “purposes having a social usefulness and economic development within the theme areas of … arts, cultural heritage and activities; health; preventive medicine, education; social policies, volunteer work, philanthropy, charity and funding building used by the public.

Next, tell their scientific advisor, Prof. Roberta Fruttero that she has not only committed to serving the Fondazione CRS by best implementing their Mission listed on their website but by doing that she is also committed to serving you, your loved ones and everyone who expects she provide information with professional ethics and scientific integrity because of the trust the people give to scientists like her.

Facts and documents show that Roberta Fruttero has not taken responsibility to uncover the scientific truth to serve the mission of the Fondazione CRS, which is to be beneficial to humanity, but on occasion appears she is delaying or even obstructing it.

Here are a few facts: Roberta Fruttero is the scientific referee among the five Administrative Council Members of the Fondazione CRS, deciding funding for the most-worthy projects. Crosetto had a few meetings with Roberta Fruttero and Dr. Domenico Testa, a member of the General Council of the Fondazione CRS, but he is not part of the decision-making process to assign grants. During the initial meetings among Fruttero, Testa and Crosetto, they were discussing issues analytically and finding agreements on the value of the Crosetto invention that deserved a minimum support from the local community because cancer is affecting everyone. At the subsequent meetings Roberta Fruttero was not taking responsibility to address the problem scientifically by not answering emails, by setting meetings at times she knew she had a doctor appointment, etc.  Dr. Testa was also surprised of this unethical, disrespectful behavior of Roberta Fruttero.

Crosetto was even more surprised about Fruttero’s refusal to address scientific issues analytically as were addressed before and met one of the other four members of the Administrative Council, Racca Marco Gabriele who found it reasonable that in order to best serve the community he should discuss this issue at their next meeting and provide Crosetto the name of a scientist competent in physics and medical imaging that the Fondazione CRS can trust. Crosetto would then present his project to the referee appointed by them and answer any technical questions. Unfortunately, it seems like Racca’s good intentions were not shared by the other members of the Administrative Council and Crosetto’s request of 3,000 Euros went unfunded.

On January 20, 2016, Crosetto gave a seminar at the University of Physics in Turin, Italy, inviting either Prof. Roberta Fruttero or her representative to attend who has her office just across the street at the Chemistry Department of the University of Turin. However, she never replied.

Looking at the overall picture of how the peer-review system worked during the past 19 years, whether in the review of papers, review of grants from government agencies private organizations or from Bank Foundations, etc., it is quite astonishing to realize that Crosetto’s invention that was recognized formally, officially, and publicly, a valuable breakthrough in 1993 by a panel of experts from academia, industry and research centers, partially funded by DOE for $906,000 in 1995, proven functional using Crosetto’s own money in two electronic boards with 68 x 3D-Flow processors each, now proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable companies to replace hundreds of crates of electronics in one crate at 1/1000 the cost, is boycotted. Crosetto’s papers and funding are rejected with no scientific reasons, the microphone is taken away from him and he is prevented to participate at Workshops and now he is rejected for a request for funding for $147,000 from the WOKC, or $2,500 from one of the largest Foundation Banks in Italy and now also for 3,000 Euro from the bank of his little village where he was born in Italy. The same Fondazione CRS funded Crosetto’s initiative of the cultural exchange between Texas and his native town and is not giving any contribution for a much more valuable cause to support an invention with the highest potential to defeat the most deadly and costly calamity.

Take responsibility, stand up for justice for yourself and your loved ones so they may receive benefits from the generous contributions of the Fondazione CRS by writing to Roberta Fruttero letting her know that her role is important not only for giving the right scientific advice to the Foundation CRS, but also to many people who want to contribute in a small way so they continue to trust the professional ethics and scientific integrity of scientists.

Tell Fruttero that if she is not expert in all fields related to providing the greatest impact in reducing cancer deaths and cost, she can involve experts in particle physics, in electronics etc., however, by avoiding answering pertinent legitimate questions from Crosetto, she is crushing innovations and benefits to you and your loved ones; therefore, invite him to reflect, and if she does not feel competent to do this job of finding the information and experts who can discuss analytically with Crosetto the evidence that will uncover the scientific truth for your benefit and the benefit of humanity, she should resign and be replaced by other professionals.

(Fruttero email: roberta.fruttero@unito.it  –  Fondazione CRS website: https://fondazione.bancacrs.it/content/chisiamo/chi-siamo – You can send a copy of your letter to UnitedToEndCancer2@gmail.com).

10.  For your interest, write to Citigroup

For your interest, write to Citigroup, first thanking them for their “services that enable growth and economic progress” and for Citi Foundation that is devolving millions of dollars every year to foster world growth and progress.

Next, please point out this document to them, listing the effort Crosetto has put forth during the past 25 years to bring innovations to benefit humanity on a shoe string budget and in particular, read the Section related to Citigroup.

Citi Treasury and Trade Solutions (TTS) intermediates more than $3 trillion in global transactions daily. TTS has over $13 trillion assets under custody, about $377 billion in average liability balances, serves 99% of the world’s Fortune 100 companies and ~85% of the world’s Fortune 500 companies as reported at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup.

Crosetto’s request to Citigroup for a grant of $40,000 per year (and/or a break on financial interests) until he will able to make the scientific truth prevail, benefitting humanity, clearly explained in this document with the funding agencies responsible to fund his innovations seemed legitimate and pertinent. It was also suggested by several people during Crosetto’s seminars to ask for contributions to decision makers who make a public commitment to contribute to make a better world and who have significant budgets.

Please tell Citigroup you rely upon their resources to have access to the experts in the field of the technology of Crosetto’s invention that you do not have. Tell that their information assessing the superiority of Crosetto’s approach or pointing out another approach with higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost than Crosetto’s approach is precious to you and many people who want to contribute in a small way to a technology/project that can make a positive difference in the world.

After studying this document and assessing the value of Crosetto work and effort it should be possible to find a way to provide a small contribution compared to Citigroup’s $3 trillion in global transactions daily. For example, there was no rule contemplating to rescue Citigroup in November 2008 with a massive stimulus package by the U.S. government with an immediate injection of $20 billion of taxpayer money. The contingent problem was considered and a solution was found. Similarly, Crosetto is asking to consider his contingent situation where he anticipated money because he was moved by the compassion for millions of people dying needlessly who could be saved. He even provided a way to contribute to the tax-exempt Crosetto 501 (c)(3) Foundation so he can be legally reimbursed for the expenses he anticipated from his personal account.

More importantly and urgently, please tell Citigroup to remove Ms. Jody Lang’s threat that she will involve Citigroup Security if Crosetto continues to send information to Citigroup leaders about the technological advantages of his invention and the benefit to humanity and about the scientific procedure to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge.

Citigroup is announcing on their website to be sensitive, attentive and supportive of projects that foster world’s growth and progress. It should be legitimate to submit innovations proving to achieve Citigroup’s objective and expect a scientific reason refuting them rather than a threat to involve Citigroup Security.

Take responsibility, stand up for justice for your children and grandchildren to receive benefits from breakthrough innovations with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs, by writing to Citigroup CEO Michal and President James telling them to place Crosetto in contact with their experts in technologies so they can analyze different approaches to maximize results in defeating the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer. They can compare data of Table I between the Explorer and the 3D-CBS and determine in an analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence that the best combination of a device for early cancer detection and the existing cures are proven to work when cancer is detected at an early stage.

(Citigroup CEO, Michael Cobart email: Michael.L.Corbat@citi.com  – Citigroup President James Forese email: James.A.Forese@citi.com   – Citigroup website: http://www.citigroup.com/citi/about/our_leaders.html?group=boardofdirectors   Citi Foundation website: http://www.citigroup.com/citi/foundation/about/board-of-directors.htm  –  You can send a copy of your letters to UnitedToEndCancer2@gmail.com).

 

11.  For your interest, write to The Rockefeller Foundation

For your interest, write to the Rockefeller Foundation, first thanking them for the Mission in their website “To promote the well-being of humanity throughout the world”.

Next, please tell Judith Rodin, the President of The Rockefeller Foundation to place her experts in technology, economy, and strategy to promote the well-being of humanity throughout the world in contact with Crosetto to discuss, analytically about data, facts, and analysis that support efforts toward achieving the common goal of solving the worst calamities in the world.

It is noticeable in the Rockefeller Foundation website, the attention dedicated to the hunger, malnutrition and food problem in the world. Similarly, Crosetto in his 2011 book on page 14 is analyzing data from the World Health Organization to identify the four causes of premature deaths: cancer, heart disease, malnutrition and accidents.

His analysis also determined that a lot of effort has been placed in curing heart disease which cut more than half the mortality and cars are made safer that will require huge investments in roads to cut mortality significantly due to accidents.

Instead, Crosetto’s analysis determined that millions of lives and trillions of dollars can be saved by improving early detection of cancer and other diseases at a curable stage, saving lives and money that can be invested in solving the malnutrition problem.

Crosetto is reporting the analysis of data from the World Health Organization, the U.S. CDC,  the National Cancer Institute, etc. in three graphs at the center of page 2 of the Executive summary of his book “The Future is in Our Hands. EVERY YEAR: 10 Million Preventable Deaths and Trillions of Dollars LOST”.

Likewise, Crosetto could explain and answer questions regarding his 3D-CBS breakthrough inventions in saving lives and reducing healthcare costs and The Rockefeller Foundation rejected a request of a mere amount of $2,150 that would help document in more detail, his inventions.  His request on July 27, 2016 for a $2,150 grant was justified to be within the Mission of the Rockefeller Foundation, answering to the Foundation’s specific questions as follow:

To which Foundation issue area(s) does your work relate?

Advance Health

 

  • To which Foundation initiative(s) does your work relate?
  • Innovation

What geographic region(s) is your work intended to benefit?

Global

 

Describe how you see a strategic fit between your work and the Foundation’s ongoing work. Please limit your response to 100 words or less:

Fits in several Foundation’s initiatives in: “nurturing innovations, pioneering new fields, expanding access to and distribution of resources, generating sustainable impact on individuals, institutions and communities…”

My basic breakthrough invention 3D-Flow OPRA is a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: advancing science, saving lives, security (fighting terrorism). Used in 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) application, is hundreds of times more efficient than current PET, thus enabling effective early detection, requiring 1/50 the radiation, at lower examination cost, potentially saving millions lives, reduce healthcare costs with a single four-minute examination, covering all organs of the body replacing mammograms, PAP-test, colonoscopy, PSA…

 

A few hours after submitting his request for a grant for $2,150, Crosetto received the answer from Judith Rodin stating: “…your inquiry has been reviewed by Foundation staff. Unfortunately, at this time, we were not able to consider providing funding.” No reason was provided for the rejection.

Take responsibility, stand up for justice for your children and grandchildren to receive benefits from breakthrough innovations with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs, and use the saved money to solve the malnutrition in the world, by writing to Judith Rodin telling her to place Crosetto in contact with her reviewers so they can analyze different approaches. They can compare data in Crosetto’s 2011 book and compare data of Table I between the Explorer and the 3D-CBS and determine in an analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence, the best combination of a device for early cancer detection and the existing cures proven to work when cancer is detected at an early stage. They could also estimate the money this will save on the current annual cancer economic burden of over $1.4 trillion per year that could be used to solve the malnutrition problem in the world.

(The President of The Rockefeller Foundation, Judith Rodin email: President@rockfound.org  – The Rockefeller Foundation website: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/about-us/  – You can send a copy of your letter to UnitedToEndCancer2@gmail.com).

 

  IX.        THREATS rather than scientific reasons to explain why reviewers and funding agencies refute Crosetto’s claims that his inventions are sound and feasible. Reviewers imply that all scientists who endorsed Crosetto, the FERMILAB international review panel, engineers and industries who wrote the 59 quotes showing feasibility, are all foolish and incompetent.

Following are some consequences to taxpayers and cancer patients when their money is wasted lives are lost needlessly and they are deprived from benefits because scientists do not take responsibility by standing up for science and for what is right.

Instead of providing calculations and observations to Galileo demonstrating that the earth is at the center of the Universe to refute Galileo’s claims, the Church threatened him. First the Pope gave a few warnings to Galileo asking him to say that it was his hypothesis; however, after Galileo continued to state that it was not a hypothesis but calculations and observations supporting that the earth was not at the center of the Universe, the Church threatened to chop off his head. Facing such an unreasonable choice the person who shown again to be reasonable was Galileo who recanted science to keep his head on, knowing that nothing would change the facts and sooner or later the Church would realize to be wrong.  It took 350 years, but eventually the spirit of justice and asking to be forgiven for mistakes made, that are part of the teaching and mission of the Church, prevailed, and the name of Galileo who was wrongly condemned and punished for unjust reasons was cleared.

 

O.    Here are the facts regarding the DOE threat.

Similarly, instead of providing calculations and scientific evidence demonstrating that Crosetto’s invention is not feasible (replacing hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost while providing staggering performance improvement)  which would mean that all scientists who endorsed Crosetto’s inventions, the FERMILAB international review panel and engineers and industries who wrote the 59 quotes showing feasibility, are all foolish and incompetent, DOE appointed Security to threatened Crosetto not to contact any DOE employee about this issue.

On July 25, 2016, Crosetto was threatened by Mr. Bill Johnson of DOE Security with the statement: “you should not be having any communication with the Department of Energy Office of Science or any other affiliation of the Department of Energy.”

Crosetto immediately asked what consequences he would encounter if he did not follow these orders but continued to state the scientific truth to the DOE Office of Science handling taxpayer money to promote the scientific truth. No response was ever received.

The threat apparently wants to silence and cover up corruption at DOE in funding Level-1 Trigger in High Energy Physics experiments.

On Thursday, July 21, 2016, Crosetto was asked by DOE Executive Office of the Secretary of Energy to call back the next day or Monday because they were investigating the reason why they were unable to receive his emails since Sept. 2015. On Monday, July 25, 2016, Crosetto called back and after being placed on hold for half hour and being disconnected one time, instead of providing the promised information, he was connected to DOE Security who made the threat which can be listen at minute 34:50 of the audio recording of the call.

Mr. Bill Johnson’s verbal threat was followed by the threat in writing by his supervisor Mr. William Riddle.

Crosetto has been always very cooperative to meet the mission and goal of DOE Office of Science: ”..delivery of scientific discoveries and major scientific tools to transform our understanding of nature and to advance the energy, economic, and national security of the United States …to determine the very best scientific proposals to support specified in several places on the Government website, and did not understand why they called DOE Security to silence a breakthrough invention or why they do not provide a technical scientific answer supporting their claim that Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA invention is not feasible.

Crosetto immediately replied to Mr. Riddle’s email the same day and sent a second email on August 10, asking what the consequence would be if he did not follow orders from DOE employees who are working against achieving the goals of DOE as stated on their website because they are not supporting an open, public scientific procedure to make the scientific truth for the benefit of taxpayers prevail.

###############—–Original Message—–############## From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 3:10 PM To: ‘Riddle, William’ <William.Riddle@hq.doe.gov> Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net> Subject: RE: Notification of No Contact

 

Mr. Riddle,

Please could you let me know the consequences I will encounter if I do not follow your order below?

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

###############—–End of the Original Message—–##############

 

DOE Security officer, Bill Johnson confirmed on the phone on August 3, 2016 that the threat was still active and also revealed for the first time to Crosetto that the problem they had in communication was because Crawford and other people on the upper floor of the DOE building of the Office of Science blocked his email giving the instruction to DOE IT department to diverge to DOE security all Crosetto’s emails addressing scientific issues.

This also reveals that Crawford and his colleagues used this trick to ask Crosetto to send several copies of the same email and asked him to call back to check on the status of the communication problem (knowing they could not receive them because they had blocked them) to have an excuse to call DOE Security, while deceiving them into believing he was harassing them, so they would make the threat without telling them the whole truth  that Crosetto’s questions on behalf of taxpayer and cancer patients were legitimate and part of their job description to answer.

Crosetto has a record of talking on the phone several times since May 2016 with Mr. Evans (865-xxx-xxxx) at DOE IT technical support who never mentioned that Crosetto’s emails were blocked, but also never explained why his emails were not received at DOE, while they were received by NIH, NCI, etc., and neither were they received at Mr. Evans’ email address scsc@science.doe.gov unless Crosetto sent them from a different account.

DOE Security and other agents encouraged Crosetto to request DOE internal documents using the DOE Freedom of Information Act department (FOIA) and to submit the case to the DOE Inspector General. Crosetto followed their advice and on July 26, 2016, informed the DOE Inspector General about this case, requesting an investigation into the inconsistencies in Dr. Crawford’s email and DOE’s actions (see http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1873).

On July 29, 2016, Crosetto submitted a request to the DOE Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for all internal documents at DOE which mention my name, the 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS projects, my proposal, etc. (see http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1875).

If these democratic tools are working properly, leaders who are detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change their mind when presented with compelling arguments should act before Dr. Crawford’s violations of the rule of law do further damage. Leaders should compare any technical justifications or scientific calculations made by Dr. Crawford and his reviewers leading to their statement that Crosetto’s project “is not technically sound and feasible” which will result from the FOIA enquiry with Crosetto’s calculations, feasibility and functionality proofs described in documents, articles, and those of experts who endorsed his inventions these past two decades (51-55 & 75-83) as well as the professionals who wrote the recent 59 quotes proving his 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS to be feasible, more performant and more cost-effective than competitive systems, thus refuting line 7 of Dr. Crawford’s email.

The office of the DOE Inspector General told Crosetto over the phone on 7/26/16 that he will receive some results from the investigation in one to two weeks. After more than 2 months, no result from the investigation has been provided by the DOE Inspector General. The threat is still pending, no specification of the consequences Crosetto will face if he does not follow Crawford’s and his colleagues’ order made through DOE Security, so he could evaluate the most reasonable thing to do as Galileo did in taking the risk in defense of science, taxpayers and cancer patients. The second week of October 2016 Crosetto received a CD from DOE FOIA department that should contain the requested documents and are currently being reviewed.

This inaction following evidence of corruption which has wasted taxpayer money and deprived them of the benefits of Crosetto’s inventions is doing further damage. Thousands of scientists could have available a powerful tool to replace many Level-1 Triggers in several experiments giving them programmability to execute complex algorithms to find the particle (object) they seek with zero dead time for approximately $100,000 for a 3D-Flow OPRA system in one crate with 8,192 channels with 32-bit information per channel arriving at 1.3TB/sec.

They could have a TER/DSU unit recording real-time data from different LHC experiments that can be used to test the 3D-Flow OPRA Lvel-1 Trigger system or any Level-1 Trigger system with the same number of channels and speed at the cost of approximately $50,000, having the functionality of the LHC apparatus costing $50 billion.

This would be an invaluable instrument for experimental physicists to test any Level-1 Trigger system in their laboratory avoiding thousands of scientists working for 20 years, spending over $100 million with the Level-1 Trigger such as the one developed by Wesley Smith to discover experimentally that it did not work as expected and had to be trashed.

Instead DOE continues to spend millions of dollars in developing several Level-1 Trigger systems much more expensive and less performant. DOE Director of Detector R&D, Dr. Helmut Marsiske stated on November 16, 2016, that they are close to designing and implementing a Level-1 Trigger with zero dead-time and was not aware that Crosetto’s invention solved this problem in 1992 and was formally, officially recognized in a major scientific review paid for by DOE, whose scientific merits were praised and published in a DOE publication.

After 25 years of Wesley Smith wasting over $50 million of taxpayer money and driving into the ditch thousands of scientists, he still receives $3 to $4 million per year to waste and that gives him the power to crush other innovations (Smith received from DOE $4.1 million in 2012, $3.18 million in 2015, $2.8 million in 2014, $3.35 million in 2013, $4.1 million in 2012, etc. as he states at page 16 of his resume) More than one year after having proof that Crawford is not following his job description and five months after his email incriminating himself with statements in violation of DOE rules and contradicting his own statements, he still holds the same position and continues to waste taxpayer money and be the internal arm of a circle of friends of corrupted scientists.

All this is not fair to taxpayers and cancer patients.

P.     Here are the facts for the Citigroup threat.

Similarly to the case of Galileo, Crosetto received threats from Citigroup for informing them about his breakthrough invention capable of replacing hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost, while providing staggering performance improvements and for asking the criteria they use to select projects to be founded.

Instead of providing the criteria Citigroup uses to select the project they contribute to eliminate the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, which provides the biggest bang for their buck; instead of asking their hardship department to provide reasonable answers about how to mitigate fee and interest charges to compelling situations, Ms. Jodi Lang on July 6, 2016, on behalf of Citigroup CEO, Dr. Michael Corbat, Citigroup President, Dr. James Forese and Citigroup Board of Directors threatened Crosetto over the phone to involve the Citigroup Security Team if he sends information about the scientific procedure that identifies the projects that provide the highest return in benefits to humanity for their contribution and information about how his lifesaving invention compares to other projects.

Crosetto immediately asked Citigroup to withdraw the threat. On July 7, 2016 he wrote an email to Ms. Jamie Torres, senior executive assistant for the Citi Chief Information Security Officer, who was involved by Ms. Lang, asking what will be the consequences he will encounter if he did not follow Ms. Lang’s orders. Crosetto requested again to remove the threat publicly on July 20, 2016 in the blog at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1815.  No answer was provided so far.

On July 27, 2016, Ms. Lang wrote to Crosetto a letter stating that she had reported a negative note about him to all three consumer credit report agencies (Experian, TransUnion and Equifax) although she had no rights to do so, apparently just to hurt Crosetto in some way. Crosetto immediately reacted and this was followed by another letter from Ms. Lang dated August 31, 2016 where she recognized she did not have any right to write such negative report, which is reflected on her new action requesting the consumer reporting agencies to remove her negative note about Crosetto. She then stated that the cancellation of her negative note will be reflected in Crosetto’s consumer report after 30 days.

However, in the same letter Ms. Lang reaffirmed her threat in case Crosetto continues to send information about the scientific procedure used to identify the projects providing the biggest bang for their buck or information about how his lifesaving invention compares to other projects.

For the past three months Crosetto has been asking Citigroup to let him know the consequences he will encounter if he does not comply with Ms. Lang’s orders and he has not received an answer.

As Galileo had shown to be more reasonable than the Church in evaluating his risk and recanting science once he knew that the Church would chop off his head, Crosetto would like to know the consequences he will face if he does not follow Ms. Lang’s order, to evaluate his risk in defending science, cancer patients and the interest of taxpayers.

This situation occurred when Crosetto on 6/6/2016 called Citigroup hardship department describing his hardship situation in working out of charity, without an income for many years, for days, evenings, and weekends on his research project for early cancer detection that could have already saved many lives.

Moved by compassion for cancer patients, who die needlessly while his invention could have already saved many lives, and by respect for taxpayers, who have their money wasted in more expensive and less efficient technology, Crosetto spent the one million dollar grant provided to him by the Government , including the portion of the grant that was supposed to be his personal salary, his savings and even used his personal credit line with Citigroup to pay for $31,000 expenses related to advancing in the research and prove his invention feasible.  However, he was facing a hard time and because the retired teacher who was making the minimum payment on the credit card could not do it anymore, therefore, Crosetto asked help to Citigroup Hardship Department to resolve this situation.

Citigroup agent listened for about one hour Crosetto’s story and moved by compassion judged that was a valuable case and suggested Crosetto to write directly to Citigroup CEO, Dr. Michael Corbat, providing his address and fax number.

On June 16, 2016, Crosetto wrote a letter to Citigroup CEO, Dr. Michael Corbat, sending a copy also to Citigroup President, Dr. James Forese, who holds a degree in electrical engineering and computer science, i.e. the main field of Crosetto’s invention. In his letter Crosetto explained the hardship situation he is going through, his lifesaving invention and full dedication to working for years with no income, requesting a contribution of $31,000 to pay off the expenses incurred for advancing research and a grant of $40,000 per year for the number of years that it would take to explain his breakthrough results to funding agencies such as NIH, NCI, and DOE to continue to support the project they already funded in the past with $1 million.

The request seemed legitimate and pertinent because it was also suggested by several people during Crosetto’s seminars to submit his invention to decision makers who make a public commitment to contribute to make a better world and who have significant budgets, far greater than the one a retired high school teacher could ever afford, and who still had paid the minimum payments for the previous months. In this specific case the Citi Treasury and Trade Solutions (TTS) intermediates more than $3 trillion in global transactions daily. TTS has over $13 trillion assets under custody, about $377 billion in average liability balances, serves 99% of world’s Fortune 100 companies and ~85% of the world’s Fortune 500 companies as reported at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup.

On June 29, 2016, Crosetto received the answer from Citigroup Executive office refusing everything, ignoring any hardship condition, any compelling case of a contribution that is a small percentage of Citigroup budget but that could help to save many lives. This was surprising also because Citigroup was rescued in November 2008 in a massive stimulus package by the U.S. government with an immediate injection of $20 billion of taxpayer money. As of June 2012, Citigroup had built up an enormous cash reserve in the wake of the financial crisis with $420 billion in surplus liquid cash and government securities.

In Crosetto’s understanding of the rejection for the $31,000 request, this means that Citigroup has rules that did not allow them to wave to personal accounts more than one or two late fees and could only provide a zero interest for 12 to 15 months. Therefore, he wrote a letter on July 2, 2016 explaining that anyone, individually or Citigroup as a corporation could make a tax-exempt donation to the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths, a 501 (c)(3), tax-exempt, non-profit organization. Crosetto was entitled to receive a reimbursement of his expenses related to the cancer project paid with Citigroup credit card and legally pay the credit card balance to Citigroup.

Apparently Ms. Jodi Lang referred to Crosetto’s letter dated June 16, 2016, to Citigroup CEO, Dr. Michael Corbat, and to Citigroup President, Dr. James Forese, requesting a contribution for $31,000 to pay off the expenses incurred for advancing research as an intention for not paying the $31,000, which erroneously prompt Ms. Lang to write a negative note about Crosetto to the three consumer credit report agencies (Experian, TransUnion and Equifax).  Crosetto’s cause was recognized valuable by the Citigroup agent on the phone on 6/6/2016 who provided the name, address and fax number of Citigroup CEO, suggesting to submit a request to his attention. After Ms. Lang’s negative note, no one at Citigroup could provide the reference to a rule/regulation at Citibank that if a customer writes to Citigroup’s CEO about a cause that scientifically proves to greatly contributes eliminating the most deadly and costly calamity and is requesting $31,000 to pay off expenses incurred for his research a Citigroup employee interprets this as an intention not to pay and is justified to write a negative note to the consumer credit report agencies. Ms. Lang’s action was recognized a mistake and she requested to remove the negative note to the consumer report credit agencies, however, the threat is still pending and should also be swiftly removed.

Among the members of the Citigroup Board of Directors to whom Crosetto wrote the letter there was also Dr. Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, who kindly answered Crosetto sending him the link to submit a formal request for funding to the Rockefeller Foundation website. Within a few hours, at 3:37 am on 7/27/2016, Crosetto submitted the formal request for $2,150 to the Rockefeller Foundation website. This would allow to pay three month interests and fees to Citigroup, giving him the time to advance in the cancer research without having to spend hours to answer Citigroup phone call and to write them letters on this issue. Within less than three hours from when the Rockefeller Foundation opened the office, Crosetto received the rejection of his request for funding for $2,150 with the statement: “…your inquiry has been reviewed by Foundation staff. Unfortunately, at this time, we were not able to consider providing funding.” No reason was provided.

From that point on, instead of supporting with a contribution Crosetto’s lifesaving project, Citigroup keeps sending rejections over rejections, and even denying to wave fees which are waved in some circumstances, denying providing zero interest that Citigroup provides in other cases for 12 to 15 months, making 83 phone calls to Crosetto’s cell and home phone in 17 days.

On top of all this Citigroup continues threatening him (last time in the letter received on September 3, 2016) if he sends information about the scientific procedure that identifies the projects that provide the biggest bang for their buck and information about how his lifesaving invention compares to other projects.

Q.    Why it is important to know the consequences of the THREATS and how to circumvent them

If these threats become a tool for intimidation from many organizations, it will be detrimental for taxpayers and cancer patients because it will silence innovations that would benefit humanity.

In the world of reason/science there is a difference between a private individual who does not publicly claim to promote the well-being of humanity and uses his own money to support what he wants, asking to be left in peace from addressing other problems (his privacy should be respected) and a private or public organization that claims publicly: “We welcome ideas from a broad range of sources …we seek to promote the well-being of humanity around the world by addressing the root causes of serious problems”.

In this latter case, it is legitimate to ask questions pertinent to their public declaration and any contradictions/inconsistencies which might surface if the resolution of these contradictions/inconsistencies fall into promoting a world of reason.

With public organizations that receive the mandate from the public to spend their money on a specific goal, it might fall into violations of rules and laws if it is discovered that the money is being spent on pursuing other agendas. To protect the interest of taxpayers, these cases should be addressed by agencies such as FOIA and the DOE Inspector General and more broadly from other investigative agencies such as 60 Minutes, ProPublica, etc. which work in the public interest.

Unfortunately, the “world of reason” is not always prevailing as in the case of Galileo and many others where the “world of power” prevailed and is prevailing. It is the responsibility of everyone to build a “world of reason” through the dialogue and cooperation rather than wars and condemn the THREATS that want to silence the dialogue and cooperation.

A reasonable reaction to the threats is to ask about the consequences one would face if the orders of the party who is making the threat are not met. Next, the party who receives the threat, as in Crosetto’s case, should evaluate whether he can take the risk in defense of cancer patients and taxpayers. If he cannot take that risk (as Galileo could not), the next step would be to ask the party who is making the threat what the consequences would be to a third party who would repeat the requests for which Crosetto has been silenced with the force (For example an email with this message and request: “A message containing information about the scientific procedure that identifies the projects that provides the biggest bang for donors/philanthropists’ buck, information about how Crosetto’s lifesaving invention compares to other projects and requests for the criteria donors/philanthropists use to select a project to support). Would they receive one warning not to send a second email on that subject and then be punished? Which consequences or punishment would they receive?

This explains why it is important for Crosetto to receive an answer regarding the consequences he would receive from DOE Security and from Ms. Lang at Citigroup if he does not satisfy their orders.

R.     Who is hurt the most?

Galileo was confident that sooner or later the Church would stumble on scientific evidence. Crosetto is confident that Glen Crawford, DOE Division Director of Research and Technology, and Wesley Smith, etc. will not be able to prove that his invention replacing hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost and more performant is not feasible and that hundreds of scientists who endorsed Crosetto and the engineers and reputable companies who wrote the 59 quotes are not foolish or incompetent.  Before Crawford, Smith…, make further damage to society they (or their supervisors) should reflect and realize they do not have the capability to do their job and resign before creating additional damage and being remembered in the history books for denying scientific evidence, wasting taxpayer money and obstructing progress.

Galileo’s treatment was unfair, unjust, and he suffered great personal anguish during his eight years of house arrest; however, the damage to society of delaying, blocking, crushing, Galileo’s discoveries for many years are immensely greater than the damage to a single person.

Crosetto could write a book describing the unfair, unjust, vexations he went through during the past 25 years that created a personal anguish; however, the real damage, which is immensely greater, is to taxpayers, cancer patients and millions of people who could have received benefits from Crosetto’s inventions if, after his recognition in December 14, 1993, decision makers would have had the power to continue with public, open scientific procedures that give a chance to all ideas/projects/inventions to be recognized superior to others like an athlete at the Olympics.

Crosetto’s mission is to accelerate the benefits of his inventions to humanity. He cannot do it alone as Galileo could not fight the Church alone. Scientists with professional integrity should take responsibility and stand up in defense of science, requesting a public scientific review where Glen Crawford and all anonymous reviewers who claim non-feasibility, support their claims and will consider the responses Crosetto and the professionals who wrote the 59 quotes will tell them. Scientists should request a public scientific review similar to the FERMILAB review in 1993 of Crosetto’s breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries which would replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost while providing a staggering performance improvement.

However, the first step is to remove the threats that are trying to silence Crosetto and crush innovations for the benefit of humanity. The media and journalists working in the public interest and everyone through word of mouth and social media can help themselves, their children, grandchildren in spreading this information.

Spreading this information can also help donors who really want to be the change they want to see in the world with their contribution of $10, or philanthropists with millions of dollars to support open, public, scientific procedures that identify the projects that provide the biggest bang for their buck and spread the information about how Crosetto’s lifesaving inventions compare to other projects.

    X.        Crosetto’s Response to the President of IEEE, the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity

Dear John,

I agree with you that the peer-review system is volatile and there are “anomalies in their decision process” because “These are staffed by volunteers with significant turnover each year. Hence, we should conclude that any anomaly in their decision process should be both topically and temporally localized”. However, historical data shows that this is not topically and temporality localized because these “anomalies” have caused crushing my inventions and their benefits for the past two decades with repetitive rejections which are not due to lack of “quantitative details” in my abstracts and summaries, but because of a more serious problem on the review decision process of articles that opens the door to corruption. Because of this problem that has not been addressed during the past 20 years, hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of lives that could be saved with my inventions were lost and continue to be lost.

We discussed and you agreed over the phone on my question that “Articles reporting two different values of the same entity should not be published”, we also agreed that it is impossible to say everything about a project in a 300 words abstract and two-page summary submitted to the IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences.

Forgive me if I delayed my response so I could gather more information to give you more complete and accurate information that you will find summarized in the two pages (link to the two pages prepared during these past three weeks) about the peer-review procedure that needs reform.

I did not want to start a back-and-forth discussion about the words to be used (“would” rather than “should” or others) in my abstracts that would please reviewers so my abstracts would be approved. I went through this process already in 2000, 2004, 2007 and in 2008 modifying the text of my articles/abstracts, but reviewers continued to find excuses to reject my abstracts and papers. Even just an abstract with 300 words with all possible combinations with the synonyms would total to millions of possibilities and I do not have all those years in front of me.

You read on the phone to me at page 245 of my proposal (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) the rejection comments of my 2015 papers (e.g. “…No design parameters, hardware description, performance estimates, or technical supporting material…”). In my 2016 paper submissions I provided all of that, even the mechanical drawings –to scale– of all components with their functionality and estimated performance supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries; however, my papers were rejected again like for the past 19 years.

 

S.      Statements made by Crosetto on 9/19/2016 in an email to Dr. Verboncoeur which support his abstracts/summaries with quantitative details Technical Merit, Originality & Innovation and Significance

I respectfully would like to point out that my three abstracts/summaries submitted to the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC provide quantitative data, Technical Merit, Originality & Innovation and Significance within the text of the abstracts and figures in the summary that are worth thousands of words, as well as in the email I sent you on 9/19/2016 at 2:30 am:

12.  Quantitative data & technical merit provided in the text of my email dated 9/19/2016.

In my abstract/summary I am describing a 3D-Flow OPRA programmable system for Level-1 Trigger for 8,192 x 16-bit channels with the capability to extracts ALL valuable information from radiation using Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) from 80 million events/second (radiation) @ 1.3TB/second transfer rate from over a billion collisions/second, using 43,008 x 3D-FLOW processors @ $1 each in a single VXI crate with zero dead-time costing approximately $100,000.”

13.  Innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text of my email dated 9/19/2016.

This 3D-Flow OPRA system in one crate has the capability to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with 4,000 data processing boards, 40 computers running 200 tasks of the Smith’s CMS Level-1 Trigger.”

14.  Figures available in the  Abstracts/Summaries of papers 2484, 2493 and 2505 are worth thousands of words.

For example, the quantitative data stated in the four lines above are detailed in half page figure at page 2 of abstract/summary 2493 showing an overview of the main components of the Level-1 Trigger of large experiments. Page 3 of 2493 show the mechanical dimensions represented in scale of the electronic board, cables, crates, etc. for the Level-1 Trigger. Each component, electronic board, cable, their functionality, performance, speed, connector insertion loss, etc., their cost provided in written formal quotes from at least two different companies for each component, the overall performance of the system handling 1.3TB/sec data with the capability to execute programmable Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms with zero dead-time is described in detail in 271-page 3D-Flow OPRA proven to be feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries.”

Following I am addressing point-by-point reviewers’ opinions for rejecting my three abstracts and I am requesting action in line with what we discussed and with the IEEE mission stated at the IEEE website: “IEEE is the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity

 

T.       Review of paper 2493 by Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers submitted to the 2016 IEEE-NSS Conference:

“I do not understand how 3D flow differs to various standard network topologies currently used in HEP (this is after reading a poster or two on his website).

Technical Merit     poor ,   Originality & Innovation     poor, Significance     poor”

 

Crosetto’s appeal respectfully requesting you approve paper 2493 which provides information in defense of the interests of taxpayers and humanity

 

15.  Response to Eckhard Elsen, Susanne Kuehn and their reviewers’ opinion/question/concern:

“I do not understand how 3D flow differs to various standard network topologies currently used in HEP (this is after reading a poster or two on his website).”

 

The 3D-Flow OPRA Level-1 Trigger system (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) “differs from various standard network topologies” such as the CMS Level-1 Trigger reported on the first page of the article presented at the Real-Time conference on June 6, 2016, consisting of 4,000 electronic data processing boards confined in a room 2,200 cm x 1,600 cm with approximately 136 racks, each rack with 3 x 9U crates, each crate with 10 data processing boards.  In stark contrast, the digital Level-1 Trigger system with the 3D-Flow OPRA is confined in a 36 cm cube of electronics in a single crate with 8 x 3D-Flow OPRA data processing boards and one 3D-Flow OPRA pyramid board for channels and data reduction (See last page of the summary of paper 2493).

Because the Level-1 Trigger system needs to provide high performance in executing complex Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms on data arriving at an ultra-high rate as a typical object pattern recognition algorithm needs to exchange data with neighboring processors (or circuits) and cannot move the data of an event (frame or picture) out of the processor (or circuit) until the algorithm is complete, a topology minimizing the distance between electronic components is required to minimize the time to exchange the data, which in turn minimizes the volume of the electronics, the power dissipation, etc.

The CMS topology in 4,000 boards housed in a room with 136 racks of electronics covering a floor of 2,200 cm x 1,600 cm as reported in Figure 18.1 on page 579 of CERN/LHC 2000-38, requires some signals to travel 4,000 cm that will take longer than 133 nanoseconds (limited by the speed of light 300,000 km/sec), while signals travelling the longest distance in the 36 cm cube 3D-Flow OPRA system will require approximately 1.2 nanoseconds (100 times faster in moving data). No matter how fast the circuit is executing the algorithm, choosing the wrong topology will limit and provide a less performant system.

Even future 16 nanometer FPGA technology cannot compete in performance with a system having better topology. For example, a 16 nanometer technology might perform 2 to 4 times faster than less expensive technology, however, the CMS topology with electronics in a 700 million cubic cm, limits the data rate and complexity of the algorithms that can be executed to 100 times lower than the 3D-Flow OPRA in 46,656 cubic cm. The use of the FPGA rather than the 3D-Flow ASIC further limits the overall performance and the component cost is another big disadvantage assuming it accommodates 64 x 3D-Flow processors in a 16 nanometer FPGA at $4,000 per FPGA component, the cost would be 60 times the 3D-Flow ASIC costing $67 with 64 processors and the power dissipation would also increase considerably.

The 3D-Flow OPRA offers by far the best and most balanced topology when one considers cost-effectiveness, power consumption, speed, nanometer technology, component costs, the coupling between detector and electronics, the system architecture, the processor architecture, etc. providing the highest performance in its capability to sustain an ultra-high speed input data rate and the execution of complex real-time algorithms at the lowest possible cost.

Wesley Smith’s CMS Level-1 Trigger made of 4,000 data processing boards or the new SWATCH Level-1 Trigger system made of 100 data processing boards are limited in the performance, input data rate and complexity of the algorithms they can execute that is hundreds of time lower compared to the 3D-Flow OPRA due to all factors listed above. However, the first wrong step was made when it was chosen as the topology.

In 1994, I choose the topology of the Level-1 Trigger that was a cylinder of electronics 100 cm in diameter x 180 cm tall shown on page 106 of my proposal, reflecting the topology of the trigger towers in the detector.

My last 3D-Flow OPRA design is in the VME and VXI form factor as shown in detail on the second page of the Summary (and it can be easily ported to the ATCA form factor which has a higher cost with no advantages in performance).

I chose VME and VXI form factor for the lower cost and standardization with the other electronics used in the same experiment; however, the topology that will allow to achieve the highest performance for a Level-1 Trigger continues to be my original 1994 design of the cylinder which now it would be approximately 0.4m in diameter and 1m tall and would achieve a higher performance in the input data rate and execution of complex pattern recognition algorithms.

16.  Quantitative data & technical merits of the project/research provided in the text of the 2493 abstract.

Excerpt from the abstract:

“The 3D-Flow OPRA Level-1 Trigger system (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) is capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation, …. Unlike the traditional Level-1 Trigger algorithm implementation in “cabled-logic”, or the CERN-CMS approach of executing 128 algorithms, or the costly lower performant FPGA approach, the 3D-Flow architecture allows the execution of billions of different algorithms like a generic processor but has the advantage over any Pentium, Hypercube, etc., processor/architecture in that it can execute specialized instructions (or “OPRA steps” for an optimized Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithm) to identify particles with the capability to execute at each “step” up to 26 operations in less than 3 ns.

It was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and two modular industrialized boards in 2003, suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size. It can replace many crates of electronics of the current experiments at CERN with a single crate, at a staggering increase in performance, and at a fraction of the cost.”

This abstract contains extremely valuable quantitative data & technical merit of the project/research:

  1. The 3D-Flow processor has the capability to execute billons algorithms vs. 128 algorithms of CMS experiment.
  2. The 3D-Flow processor has the capability to execute at each “step” up to 26 operations in less than 3 ns.
  3. The 3D-Flow OPRA system has the capability to extract ALL valuable information from radiation…
  4. The 3D-Flow processor hasg the capability to execute specialized instructions (or “OPRA steps” for an optimized Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithm) to identify particles.
  5. My 3D-Flow invention was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and two modular industrialized boards in 2003, suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size.

 

The most valuable quantitative data & technical merit are:

  1. The 59 quotes from reputable industries prove it is technically sound and feasible to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one 3D-Flow OPRA crate at 1/1000 the cost while providing staggering performance improvements.

 

In light of the results that the Level-1 Trigger of large experiments did not work, the 4,000 CMS data processing boards had to be trashed because very few Higgs-like boson particles were found after analyzing trillion of events recorded casually and not for merit of the Trigger, it is clear that most of the papers on Level-1 Trigger during the past two decades should have been rejected and rated “poor” in quantitative data & technical merit, while papers on the 3D-Flow that was recognized valuable by top experts in the field since 1993 as having the capability to execute programmable complex object pattern recognition algorithms at the Level-1 Trigger with zero dead time should have been approved.

The 09/19/2016 rejection statements by Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers at the 2016 IEEE-NSS conference imply that all scientists who endorsed my inventions, the FERMILAB international review panel and engineers of the industries who wrote the 59 quotes showing feasibility, are all foolish and incompetent.

Although it may not be their intention, by rejecting my papers and making their statements the circumstance they have created must draw to this conclusion.

Eckhard and Susanne should therefore reflect and allow the scientific truth to emerge, by referring to their professional ethics and scientific integrity that requires them to point out the papers that they believe provide quantitative data and have technical merits that they approved for the conference to be superior to the 3D-Flow system. To make the scientific truth emerge, they should give a chance to all authors, including myself, to present their project/research and organize a public workshop to discuss the details and let each author support their claims and question each other.

Furthermore, after my answer and technical explanation regarding how “the 3D-Flow OPRA differs from various standard network topologies” decision makers should reflect and realize that the current peer-review system is flawed and that for twenty years reviewers of my papers have shown they are unqualified to do their job. Ethical scientists should demonstrate their competence and qualification to do the job with pertinent and scientific answers supported by technology, calculations, scientific evidence and not by silencing the questions from the applicant and/or rejecting his papers. The devastating consequence of incompetent reviewers is that decision makers at higher level in the hierarchy, funding agencies, etc. repeat and pass on these non-scientific opinions from the reviewers including the question on the topology which denotes the level of incompetence of the reviewer to do his job that is crushing innovations and detrimental to humanity.

Would Intel, Apple or Samsung place in charge for the vision and planning the future direction of their company a person who claim to be expert in the field who does not know the difference between a relay and an integrated circuit?

Would the U.S. President place in charge a secret service agent who should protect his life and be alert from anything moving in the back yard of the White House to a person who does not know the different it might pose the presence of a small lizard, or a small squirrel compared to an intruder, hundreds of times bigger like a man armed with several weapons breaking the fence of the perimeter of the White House?

If reviewers of IEEE papers who are supposed to be knowledgeable and expert in the field cannot see the difference in advantages between a topology hundreds of times bigger than the other, how many other advantages that requires a deeper understanding such as a different architecture, flexibility, scalability, technology-independent, advantages in using one type of connector and cable rather than another etc., is this reviewer going to miss and deprive humanity from advancement in science and the subsequent benefits they could receive?

The only way to fix this is to allow science to proceed freely through a reform of the peer-review procedure allowing the presentation of my inventions and those by others at conferences and at funding agencies, comparing their advantages publicly, requesting other authors and reviewers’ responsible to make the best use of taxpayer and donation money to express their concerns, ask their questions, such as in this case, let authors respond and support their claims.

17.  Innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text of the 2493 abstract

Excerpt from the abstract:

“The 3D-Flow OPRA Level-1 Trigger system (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) is capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation, which can save taxpayers millions of dollars in HEP experiments.

…The 3D-Flow performance is further increased by its bypass switch and North East West South communication channels with neighbors. The basic 3D-Flow invention was first acclaimed in 1992 in many letters from scientists. In 1993 it was recognized valuable by academia, industry, and research centers in a formal scientific review.

It can replace many crates of electronics of the current experiments at CERN with a single crate, at a staggering increase in performance, and at a fraction of the cost. I have faced many adversities and obstacles these past years that have delayed implementation of my invention, and the resulting monetary burden to taxpayers as well as curbing the advancement of science call for … a PUBLIC scientific review of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention with funding agencies – similar to the one I had in 1993 review of the 3D-Flow which recognized it valuable but where there were not enough funds available for its completion.”

 

This abstract contains extremely valuable innovations and significance of the project/research:

  1. The 3D-Flow performance is further increased by its bypass switch and North East West South communication channels with neighbors.
  2. The basic 3D-Flow invention was first acclaimed in 1992 in many letters from scientists.
  3. The 3D-Flow invention was recognized valuable by academia, industry, and research centers in a formal scientific review held at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993.
  4. The 3D-Flow invention has the capability of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation, which can save taxpayers millions of dollars in HEP experiments ….
  5. It can replace many crates of electronics of the current experiments at CERN with a single crate, at a staggering increase in performance, and at a fraction of the cost.

 

The innovations provide a staggering significance in advantages as:

  1. The 59 quotes from reputable industries prove it is technically sound and feasible to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one 3D-Flow OPRA crate at 1/1000 the cost while providing staggering performance improvements.

 

It is inconceivable that 24 years after my basic 3D-Flow processor architecture invention, system architecture, bypass switch, etc. which enabled a dead-time free Level-1 Trigger in 1994 to be built in a cylinder 1m x 1.8m and its evolution to today’s 3D-Flow OPRA system with higher performance housed in a 36 cm cube for 8,192 electronic channels at 80 million events/sec per each 16-bit channel,  reviewers still claim they cannot understand my invention and for 20 years have approved articles and funding of a 700 million cubic cm CMS Level-1Trigger without zero dead-time,  having much lower performance and a much greater cost.

Because the reviewers of articles are the same as the reviewers for funding projects, this would explain the statement of DOE Director of the Detector R&D, Helmut Marsiske, who funds HEP projects, when he stated on November 16, 2015, during our phone conversation that they were close to designing and implementing a Level-1 Trigger with zero dead-time and did not know that I solved this problem in 1992.

It is inconceivable that reviewers of this abstract are not aware of the many endorsements of my inventions, several in writing and in letters by many scientists who are experts in the field, and by the panel of experts of the major scientific review held at FERMILAB on December 14, 1993.

It is inconceivable that reviewers of this abstract/summary still cannot understand the value of my invention and the advantages compared to the other abstracts/summaries they are approving.

The advantages of my 3D-Flow invention have been understood to be valuable by many scientists, accepted for publication in several scientific journals, including being published after a peer-review in a 45-page article in the journal Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research in 1999. It has been published in several books; it has been understood by middle and high school students as shown in the YouTube video (see at minute 7:58) when a group of student were solving the problem of analyzing for 30 seconds every envelope arriving at a rate of one every 6 seconds, which explains how to build a Level-1 trigger system dead-time free with the capability to process each event for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data.

How can reviewers of this abstract/summary and IEEE-NSS reviewers of the past 16 years continue to reject my papers with a “poor” score in innovation and significance and approve hundreds of other papers that cannot claim advantages from innovations as mine and build a 700 million cubic cm Level-1 Trigger?

The statement in my abstract: “It can replace many crates of electronics of the current experiments at CERN with a single crate, at a staggering increase in performance, and at a fraction of the cost” is very clearly addressing the significance of my work. If reviewers disagree with this statement, it is their ethical duty to refute my claim with calculations, references to technology, scientific evidence and references to other articles/projects/approaches with greater significance (e.g. reducing Smith’s 700 million cubic cm Level-1 Trigger to a system smaller than my 36 cm 3D-Flow OPRA) proving their competence and not covering up corruption by silencing my invention.

18.  Supporting material to the quantitative data, technical merits, innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text and the figures worth a thousand words in the 2493 summary

I respectfully request that Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn carefully study the three figures of the summary that are worth more than a thousand words. For better understanding, Figures 1 and 3 should be viewed electronically in order to zoom-in and see the details which are drawn to scale relative to the dimensions reported for the crates.

I respectfully request that Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn provide a Summary or article in any scientific journal which provides an equivalent amount of information as the two-page 2493 summary from the top down design of the entire system to the detail of each component with reference to the 271-page document explaining in detail each component supported by 59 quotes from several reputable industries with at least two quotes from different industries for each component.

The first figure in the first page of the 2493 summary provides an overview of the entire Level-1 Trigger for four large HEP experiments. On the right of the figure are represented the four experiments at CERN: CMS, Atlas, Alice and LHCb and the “Trigger Tower” which provides the raw data information from the detectors at each of the 8,192 electronic channel.

This data that in current detectors are less than 16-bit (typical 11-bit) per channel every 25 nanosecond (however, the 3D-Flow OPRA provide additional performance for future detector upgrade accepting up to 32-bit every 25 nanoseconds per channel), are sent with different cables, connectors and protocols to the backplane of the dual backplane PRAI crate (Patch Panel Regrouping Associates Ideas).

Signals from different subdetectors are aligned to the same event with the same time-stamp, formatted in 11- to 32-bit words, and sent simultaneously to the 8,192 electronic channels of the 3D-Flow OPRA VXI through the connectors located on the front panel of the 8-blade ATCA boards plugged into the front-plane of the dual backplane PRAI crate. The 3D-Flow OPRA VXI crate on the right of Figure 1 contains the entire Level-1 digital Trigger system consisting of 8 x 1,024 channel data processing boards and one 3D-Flow Pyramid board for data reduction and channel reduction.

Figure 3 on the second page of the summary details the system providing the mechanical dimensions to scale of each component, whose functionality is described in detail in the 271 page document available at the hyperlink provided in the abstract and in the summary and whose cost and feasibility is supported by 59 quotes from several reputable industries.

On the bottom left of Figure 3 is shown the ATCA-PRAI crate with the information arriving from the detector on different connectors to a board plugged into the backplane of the dual backplane ATCA.

Each of the eight ATCA blades plugged into the front of the dual backplane house 8 x 400-pin connectors which each carry 128 signals at 640Mbps (DDR at 320MHz) speed per signal, transported to the 3D-Flow OPRA boards through 128 Micro Twinax cables. The Micro Twinax data sheet is reported on page 184, the 400-pin connector data sheet on page 187 and pin assignments using many pins for ground to improve signal integrity and eliminate crosstalk is reported on page 185 of the proposal. To assure feasibility and reliability, I have used components that can offer performance much higher than what is used in this application – in some case ten times the requirement which will be useful for future speed upgrades.

The design of the two boards and 128 Micro Twinax assemblies carrying the signals from the ATCA crate to the 3D-Flow OPRA crate is detailed on Figures 66-67 on pages 195-198 of the proposal. Each receives 3D-Flow OPRA boards for 1,024 channels and is described in Figures 35 and 36 on pages 155-156 of the proposal.

The text on page 1 and 2 of the summary lists the main features of this project, and the last page explains how valuable information is extracted from radiation. One very important provision of the project is the verifiable capability mentioned on the first page of the summary described in detail from pages 149 to 170 of the proposal. It is the TER/DSU unit costing approximately $50,000 that can generate the functionality of the LHC apparatus allowing any Level-1 Trigger system to be tested on a test bench even far from the $50 billion LHC collider-detector at CERN in Geneva.

Figure 2 at the bottom of page 1 summarizes the significance of this project which would replace hundreds of crates of electronics for the level-1 Trigger of current experiments with one crate.

19.  Crosetto’s comments to Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject the 2493 paper

Dear Eckhard and Susanne,

I believe that scientists should not fight over scientific issues, but cooperate in understanding the laws of nature that will provide well-being to humanity.

A scientist has an ethical duty to explain the reason(s) for rejecting the claims made by applicants by providing calculations and logical reasoning, not just rejecting it for no scientific reason.

On behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients who are deprived of the benefits of my inventions, and referring to our ethics and duty as scientists to pursue the scientific truth, I am asking Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn and the reviewers appointed by them to reflect about their actions which demonstrate that they and the reviewers appointed by them are not competent to do the job required in their position as Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the IEEE-NSS conference and resign, leaving this responsibility to other people more competent in the field.

In the event Elsen and Kuehn disagree with the analysis of the facts showing that they did not provide sound scientific reasons to reject my papers, I respectfully request them to provide references to other abstracts/summaries that they and their reviewers accepted in the field of Level-1 Trigger that they believe have provided an abstract and summary with more quantitative details, higher technical merit, innovation and significance and we could continue the discussion referring to some concrete cases.

I am providing some background information that should make you realize why the rejection of all my IEEE-NSS papers for the past 16 years does not comply with the ethics of scientists/reviewers and is not in agreement with the IEEE mission as stated on their website. This should open an investigation into the unfairness of the current peer-review system that is highly damaging to taxpayers and cancer patients.

Here are some facts:

  1. a) In 1993, I received many letters of endorsement and appreciation of my 3D-Flow invention from scientists and experts in the field and passed a major scientific review with experts from academia, industry and research centers. In 1995, I received $906,000 in grants from DOE to develop the 3D-Flow software tools and the RTL files to be sent to the silicon foundry to produce the 3D-Flow ASIC with four processors in a chip. The money to complete the project was never provided. Wesley Smith, responsible for the trigger at SDC experiment at the Superconducting Super Collider, contrary to all other scientists and experts in the field, wrote me an email stating that programmability at the Level-1 Trigger was not necessary. After the closure of the SSC, Smith became responsible for the Trigger at CMS experiment at CERN. Beginning in 1999, I receive strong opposition to present my work at the IEEE conferences and articles to the IEEE Transaction on Nuclear Science. In 1998, my 3D-Flow system was listed by Eric Eisenhandler on page 53 of the CERN/LHCC/98-36 (Fourth Workshop on Electronics for LHC Experiments) in his presentation among all possible solutions to the Level-1 Trigger for LHC experiments and my article was reported on pp. 517-522. The following year, Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp were co-Chairmen of the same conference in Snowmass, Colorado, and they prevented me from attending the conference as they knew my solution was superior to theirs and they did not want to “lose”, just like an athlete with higher skill is prevented to the Olympics from others because they know will lose the competition. I can provide a long list of rejections, boycotts, and difficulties encountered which are not scientific and not fair to taxpayer, cancer patients and humanity who have been deceived, have sustained a high economic burden of wasted money and deprived from the benefits of my inventions.
  2. b) Over the years I have tried having an analytical scientific discussion on the Level-1 Trigger with Patrick Le Du, a senior organizer of the IEEE-NSS conferences. Our relation has always been cordial; however, the typical course of events at the IEEE conferences is the following:  on day one I ask him for a meeting; he schedules our meeting during a coffee break but then never shows up; we set another meeting, and again he does not show up. He never answers emails on technical-scientific issues.

 

I hope that this information will make you realize that there are some individuals within the scientific community who are not only are unethical and unfair to taxpayers, to science and to their colleagues but discredit the entire category with their behavior (if these facts do not convince you that ethical conduct has been broken within the IEEE community, I can provide additional facts).

To restore the prestige of the scientific community, give those with innovations the opportunity to present their papers with their inventions, it is necessary to reform the peer-review system and organize public workshops where the skills of the participants are compared publicly and the best ideas are revealed, just like an athlete skill is revealed at the Olympics.

Your position as Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the IEEE-NSS conference gives you the possibility to restore the prestige of the scientific community referring to the ethics of a scientist serving science and the interest of taxpayers rather than the personal agenda of the greed for power of a few scientists. I am just serving the community and have done my part by answering as I did in this document your and your reviewers’ questions about the different topology of the 3D-Flow and the other trigger system. If you disagree with my answer, please provide your scientific consideration and I will give you my consideration.

In the event you realize that the best action would be to allow science to proceed freely through a fair, open, public scientific discussion but you are under pressure as I imagine Chairman Uwe Bratzler was in the 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference when he was unsuccessful at receiving the reasons for the rejection of all my abstracts/summaries, then you should consider resigning in order to send the right message to those who do not respect your position and authority as Chairmen who are responsible for making the scientific truth emerge.

U.     Review of paper 2484 by Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers submitted to the 2016 IEEE-NSS Conference:

“this is pure nonsense. duplicate with #2493

And from a second reviewer: The last several sentences does a lot of damage to the credibility of this abstract.

The architecture seems like a standard parallel algorithm, with pipes that feed multiple CPU’s – so I’m missing the innovation here.

Technical Merit     poor ,   Originality & Innovation     poor, Significance     poor”

 

Crosetto’s appeal respectfully requesting to approve paper 2484 which provides information in defense of the interests of taxpayers and humanity

 

20.  Responses to Eckhard Elsen, Susanne Kuehn and their reviewers’ opinions/questions/concerns:

“this is pure nonsense. duplicate with #2493”

This project makes a lot of sense and its feasibility is proven in fine details of the architecture, the electronics, mechanics, algorithms, software, speed of components, power dissipation, etc.

It is surprising the reviewers do not understand the merits of the 3D-Flow OPRA which now can execute programmable pattern recognition algorithms in one VME crate containing 4,096 electronic 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) at 80 million frames per second (650GB/sec) at approximately $80,000 production cost per crate, or in one VXI crate with 8,192 electronic 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) at 80 million frames per second (1.3TB/sec) at approximately $100,000 production cost per crate, with the potential to build 3D-Flow OPRA systems in one VXI crate capable of sustaining an input data rate of 20TB/sec.

This breakthrough invention has evolved from the 3D-Flow invention recognized valuable and endorsed by hundreds of scientists, by a panel of experts from academia, industry and research centers in a major review held at FERMILAB in 1993, accepted for publication in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals, understood by middle and high school students and their teachers with whom I wrote a book and now, this new 3D-Flow OPRA topology, architecture, system with staggering performance in breaking the speed barrier in real-time application at the lowest possible cost is proven feasible from 59 quotes from reputable industries.

It is surprising the reviewers do not understand the advantages of the 3D-Flow OPRA that can replace hundreds of crates housing 4,000 electronic data processing boards, 40 computers, running 200 processes of the Wesley Smith’s CMS Level-1 Trigger with one crate housing 8 x 3D-Flow OPRA data processing boards and one pyramid board for data and channel reduction at 1/1000 the cost with a staggering performance improvement.

Either the reviewers do not understand or they have a different agenda like Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp who prevented me from attending the Workshop on Electronics for LHC at Snowmass in 1999 and many others who rejected all my papers submitted to IEEE-NSS and to TNS during the past 16 years and who refuse a scientific forum proposed in 2001 by the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference, Uwe Bratzler. Why was it that after DOE granted me $906,000 from 1995 to 1998 to develop the 3D-Flow software tools and the tape out to send to the Silicon Foundry to build the 3D-Flow ASIC, suddenly all funding stopped and all papers within the scientific community of the most influential people who shape the future of High Energy Physics and Medical Imaging were rejected? All funding stopped too, even from funding agencies who were not participants at these conferences; is it because they and cancer organizations, philanthropists and laymen receive information from the media about the best technological breakthroughs from reviewers in a specific field of particle detection and medical imaging who are always the same and are led by influential people who have their own interest on how to spend taxpayer and donation money and provide evaluations like this reviewer: “this is pure nonsense.”

Historical data shows that 1998 was the turning point when in the same year my scientific work and inventions were crushed by influential people in the field and plans were made to spend millions of dollars on projects that were much less efficient and more expensive and ultimately failed.

This failure could have been proved analytically before construction it had underwent an open, fair, public scientific review as my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS projects were proven analytically to work.

My projects proved analytically the capability to sustain high input data rate, execute programmable complex object pattern recognition algorithms with zero dead-time, to find new subatomic particles and to find all possible signals from the tumor markers enabling an effective early cancer detection, but it was not funded.

Instead the CMS and other Level-1 Trigger proved analytically that could not sustain LHC input data rate with zero dead-time, could not execute programmable complex object pattern recognition algorithms, costing 1000 times my 3D-Flow level-1 Trigger and it was funded.

Then in 1999, I was prevented by Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp from attending the Workshop on Electronics for LHC Experiments in Snowmass, Colorado, and following rejections by many reviewers of my papers, articles and funding. At this turning point, Wesley Smith and his friends laid out the CMS Trigger Schedule from 1998 to 2005, reported in Figure 20.1 on page 589, in the  2000 CMS Level-1 Trigger Technical Design Report CERN/LHCC 2000-038. On page 579, Figure 18.1 of the same document, was also reported the layout of hundreds of racks, each containing either 5 VME crates or 3 VXI crates. The $50 million DOE and NSF funding had to go in the direction of Smith and his colleagues which meant ignoring any fair transparent scientific procedure; this explains the actions on all fronts to crush publications and funding of my project that had been recognized superior.

This impediment to advancing science and the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity only increased during the course of these past 16 years. On September 2, 1999, I was able to give a presentation to DOE at their office. However, influential scientists were able to use their power to stop the funding and the completion of my 3D-Flow project, block any review similar to the one held on my invention at FERMILAB in 1993. Now, after several attempts by the Director of the Office of High Energy Physics, at the Department of Energy, Dr. Jim Siegrist, to organize a presentation of my work at their office since June 2015, this is no longer a possibility as it was in 1999.

It is surprising that the reviewers do not understand the advantages in Medical Imaging that the 3D-CBS device can bring, allowing an effective early cancer detection with the potential to reduce over 50% of cancer deaths.

Responses to Eckhard Elsen, Susanne Kuehn and their reviewers’ opinions/questions/concerns:

The last several sentences does a lot of damage to the credibility of this abstract.”

Because my abstracts/summaries that justify a high score have been rejected for the past 16 years without providing scientific reasons and because reviewers have approved other abstracts that would justify a lower score in technical merit, innovation and significance, it is legitimate and appropriate in order to accelerate the transfer of my inventions to benefit humanity to add to my abstract:

I have faced many adversities and obstacles these past years that have delayed implementation of my invention, and the resulting monetary burden to taxpayers as well as curbing the advancement of science call for … a PUBLIC scientific review of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention with funding agencies – similar to the one I had in 1993 of the 3D-Flow which recognized it valuable but where there were not enough funds available for its completion

 

Response to Eckhard Elsen, Susanne Kuehn and their reviewers’ opinions/questions/concerns:

 

The architecture seems like a standard parallel algorithm, with pipes that feed multiple CPU’s – so I’m missing the innovation here.

No, it is not. I explained the difference orally beginning with my 90-minute presentation to hundreds of scientists at the major public scientific review of my 3D-Flow invention requested by the Director of the SSC held at the FERMILAB auditorium on December 14, 1993, which lasted an entire day.

I explained the difference between my 3D-Flow pipeline architecture and the classical pipeline at several conferences and in several published articles; however, I faced strong resistance to the paper presented (see Figure 4 explaining the different parallel and pipeline systems) at the 1999 IEEE-NSS conference that was never published in Transaction of Nuclear Science (TNS). Despite IEEE senior scientist (Aaron Brill) intervening in defense of a fair review involving renowned scientist (Les Roger) to make scientific merit prevail, and despite having the majority of the reviewers approve my paper for publication in TNS, the paper was never published because two anonymous reviewers claimed (without providing scientific reasons) that the 3D-Flow was flawed (although it was analytically explained and simulated in 1999 that it was not flawed and in 2001 proven feasible and functional in hardware).

It was presented again the following year at the 2000 IEEE-MIC conference and the difference with respect to the classical pipeline architecture is explained on pages 12-87, 12-88.

In 2000, after explaining the different parallel processing and pipeline architectures in several lessons to the middle school students of St. Alcuin Montessori school in Dallas and learning the differences hands-on with practical exercises and analogies, together with the students and the teachers I wrote a book which was available on Amazon.com for several years and which has been brought to the public again in 2016, explaining the different parallel processing and pipeline architectures from page 36 to page 66 on the blog http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1541#more-1541.

My 3D-Flow invention is not “The architecture … like a standard parallel algorithm, with pipes that feed multiple CPU’s”, is not an algorithm whose execution is split into several CPUs, instead the entire algorithm is executed in a single CPU. It is not a task split into several subtasks pipelined like the assembly line of a car, television, refrigerator, manufacturing company, but the entire task (algorithm) is executed in a single pipeline station (CPU).

It breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications providing the capability to execute programmable uninterruptable algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets (events or frames) with zero dead-time at the lowest possible cost per each valid event captured. Zero dead-time means that ALL frames are analyzed.

This is different from the alternative Level-1 Trigger systems developed during the past 25 years for large HEP experiments which missed events when the trigger fired and failed to trigger on valid events. Had these alternative Level-1 Trigger systems worked, the cost would have been exorbitant for each valid event captured.

Had the expensive trigger apparatus for CMS and Atlas undergone an open/transparent analytical study/review before construction in 1998, and been compared to my 3D-Flow Level-1 Trigger System, then millions of taxpayer dollars and the work of thousands of scientists would not have been wasted when it was trashed because they would have known in advance that it was not dead-time free and could not execute complex object pattern recognition algorithms.  When the 3D-Flow Level-1 Trigger System underwent such a review in 1993, it was formally and officially recognized as not only capable of achieving zero-dead time and executing programmable complex object pattern recognition algorithms but at a fraction of the cost while sustaining a very high input data rate.

Instead of building the 4,000 CMS data processing board using hundreds of crates in a 700 million cubic cm volume room that did not work, they could have built the 3D-Flow system at one thousandth (1/1000) the cost.

In 1994, the 3D-Flow system would satisfy the requirements of the Level-1 Trigger for different experiments at LHC such as CMS, Atlas LHCb, etc. in a cylinder 1m x 1.8m as shown on page 106 of the proposal.

In 1999, the 3D-Flow system for the Level-1 (or Level-0) Trigger of LHC experiment could be built in 6 x 9U crates as described on page 376 in the 45-page peer-review article published in Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 436 (1999) pp. 341-385.

In 2003, I built two modular IBM PC boards, each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors in FPGA (that needed NRE funding to be converted into an ASIC) shown on page 143 of the proposal that is providing a topology in 3-D assembly through the backplane found on page 157 of the proposal and suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size.

Recently, my added inventions were proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to build 4,096 electronic 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) on a VME crate with a 16 cm cube of electronics at 80 million frames per second (0.65TB/sec) executing up to 30 OPRAS at approximately $80,000 production cost per crate; or in one VXI crate with a 36 cm cube of electronics and 8,192 electronic 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) at 80 million frames per second (1.3TB/sec), executing up to 20 OPRAS at approximately $100,000 production cost per crate; and the potential to build 3D-Flow OPRA systems in one VXI crate capable of sustaining an input data rate of 20TB/sec. and VXI boards on pages 154-156 of the proposal to build a 3D-Flow OPRA system in a 3-D topology in a crate with a 16 cm cube data processing board. (OPRAS: Object Patter Recognition Step executing up to 26 operations such as add, subtract, compare with 24 values, etc. in a single cycle of 3 nanosecond).

The bottom line is that Eckhard Elsen, Susanne Kuehn and their reviewers still do not understand the differences and advantages of the 3D-Flow architecture and topology of the higher performing 3D-Flow Level-1 Trigger system using ONE 36 cm cubic crate, and the CMS Level-One Trigger system using HUNDREDS of crates contained in a 700 million cubic cm volume and costing 1000 times the 3D-Flow OPRA. And Helmut Marsiske, DOE Director of Detector R&D, who assigns taxpayer money to research projects with Glen Crawford have been giving $3 to $4 million every year to Wesley Smith to build the flawed CMS Trigger system at a cost of over $100 million. On November 16, 2015, Marsiske stated in a phone conversation that I had with him that they had almost succeeded to design a Level-1 Trigger system with zero dead-time, obviously unaware that I had already accomplished this 24 years ago and was published this success in the 1994 DOE/LM-0002, DE94005148.

To avoid wasting any further taxpayer money, it will be necessary to allow inventors including myself to present their inventions at several conferences and public workshops soliciting comparison of my work with others, to reform the peer-review system and to organize a public scientific review of my invention similar to the one organized at Fermilab in 1993 for my basic 3D-Flow invention but conducted at CERN that has now became the center of activity in this field.

In summary, the differences between the 3D-Flow OPRA architecture and the “standard architecture for parallel algorithm, with pipes that feed multiple CPU’s”  is that the 3D-Flow OPRA architecture can a) sustain an ultra-high input data rate with zero dead-time, b) execute programmable complex object pattern recognition algorithms, c) be built in a volume of 65,000 cubic cm instead of 700 million cubic cm of alternative Level-1 Trigger systems that are limited in performance because of the distance between components (see more detailed explanations in the first answer to the difference in topologies), and d) be built at a fraction of the cost of other trigger systems.

21.  Quantitative data & technical merits of the project/research provided in the text of the 2484 Abstract

Excerpt from the Abstract:

The 3D-Flow OPRA (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) is a new electronic instrument and device targeted to solving application problems of fast, multi-dimension Object Pattern Recognition (OPRA) in real time on data arriving in parallel from a matrix of thousands of transducers at ultra-high speed that are sent to an equivalent matrix of thousands of 3D-Flow processors. The 3D-Flow architecture provides data exchange (3×3, 5×5, …) between neighboring processors, while its bypass switch allows the execution of uninterruptable algorithms for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data sets. 3D-Flow processors can execute several different programmable “OPRA steps” (OPRAS) each consisting of up to 26 operations in less than 3 ns. It compares the desired object (shape and detailed characteristics) with billions of objects per second while sustaining an input data rate of several million frames per second with zero dead-time. 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 (e.g. from CCD, APD, PMT, SiPM, PADs, etc.). It provides advanced triggering capabilities.

It was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and two modular industrialized boards in 2003.

This abstract contains extremely valuable quantitative data and shows high technical merit of the project/research:

  1. a) The 3D-Flow OPRA system has the capability to execute Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) in real time on data arriving in parallel from a matrix of thousands of transducers at ultra-high speed that are sent to an equivalent matrix of thousands of 3D-Flow processors.
  2. b) 3D-Flow processors can execute several different programmable “OPRA steps” (OPRAS) each consisting of up to 26 operations in less than 3 ns.
  3. c) It compares the desired object (shape and detailed characteristics) with billions of objects per second while sustaining an input data rate of several million frames per second with zero dead-time.
  4. d) 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 (e.g. from CCD, APD, PMT, SiPM, PADs, etc.). It provides advanced triggering capabilities.
  5. e) It was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and two modular industrialized boards in 2003.

 

The most valuable quantitative data & technical merit are:

  1. f) The 59 quotes from reputable industries prove it is technically sound and feasible to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one 3D-Flow OPRA crate at 1/1000 the cost while providing staggering performance improvements.

 

This abstract informs the scientific community of the quantitative advantages and technical merit of the 3D-Flow OPRA with unprecedented performance that not only can replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at a staggering increase in performance at the Large Hadron Collider, the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet, at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland but can also provide advantages in other applications in other fields.

It can also execute programmable object pattern recognition algorithms on data arriving in parallel from a matrix of thousands of transducers at ultra-high speed from different types of sensors (e.g. CCD, APD, PMT, SiPM, PADs, etc.) generating electrical signals in response to a physical stimuli.

The optimized balance between:

  1. a) the topology of the 3D-Flow OPRA system whose feasibility is proven by 59 quotes from reputable industries and by the details at the link provided in the abstract, both prove it is feasible to build instrumentation confined in 36 cm cube electronics for 4,096 electronic 16-bit channels at 80 million frames per second (0.65TB/sec) executing up to 30 OPRAS (Object Patter Recognition Algorithm Step at 3 nanoseconds execution time per step) at approximately $80,000 production cost per crate, or in a 36 cm cube of electronics for 8,192 electronic 16-bit channels (or pixels in a frame) at 80 million frames per second (1.3TB/sec), executing up to 20 OPRAS at approximately $100,000 production cost per crate,
  2. b) the power consumption,
  3. c) the speed,
  4. d) the chosen nanometer technology,
  5. e) the cost of each component

provides a very powerful cost-effective instrument that improves several fields such as medical imaging, biological research in studying biological processes, fighting terrorism, quality control in manufacturing, etc.

22.  Innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text of the 2484 Abstract

Excerpt from the Abstract:

The 3D-Flow OPRA (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) is a new electronic instrument and device targeted to solving application problems of fast, multi-dimension Object Pattern Recognition (OPRA) in real time on data arriving in parallel from a matrix of thousands of transducers at ultra-high speed that are sent to an equivalent matrix of thousands of 3D-Flow processors. The 3D-Flow architecture provides data exchange (3×3, 5×5, …) between neighboring processors, while its bypass switch allows the execution of uninterruptable algorithms for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data sets.

…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 (e.g. from CCD, APD, PMT, SiPM, PADs, etc.).

…It provides advanced triggering capabilities.

The basic 3D-Flow invention was first acclaimed in 1992 in many letters from scientists. In 1993 it was recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers in a formal scientific review.

 

This abstract contains extremely valuable innovations and shows the high significance of the project/research:

  1. a) The 3D-Flow OPRA is a new electronic instrument and device targeted to solving application problems of fast, multi-dimension Object Pattern Recognition (OPRA) in real time
  2. b) The 3D-Flow performance is increased by its bypass switch allows the execution of uninterruptable algorithms for a time longer than the interval between two consecutive input data sets.
  3. c) 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 (e.g. from CCD, APD, PMT, SiPM, PADs, etc.)
  4. d) It provides advanced triggering capabilities
  5. e) The basic 3D-Flow invention was first acclaimed in 1992 in many letters from scientists. In 1993 it was recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers in a formal scientific review

 

The innovations provide significant advantages as:

  1. f) The 59 quotes from reputable industries prove it is technically sound and feasible to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one 3D-Flow OPRA crate at 1/1000 the cost while providing staggering performance improvements.

 

This abstract informs the scientific community of the 3D-Flow OPRA breakthrough invention that not only can replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at a staggering increase in performance and a fraction of the cost the electronics at the Large Hadron Collider, the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet, at CERN, Geneva but also has advantages in other applications and can revolutionize other fields by opening doors to applications unthinkable before the 3D-Flow OPRA invention.

A similar statement was already made by the review panel during the major public scientific review of my basic 3D-Flow invention held at Fermilab in 1993 when they stated: “…given this feature experimenters would probably think of clever uses not now possible.” However, in this case the new features provided by the 3D-Flow OPRA invention will open the door for researchers to think of clever uses not now possible in many fields.

An in-depth analysis of the 271-page document at the link provided in the abstract proves it is feasible to build a 3D-Flow OPRA system of about 10,000 electronic channels in one VXI crate, 36 cm cube volume of electronics capable of sustaining an input data rate of 20TB/sec. The mechanical structure, cable, connectors, assembly selected already support this feature. This overall system performance is achievable with the proposed 3D-Flow OPRA topology and system. It is now a matter of money to pay for a more expensive NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) to port the 3D-Flow processor ASIC to the more advanced nanometer technology; however, all other components can support 20TB/sec on 10,000 electronic channels per VXI crate.

The 3D-Flow OPRA invention is high significance because it can provide advantages in technology to advance science and benefit humanity in several fields such as: medical imaging, biological research in studying biological processes, fighting terrorism, quality control in manufacturing, etc., breaking the speed barrier in real-time applications in the most cost-effective manner.

23.  Supporting material to the quantitative data, technical merit, innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text and figures worth a thousand words in the 2484 summary

The figure on the first page of the 2484 summary is worth a thousand words. It has been understood by laymen and would not take long for a busy professional to understand. My 3D-Flow OPRA invention should be of enough interest to any professional with scientific integrity to investigate it in more depth, and if they cannot find a reason to substantially invalidate my main claims, it would be their professional responsibility toward taxpayers and humanity who trust their ethics and scientific integrity to support advancements in science and to work in their interest, to make a statement such as those made in the written report by the review panel of the major official formal scientific review held at Fermilab in 1993.

Likewise, it would be their responsibility if they make a statement that does not reflect the scientific truth but is crushing inventions with unsupported claims without calculations or scientific reasons, preventing advancements in science and preventing taxpayers and humanity from receiving the benefits from the invention.

The Fermilab report included in its entirety from page 64 to 71 of the proposal states at page 2 of the report: “The committee finds this project an interesting and a unique concept… We believe the concept will work …We see no technical reason why the proposed ASIC processor could not be built in …We do not believe that there are any major flaws in the proposed system. …We see little risk in this approach to the processor chip design itself” in fact my 3D-Flow “unique concept” was proven feasible and functional in hardware and on page 3 of the same report: “…we see no technical reason why the proposed ASIC will be a problem to develop. …The committee was impressed with the work already completed by essentially one person operation …We see nothing fundamentally wrong…” On System Design on page 6 of the report is stated: “The committee believes there are no major flaws in the conceptual design”.

The figure on the first page of the 2484 summary shows a photo of several light bulbs each representing a different idea or algorithm. One light bulb can be lit at a time, which symbolizes the real-time algorithm that has the task to filter the object with desired characteristics from data arriving at 20TB/sec shown on the left of the figure and the target of the object found shown on the right of the figure.

Below this figure there are three examples of possible applications of the 3D-Flow OPRA.

The bottom-left of the figure shows the application for discovering new subatomic particles. The light bulb represents the algorithm that would capture the data matching the characteristics of the Higgs-like boson. Input data is arriving at 1.3TB/sec from the CMS (or Atlas) experiment at CERN. The instrument with the capability to filter this data and find the Higgs-like boson could have been implemented in 1994 with the 3D-Flow Level-1 Trigger system in 1m x 1.8m reported on page 106 of the proposal, or it could be implemented now at a lower cost and higher performance in the new 2016, 3D-Flow OPRA in one VXI crate with 36 cm cube of electronics described in detail in the 2493 abstract/summary.

The bottom-center of the figure shows the application for medical imaging which can detect anomalies in biological processes at an early curable stage and save many lives from cancer and other diseases.   The light bulb represents the algorithm that should accurately capture all signals from the tumor markers (or tracers tagging anomalies in other diseases) that will provide the most accurate information to physicians on the minimum abnormality in the biological process under investigation at a very early curable stage, a very low radiation dose and a low examination cost. Input data is arriving at approximately 368GB/sec from the 3D-CBS detector. The instrument with the capability of filtering this data and finding the signals (generated by a pair of 511 keV photons hitting the detector almost simultaneously) related to biological processes, such as an anomaly in metabolism typical for cancer cells, can be implemented in one VME crate with a 16 cm cube of electronics described in detail in the 2493 abstract/summary.

At the bottom/right of the figure is shown the application for fighting terrorism.   The light bulb represents the algorithm that should capture the data matching the characteristics of the face of an outlaw. Data in input are arriving at approximately 327GB/sec from the 3D-CBS detector. The instrument with the capability to filter those data and find either a face among a large crowd in a stadium, theater, mall, etc. acquired in real-time from several cameras, matching an identikit or a few faces acquired from a camera matching a database of millions of faces of people at different events which might help to trace in seconds the movements of an outlaw, can be implemented in one VME crate with 16 cm cube of electronics described in more details in 2505 abstract/summary.

The text at the bottom of the first page of the 2484 summary summarizes other possible applications of the 3D-Flow OPRA, while the second page provides more details on the invention, the performance of the 3D-Flow processor, the relation/similarity to other instruments such as the oscilloscope and the Logic State Analyzer, both designed to visualize the voltage variation in time of four signals or many signals. The 3D-Flow OPRA could be considered the third generation of electronic instruments with the capability of executing the desired programmable complex Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) comparing the sought after object to billions of objects per second arriving at an ultra-high input data rate.

It lists some of the features that the 3D-Flow OPRA can provide after it has triggered on the desired object and it provides two example of practical implementation of the 3D-Flow OPRA system for 8,192 electronic channels and for 2,304 electronic channels.

24.  Crosetto’s comments to Eckhard Elsen and Susanne Kuehn responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject paper 2484

Dear Eckhard and Susanne,

Please see the comments that I wrote you at the end of the response to your and your reviewers’ rejection of abstract/summary 2493. In addition, I would like to ask why you did not respond directly to my several emails starting from July 22, 2016, and why you or someone working with you moved my 2484 paper submission from IEEE-RTSD to IEEE-NSS. I have asked for the name of this person so I can explain why my 2484 paper is for more general applications suitable for the IEEE-RTSD Workshop, unlike my 2493 paper specific for the Level-1 Trigger for High Energy Physics.

I continue to underscore that we should cooperate and be ethical in respecting each other’s role and leave room for everyone to work and contribute to advancement in science. In some cases we should come to an agreement with people working in the same field not just for professional ethics and respect for the people with whom we are sharing the same field/role but also for those who need to choose which conference he/she wants to submit his/her paper to and make it easy for everyone to understand how your NSS conference is different than another conference such as RTSD or MIC.

Analyzing the topics of the three conferences/workshop 2016 IEEE-NSSMICRTSD, out of 17 pages, three are for Topics for RTSD, two for MIC and twelve for NSS. Making a search of the key words for components/materials in the RTSD Workshop such as “semiconductor detectors” “arrays” for imaging, “solid state detectors” they are also listed in the twelve-page topics for NSS.

Likewise, I was expecting NSS Chairmen would leave some exclusive topics to RTSD for different applications instead they listed among NSS Topics “astrophysics” and the other applications in generic fields more suitable for RTSD such as “homeland security” and “environmental science” which are far from the mission of CERN and NSS focusing on particle detection. Which topics are left for RTSD if they are all listed on NSS as well?

I do not know if you reached an agreement on the topics with the Co-Chairs of the RTSD Workshop Ralph James and Michael Fiederle; however, a researcher needs to choose which conference to submit his work and it looks like your NSS conference is covering all topics of the other conferences, therefore, why aren’t you running the IEEE-NSS conference on your own and let MIC and RTSD run their conferences on their own on a different day and location? In this way, applicants like myself, who want to submit a paper more specific to a Workshop for applications outside the field of the Nuclear Science Symposium which has its core application for high Energy Physics experiments, can be reassured that his submission is not being moved from NSS conference to RTSD without being notified.

I think that it would be reasonable and ethical to expect that Chairmen of different Conferences/Workshops to agree that the larger conference will leave some topics exclusive for the smaller conferences and not list instead all topics of the smaller conference/workshop.

V.     Review of paper 2505 by Dimitris Visvikis and Suleman Surti responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers submitted to the 2016 IEEE-MIC Conference:

“scored all categories as poor, because: The text of this “so-called” abstract might be appropriate for a newspaper. But even for such a purpose there is insufficient information for the reader. For me it is totally unclear – even after having looked at the summary, which is of ultimately bad quality – what kind of system is the “ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS”. I think it is not expected that the reviewer starts a literature research to find the lacking information.  

Once again, the abstract and supporting data emphasize the difficulties in getting the project funded rather than submitting scientific material (as he’s been told in the past). VERY strong reject!”

 

Crosetto’s appeal respectfully requests paper 2505 be approved as it defends the interests of taxpayers and cancer patients.

 

25.  Response to Dimitris Visvikis and Suleman Surti and their reviewers’ opinions/questions/concerns:

Response to: “what kind of system is the “Ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS

it is the kind of system explained in abstract 2505 with the words: “The ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS …capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation …(on spatial and time resolution, energy and sensitivity) it reduces the radiation dose to the patient, reduces costs, and provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and biological processes.”

Suleman Surti, IEEE-MIC Deputy Chairman must know what is an ultra-sensitive PET because he wrote an article entitled: “An Ultra-Sensitive Total Body PET Scanner for Biomedical Research” and explained in slides 3 and 4 why it is necessary and what makes a PET “Ultra-Sensitive”, and in slide 5 stated that what they presented is “Not a New Idea! citing my previous article, thus admitting that he and his co-authors copied several of my ideas.

Response to: “it is not expected that the reviewer starts a literature research to find the lacking information”.

All relevant and necessary information to compare the advantages of the 3D-CBS to current PET and the Explorer is contained in the 300 word abstract and the two-page summary 2505 where there is more information than the 10 slides and articles of the Explorer authored by Surti and others. Surti and his co-authors of the Explorer did not cite my previous work in their articles (except as mentioned in the previous paragraph when in slide 5 when my name and article are cited to explain that their Explorer was not a new idea) and/or have obstructed the presentation, publication and funding of my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention which is more efficient and more than ten times less expensive than their Explorer.

The figure in the last page of the summary 2505 shows the entire 3D-CBS system; details of each component are described at the link provided on the first line of the abstract. This figure shows:

  • The 3D-CBS system consisting of two crates, one for converting from analog-to-digital the signals received from the detector, the other 3D-Flow OPRA crate for data processing.  The Explorer system is less efficient and more expensive and consists of the Analog-to-Digital electronics shown on the bottom of the block detector on the right of slide 7, plus twelve Detector Crates of slide 8, and four to six racks of computers cited on the UC-Davis website.
  • The 3D-CBS power consumption of the two crates of the figure at the last page of the summary is 3 to 4 kW. The power consumption of the Explorer is 40 to 60 kW. (40 kW listed on slide 9 to 60 kW listed on the UC-Davis website).
  • The 3D-Flow Data Processing Boards of the 3D-CBS system handle 256 channels per board (see figure in the summary 2505 and details on pages 154-156 of the link showing it can make available 512 channels and 1024 channels per VXI board). These 256-channel data processing boards also perform the functionality of the six racks of computers in the Explorer system which are therefore not needed. Nine Data Processing Boards handling 2,304 channels are housed in one crate. The Explorer Detector Boards can handle only 16-channels per board and do not have data processing capability. The 120 Detector Boards of the Explorer handling 1,920 channels are housed in 12 Detector Crates as shown on slide 8. All data are saved on hard drives and processed later by a farm of computer housed in 6 racks.
  • My breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention used in the 3D-CBS captures all valuable data from tumor markers at the lowest possible cost per valid data captured and has the capability of processing over 40,000 TB data in one day compared to the 40 TB of data in one day acquired and stored for later processing by the farm of six racks of computers by the Explorer (see the UC-Davis website). The 3D-CBS requires a storage capacity of less than 1GB to store results and no storage during acquisition because data is processed in real-time by the 3D-Flow system. The high processing capability of my 3D-Flow invention breaking the speed barrier in real-time applications allows all valuable information related to the characteristics of the crystals to be extracted, thus allowing the use of more economical crystals which reduces the cost of the 3D-CBS device.

 

 

Table 1 – Features of the abstract/summary 2505 are compared to the Explorer by Surti and his co-authors

Description EXPLORER 3D-CBS
     
Crystal Type Expensive LYSO 491,520 crystals Economical BGO <3,000

crystals

Number of electronic channels 1,920 2,304
Number of Channels per Board 16 256
Number of Detector Boards 120 9
Number of Crates housing the Detector Boards (the 3D-CBS crate is also housing the computer to process valid data and provide results in analytical and graphical form) 12 1
Capability to acquire and process data each day 40 TB >40,000 TB
Hard Drive’s size needed each day 40 TB 1 GB
Number of racks containing computers to process acquired data 4 to 6 0
Power Consumption 40 to 60 kW 3 to 4 kW
Sensitivity Less than the 3D-CBS Ultra-Sensitive
Cost of the Device 30 to 50 times current PET 2 to 3 times current PET
Examination Cost

(what matters to the patient)

Higher than current cost because the throughput cannot be 30 to 50 times current PET Lower than current cost because the throughput can be higher than 2 to 3 times current PET
Potential to save millions of lives

(what should matter to humanity: to solve the world’s most deadly calamity)

Cannot prove to save lives on a sample population because each day it cannot process 40,000 TB data from tumor markers Can prove on a sample population to save many lives because each day it can process cost-effectively over 40,000 TB data from tumor markers
Potential to reduce healthcare costs

(what should matter to politicians to solve the world’s most costly calamity)

Increases healthcare cost because of its exorbitant cost; losing many lives lowers productivity The lower examination cost saves many lives; those who live instead of dying return to be productive and are removed from

healthcare bill

Data for the Explorer reported in the above table are derived from publications, slide presentations and several press releases made by the authors of the Explorer and from calculations based on the data reported in the articles.

Data and feasibility of the 3D-CBS (3D-Complete Body Screening) is proven by the 3D-Flow innovative basic concept proven feasible and functional in hardware in two modular boards each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors and recently the 3D-Flow OPRA proven feasible and cost-effective by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

a.     How the peer-review system suppressed my innovations and enabled reviewers to copy them

The reason why the Explorer was funded with $15.5 million of taxpayer money even though an analytical study could prove before construction that it would not be able to save many lives and would increase healthcare costs is because the peer-review system for approving/rejecting articles and funding research projects is rigged and the Director of Extramural Research of the National Institute of Health, Michael Laurer, refuses to have a dialogue or even read my work as he believes  the peer-review system is fair.  If he would have a dialogue or read my work he would know that many of my ideas have been copied by the authors of the Explorer, yet my 3D-CBS continues to go unfunded after 19 years from the first request for a grant to NIH even though, unlike the Explorer, it would be able to save millions of lives and reduce healthcare costs.

My inventions have received extensive recognition and endorsements in many letters from top experts in the field; my articles have been published in prestigious peer-review scientific journals; I was often invited to give seminars at prestigious events and conferences, yet influential scientists and agents at funding agencies in the specific field within IEEE, government and private organizations who approve/reject articles, presentations at conference and funding have obstructed, rejected, crushed my inventions for more than two decades.

These influential scientists and agents at funding agencies refuse to follow scientific procedures, refuse transparency in a public dialogue, refuse an analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence and have rejected for twenty years my articles, presentations and requests for funding my 3D-CBS to improve PET sensitivity, intensify computation at the front-end of PET device and improve the electronics, claiming it was necessary instead to improve spatial resolution (to the detriment of sensitivity), intensify computation at the back end rather than at the front-end and improve crystals rather than electronics.

After receiving $906,000 in grants from DOE in 1995, and proving my basic 3D-Flow invention was feasible (generating the RTL files for the Silicon Foundry to manufacture the ASIC 3D-Flow processors and developing the software tools: simulator, assembler, test vectors, etc.) and would benefit many fields, including Medical Imaging, my requests for funding have been rejected for the past two decades.

Here are some examples of the recurring reasons given by reviewers for their rejections:

I have used all means available such as appeals, talking to and exchanging emails with leaders at NIH and NCI, meeting NIH and NIBIB Directors at a press conference on Medical Imaging, requesting the help of U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas State Senator Jane Nelson, Senator John Cornyn, U.S. Congressman Michael Burgess, U.S. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, and many others to request transparency in science by having a fair public scientific procedure similar to the review of my basic 3D-Flow invention held on December 14, 1993, at FERMILAB.

Despite all these efforts to have a public analytical discussion between the reviewer and the inventor based on calculations and scientific evidence and resolve any disagreements by setting up an experiment where the results would be the judge, funding agencies asked me to follow the reviewers’ advice, give up on my inventions, modify my research, approach, objectives toward improving spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity, intensify computation at the back end rather than at the front-end and improve crystals rather than electronics. 

In fact, the letter from Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at NIH to U.S. Senator John Cornyn who enquired on my behalf about the rejection of my proposals, made exactly these requests: “NIH staff have provided advice on being responsive to the peer reviewers’ comments (focusing on both the strengths and weakness), and they have provided specific instructions for submitting a revised application. They have consistently recommended that he [Crosetto] spend time analyzing the results and gathering as much feedback as possible from the summary statements, senior investigators, and peers at his organization and/or in his field”.

Furthermore, Dr. Bravo, instead of identifying an expert in particle physics and the specific technology that is key to improving PET efficiency, suggested I submit my proposal to another review panel (SSS-8), Bioengineering and Physiology Review Panel, who are further away in expertise in particle detection and in accurately capturing as many 511 keV valid pair of photons (tumor markers) as possible at the lowest cost per valid pair captured.

b.     It took fifteen years to recognize that the electronics in PET was a problem

Because it was my duty to inform the scientific community and those in power in the field about my invention that would benefit humanity, I wrote a technical-scientific book entitled:”400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” 200 copies of which I distributed free of charge to the leaders in the field at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference, and I asked Terry Jones (who is now one of the authors of the Explorer), a prominent leader in the field if he could review the book that I gave him (in 2000, Terry Jones was with Hammersmith Hospital in London and later moved to UC-Davis in California).  Jones appointed Steve DeRenzo as the technical expert in the field to review my book. I knew DeRenzo’s back in 1992 when I was working at the Superconducting Super Collider and I had difficulty addressing scientific arguments about one of my articles with him and his colleague, Bill Moses (who is now the leader of the Explorer project).  I received the same rejections from DeRenzo and from Moses. They published many articles on measurements of crystal detectors which I found useful and I recognize their expertise in this field; however, contrary to the very favorable reviews of my book on Amazon.com, they obstructed my inventions beneficial to medical imaging and other fields as you can read from DeRenzo who stated in his review of my book:

We do not view the electronics as a problem, either in terms of performance or cost”.

It took 15 years from when I wrote my book and 19 years from my first rejection for funding by NIH, for those in power in the field such as Bill Moses to reverse their position toward my direction of research that they have obstructed for decades.  Read Moses’ 2015 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, 160 million people have died from cancer (12 million were Americans) since I first claimed that to improve PET medical imaging efficiency it is necessary to improve the electronics and not the crystals. Many of these people could have been saved if the funding agencies would have requested a public review of my invention similar to the major scientific review of my basic 3D-Flow invention held at FERMILAB in 1993.

If funding agencies had requested an open, public analytical discussion of my 3D-CBS invention based on calculations and scientific evidence before assigning taxpayers and donation money, it would not have taken 19 years for influential people like Bill Moses, Terry Jones, DeRenzo and others to reverse their belief that there was no need to improve the electronics of PET, and the life-saving advantages and benefits would have been evident and taxpayer money would have been put to good use.

Steve DeRenzo had written a negative review of my technical-scientific in the year 2000, but his claim that in order to improve PET efficiency, crystal detectors should be improved and there was no need to improve the electronics, was proven wrong by many articles and projects built by third parties after DeRenzo’s review. Even Siemens, a leader in this industry, had to recant their statements after I had a day-long meeting with the President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine and Director of PET, followed by conference calls with Siemens Head of Research and Chief of electronics. At first, they stated that it was impossible to improve PET efficiency by improving the electronics, and that there was no need anyway, but five years after our meeting Siemens recanted all their statements when they published on their website that they had increased PET efficiency by 70% by improving the electronics.

 

c.     How many years will it take to recognize that the 3D-CBS can save millions of lives, is more efficient and over ten times less expensive than the Explorer that cannot save many lives?

We are now at the same junction as 19 years ago. Funding agencies are responsible to taxpayers and donors to use their money to fund research projects that gives them best return in saving lives and money. Here is a summary of the two projects they had to consider:

  1. a) The 3D-CBS first described in the year 2000 in my technical-scientific book, updated in several subsequent articles and documents, and hand-delivered to the Director of NIH on January 31, 2006, has now been proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to build the 3D-Flow OPRA data processing electronics with the capability to process over 40,000 TB per day in one crate of electronics, requiring less than 1 GB data storage per day, for a total power consumption of the entire 3D-CBS system of 4 kW. The 3D-CBS can prove on a sample population that it can save many lives because each day it can cost-effectively process over 40,000 TB data from tumor markers.
  2. b) The Explorer project that has copied several ideas from the 3D-CBS. Although the authors of the Explorer after 19 years now understood the importance of improving the electronics in PET, it can be proven in an analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence that 6 racks of computers with the capability of processing 40 TB data per day stored on hard drives, acquired by 12 crates of electronics for a total power consumption of 60 kW would provide a device that could not prove to save lives on a sample population because it cannot process 40,000 TB data every day from tumor markers. Furthermore, the Explorer is less efficient and more than ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS.

Clearly, the advice by Dr. Ruiz Bravo, NIH Director of Extramural Research, in her letter dated May 10, 2004, to U.S. Senator John Cornyn that I should follow the reviewers’ guidance and modify my research, approach, objectives toward improving spatial resolution (to the detriment of sensitivity), and improve crystals rather than electronics, essentially giving up on my invention turned out to be wrong because it has been recanted by influential leaders in the field who are now receiving $15.5 million from NIH to build the Explorer, which stated in its 2015 press releasethe electronics for this scanner is an order of magnitude more complicated than what’s been done before”.

Perhaps Dr. Ruiz Bravo believed in good faith in the fairness and professional integrity of her reviewers and in the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR); however, because the current peer-review system is subject to corruption and because it turned out that the advice from her reviewers was obviously wrong and more troubling facts prove that influential leaders copied several of my ideas, this issue should be addressed to avoid further needless loss of lives and wastage taxpayer money.

Now, I have informed my findings regarding misconduct in the peer-review system to NIH Director Francis Collins, NCI Director Doug Lowy, several agents at NIH, and NIH Director of Extramural Research Michael Laurer. Dr. Michael Laurer realized the seriousness of the allegations and suggested I report them to the Office of Scientific Integrity.

Out of the $15.5 million in taxpayer money for the Explorer, $3,054,873 was given to the Explorer team by NIH in 2015 and $3,314,184 in 2016. By the end of 2018 most of the $15.5 million will be delivered. An analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence can prove that major conceptual flaws with the Explorer project will waste taxpayer money because it cannot save many lives, increases healthcare costs, is less efficient and is over ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS.

In addition, the 3D-CBS ER/DSU unit costing $23,000 for duplicates listed on Table 6 at page 29 and described from page 149 to 170 of the proposal provides the list-mode feature of the Explorer but with higher capability to store raw data from the PET detector and at a much higher granularity for research study. Three reputable industries have provided quotes for NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) of the 3D-CBS ER/DSU. The NRE cost is $350,000 and provides the first 7 units.

I was told on July 20, 2016, by Dr. Gretchen Wood from the office of the NIH Director Francis Collins that Michael Laurer was in a meeting with NIH executives discussing who would be responsible at NIH to address analytically technical issues based on calculations and scientific evidence that my 3D-CBS is more efficient, over ten times less expensive than the Explorer and could save millions of lives with a cost-effective early cancer detection, while the Explorer funded by NIH for $15.5 million cannot and is increasing healthcare cost.  She said I would hear a response from Laurer later that day or the following day; however, to date I have not received an answer. If there is no capability at NIH to solve this issue analytically, they should fund both projects and let experimental results on a sample population be the judge.

 

d.     Several senior scientists who know the leaders in Medical Imaging and appreciate my invention have tried to bring my invention to their attention, even inviting them to a dialogue addressing scientific issues in an open forum, but they always refused.

Uwe Bratzer, the General Chairman of the 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference, agreed to organize a forum to discuss and critique my 3D-CBS invention, and asked me who he should invite as experts. I named Bill Moses, Steve DeRenzo, among others and Alberto del Guerra (http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363) who was invited to participate to workshops and reviews of the 3D-CBS innovation held at the University of Pavia and at the Hospital S. Matteo in Pavia, Italy. However, they all refused.

The influential people in Medical Imaging are well known in the scientific community and there have been several in addition to those who wrote letters of endorsement of my invention who have tried to help bring my inventions to the attention of these influential scientists. For example, Chris Parkman from CERN, who was Chairman of the Industrial Exhibition of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in 2000 in Lyon, France, gave me a booth at the Exhibition free of charge where I could demonstrate on the computer a simulation of the 3D-Flow system made of thousands of 3D-Flow processors.

The following year he did the same, giving me a free booth at the Industrial Exhibition of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego, California, where I could setup my two Altera prototype boards with my 3D-Flow system of 8 processors implemented in two FPGAs proving the concept of my invention working in hardware. Visitors who stopped by my booth could select a desired pattern of clusters on switches; the results were displayed on LED and the oscilloscope provided the waveform of the signals with the speed of the system.

Parkman kindly told several people, including the General Chairman of the conference, to stop by my booth and strategically placed it next to the coffee booth, so many people would have a chance to see it. I also invited Bill Moses and Steve DeRenzo to stop by my booth when they were at the coffee booth, but although they agreed to, they did not stop by. The last times I spoke to Bill Moses was at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seoul, South Korea, and in 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seattle. On both occasions I asked him what he thought of my 3D-CBS project that I presented in Seoul. He told me that he would read my 2013 article and get back with me. Next thing I saw was his press release sent by a friend of mine regarding his $15.5 million grant from NIH which contained several of my ideas.

The late Emeritus Professor in Physics Walter Selove told me one day that he had been very fortunate to arrange a meeting with Bill Moses in Berkeley to tell him about my 3D-CBS. However, Bill Moses showed no interest.

e.     Reviewers and leaders were aware of the advantages and benefits of my inventions

A few facts to help those who want to fix the rigged peer-review system. Not only were Surti (who is now one of the authors of the Explorer project) and his colleagues aware of my inventions prior to copying several of my ideas for the Explorer as they cited in 2013 in their slide 5, but this issue has been addressed for more than a decade when I wrote a book in the year 2000 and cited Surti’s work and the work of his colleague Joel Karp (who I believe was his supervisor at that time) at the same University of Pennsylvania.  The late Emeritus Professor in physics Walter Selove at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote a letter of endorsement to me for the 3D-CBS on April 14, 1999, told me that he visited Surti’s group and spoke with Joel Karp about my invention. I had a correspondence with Joel Karp (who is now one of the authors of the Explorer project) when he was the General Chairman of the 2002 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference and all my papers were rejected. I could not convince him of the importance for the scientific community and for humanity to let me present my inventions at the conference, he repeatedly in his email confirmed the rejection of all my papers. I sent him a paper copy of my book, and he acknowledged receiving and reading it and responded on August 19, 2002 with the following:

Thank you very much for sending me your book, which I received on Friday.  I did briefly look through it to get a better appreciation about your proposals for improved PET.  Certainly a very large axial FOV can increase sensitivity dramatically, and thereby decrease scan time and cost, while also increasing counting statistics. It’s not obvious to me, however, whether the trade-off is effective between instrument cost and scan cost – certainly the instrument cost goes up significantly, even for low cost scintillators such as BGO.  For LSO or GSO the cost seems prohibitive.  Also, it’s not immediately clear that the trade-off is effective between increase of trues and commensurate increase of scatter and randoms, especially for scintillators with poor energy resolution…”

 

However, 13 years later, Joel Karp proposed with his co-authors, including Surti, the Explorer project in articles, slide presentations, and a $15.5 million request for funding to NIH. The Explorer is using the expensive L(Y)SO that he said in his email is cost prohibitive. If fact, in the case of the Explorer, he is right as it costs 30 to 50 times the current PET and is less efficient than the 3D-CBS.

f.      After crushing my inventions for more than a decade which would have been a TRUE PARADIGM CHANGE in oncology research, the same people now claim a paradigm change after copying several of my ideas to build the Explorer which cannot make a paradigm change in saving lives, cannot reduce healthcare costs and advancing research because it is less sensitive and over ten times more expensive than my 3D-CBS.

After many of the authors of the Explorer who are listed in slide 1 rejected my papers, book, and created obstacles to my inventions for more than a decade, in 2015 they took many of my ideas, even my words and claims that they had rejected years before and used them in their documents, beginning with the title of the $15.5 million proposal claiming a paradigm change (the same I claimed more than a decade before), the abstract of their $15.5 million proposal uses several of my statements such as the increase in efficiency can provide benefits in lower radiation, or higher throughput, or better signals for early detection, or a balance of all these, and even my analogy comparing the lower radiation dose to the radiation received during a transatlantic flight on the cover page of my book ISBN 0-9702897-0-7, deposited in the year 2000 at the Library of Congress Catalog-in-Publication Data Card Number: 00-191510, that I gave them and other leaders in the field when I distributed 200 copies free of charge at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon (France) was reported in their abstract of the request for the $15.5 million to NIH.

Despite all the articles I wrote about the 3D-CBS, my personal conversation and email exchanges with leaders of the Explorer Project decades before they announced the Explorer project, despite other scientists informing them about my 3D-CBS and 3D-Flow invention, I cannot find a citation of my prior work in Explorer articles, yet they claim in the title of their $15.5 million proposal “Explorer: changing the molecular imaging PARADIGM with a total body PET.”

It is over a decade that I spelled out in great detail the PARADIGM CHANGE in molecular imaging that a true total body PET can bring. My 3D-CBS was recognized as the first true total body PET by G. Borasi, et al. article (also cited by Simon Cherry in slide 5 of his presentation), published in the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (2010) 37:1629–1632. This article states that Crosetto’s 3D-CBS technology is the first, true “total-body”. I supported calling it a paradigm change by detailing how it is cost-effective in accurately capturing all possible signals from the tumor markers, while the Explorer capturing only 40 TB of data per day and processing them using 4 to 6 racks of computers is not appropriate to call a paradigm change because it cannot make a significant impact on clinical studies or in reducing cancer deaths.

Here are a few of my articles and documents where I describe in detail how this paradigm change can be achieved with my 3D-CBS.

  1. In 2006, I published an article in World Scientific of a presentation I gave the year before at the ICATPP conference. The title of the article is “Rethinking Positron Emission Technology for Early Cancer Detection”. Excerpt from the article: “In order to use Positron Emission Technology effectively for early cancer detection, a paradigm shift is necessary. To illustrate this, I am going to compare objectives, specifications and implementations of current PET, “Type A,” and the new technology, “Type B.” Type B makes use of innovations [1], [2] and has been implemented in a device called 3D-CBS [3].” The table reporting PET of Type A and Type B details this Paradigm Change.

 

  1. In 2008 I submitted a paper to IEEE-MIC that was rejected despite an invitation by its General Chairman, Uwe Bratzler, to submit it and his promise that in the event of rejection I would receive a scientific reason. Instead, the only reason I received from the Chairman of the MIC Conference from lines 1421 to 1431 of the document at this link was:

1421 From: wolfgang.enghardt@oncoray.de [mailto:wolfgang.enghardt@oncoray.de]

1422 Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 8:59 AM

1423 To: crosetto@att.net

1424 Subject: MIC 2008 Abstract 3073

1425

1426 Dear Prof. Crosetto,

1427

1428 We regret to inform you that your submission (#3073) “Basic Corrections

1429 Needed for a Paradigm Change in the Direction of Cancer Research That Will

1430 Provide a Substantial Reduction of Premature Cancer Death” has been

1431 rejected.

If the General Chairman of the IEEE Conference, Uwe Bratzler could not enforce professional ethical conduct from his sub-conference chairmen, this shows how powerful the leaders in the field of Medical Imaging at IEEE are in rejecting a paper on a true PARADIGM CHANGE in Medical imaging and claiming the same nine years later, …even without the design of a device supporting the claim.

  1. In 2010, I presented a paper with 14 co-authors and approximately 1,000 cosigners at the Workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN in Geneva, claiming a PARADIGM CHANGE in oncology research. The title of the paper is: “Progress in the domain of physics applications in life science with an invention for substantial reduction of premature cancer deaths: The need for a PARADIGM CHANGE in oncology research. The abstract was translated into ten languages, including Chinese, Japanese and Russian. Also this article was missed by the authors of the Explorer?

 

  1. After meeting NIH Director, Elias Zerhouni at a press conference in Medical Imaging on January 31, 2006, on April 10, 2007, I wrote him a Ietter stating on page 19 that it was necessary “…to activate a true paradigm shift in approaching the war on cancer (by measuring the minimum abnormal metabolism targeted to early diagnosis of cancer that saves lives, rather than being limited to measure tumor dimension that does not save lives)”, which was my 3D-CBS approach.

 

After I received from Simon Cherry (who is one of the authors of the Explorer project)  a copy of the slides of his presentation with the list in his slide 5 titled “Not a New Idea!” with a reference to my 2003 paper, I asked him why he did not reference my book, and two articles all written prior to the year 2000 (I was able to present my 2003 paper thanks to Ralph James who was the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference because the years after 2000 all chairmen and reviewers rejected all my papers at IEEE-MIC, including Joel Karp who was the General Chairman in 2002).

His answer was because my 2003 paper was only 5 pages, and therefore easier to understand than the 20-page articles or the 225-page book.

I asked Simon Cherry to address the choices he made for the other references and what he believed was the innovative or key features in the articles he cited; however, Cherry never followed up. If we had had an in-depth discussion on the innovative contribution of each paper cited by Cherry, it would reveal that the breakthrough was provided by the 3D-CBS. (It is worth mentioning that the cited article by Borasi et al. is in fact an overview of several PET, including the 3D-CBS, and does not describe any other cost-effective true total body PET that can make a paradigm shift in Medical Imaging while is recognizing «The first proposal for a truly “total body” PET system (120-160 cm AFOV) came from an Italian physicist, Crosetto[6]». This paper was the follow up to a presentation I gave of my 3D-CBS in 2008 to Borasi and his colleagues at the S. Maria Nuova hospital in Reggio Emilia that Borasi et al. followed with a 42-page article reporting from page 26 to 68 our discussion that was published in May 2009 in the “Notiziario di Medicina Nucleare ed Imaging Molecolare”).

Cherry did not mention an earlier design of a PET with long field of view that I discussed during a coffee break at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference with Benjamin Tsui who was familiar with the design because he review it, however, Tsui said the author never explained how he would implement such a device with a long field of view. None of the other designs, even those with long field of views, could claim innovations in electronics, assembly of the detector, coupling of the detector with the electronics, algorithms, etc. as the 3D-CBS can claim.  Only the 3D-CBS can solve the problem of cost-effectively and accurately capturing all possible signals from tumor markers at the lowest possible cost per each valid signal captured, allowing a paradigm change in Medical Imaging capable of detecting the minimum anomalies in biological processes, enabling an effective early detection of cancer and many other diseases at a curable stage.

The above facts speak for themselves that there is a lack of fairness and professional ethical conduct in the scientific community which is essential when billions of dollars per year are at stake.

So how do funding agencies distribute taxpayer and donation money and make these scientists accountable to implement the mission of the agency? The short answer is: “The agencies do not make scientists/reviewers accountable”.

They continue to be the privileged professionals in society who apparently receive more trust from the public than judges, doctors or any other category of professionals. Looking at these facts and the damage non-accountability for scientists is causing society, the media should inform the public and a reform of the peer review system to make scientists accountable is urgently needed for the interest of everyone.

g.     Who decided to give $15.5 million to the Explorer project and how was it decided?

Here is a short description:

The preliminary NIH Research grants for the Explorer were:

  • NIH/NCI grant R01 CA170874
  • NIH/NIBIB grant R01 EB016104

The five-year NIH Transformative Research grant for the Explorer for $15.5 million is:

  • R01 CA206187

The page with the project information provides the funding details and the code of the panel who reviewed it.

The page with the Abstract of the Explorer Project is also provided.

The names and addresses of the Scientific Review Panel are reported at this link and consist of:

  • Chairpersons: Dr. Nancy Catherine Andrews, Dr. KReith Obert Yamamoto
  • Members: Dr. Cornelia Bargmann, Dr. Mark Morris Davis, Dr. Garret Fitzgerald, Dr. Jonathan Haines, Dr. Kathryn Horwitz, Dr. Richard Karp, Dr. Franklyn Prendergast, Dr. Debra Schwinn, Dr. Bonnie Spring, Dr. Michael Welsh
  • Scientific Review Administrator: Dr. John Bower

They met for a study session ZRG1 BCMB-A from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm on April 21, 2015, at the Hyatt Regency in Bethesda, MD.

Before the meeting, the Explorer project was assigned to at least three Mail Reviewers from a list of 230 names. The names on this list are public, but the three or more names chosen from the list to review the Explorer are not.

The three Mail Reviewers send their technical report to the Scientific Review Panel who met on April 21, 2015 in Bethesda, MD. The Scientific Review Panel analyze the technical report and decided funding the Explorer.

The authors of the Explorer receive information about a smaller number of reviewers (e.g. 10 to 40) among who are the three Mail Reviewers. As an example, because I submitted ten proposals that were all rejected, I am providing the link to one of my review panels with the short list of names.

Because the key field of expertise for improving efficiency in PET devices is knowledge in particle detection, where efficiency is defined as accurately capturing as many signals (511 keV photons) from the tumor markers at the lowest cost per valid signal captured, I checked if among the ten members of the scientific review panel and the two chairpersons who gave $15.5 million to the team of the Explorer project there was anyone expert in particle detection and could not find any.

No one can be expert in all disciplines, and in many cases the applicant and/or inventor is the most knowledgeable person regarding what their project/invention is capable of doing; therefore, it would be logical to first ask these applicants/authors/inventors to be the judge of themselves and then elaborate their statements question other applicants with similar projects. In the case of PET devices, authors/inventors should be asked to 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 10,000 people, ages 55-74, in a location where the mortality rate has been constant for the past 20 years. A difference or no difference in the mortality rate would quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution. If the member of the Scientific Review Panel were not aware of the existence of other projects such as the 3D-CBS they could have asked applicants of the Explorer to list all similar projects and how the Explorer compare to those, what advantages to taxpayer and cancer patient could they offer. By first asking applicants to be the judge of their own work, the Scientific Review Panel will reduce their risk for a mistake in not knowing about the existence of other projects that they should be aware of and it will simplify their job in checking if the applicant tells the truth by verifying their statements with the authors of the other projects. The role of the rabbit and the carrot should be reversed. The Scientific Review Panel should play the role of the rabbit in finding the best project that would maximize return to taxpayers in reducing cancer deaths and costs.

Next, I looked among the 230 names of the Mail Reviewers who prepare the technical reports for the Scientific Review Panel looking for any names I am familiar with, and I found the name of Benjamin Tsui who most likely could be one of the three reviewers because of his experience and past review of a PET with a long field of view.

The first time I read Tsui’s biography I was impressed by his over 50 page resume which contained a long list of all the review panels he has been part of for different agencies, both private and governmental. They are still stated on his short one page biography (and I could not find the long one anymore). Following is the last paragraph of his resume:

Professor Tsui is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE), a Fellow and Chartered Physicist of the Institute of Physics (IOP), and a member of seven other professional organizations and societies. He is the author and co-author of over 300 publications and book chapters and the principal investigator of 4 NIH research grants and several industrial research contracts. He is a frequently invited speaker at academic institutions world-wide and national and international conferences. He has served as a member of numerous scientific review committees of various federal agencies, including the NIH, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy and Department of Defense, state agencies and private foundations at the USA. Also, he has been a regular reviewer and a member of the editorial boards of many scientific journals.”

This confirms that the field although international is very small; we all know the experts, those who hold more weight in the review whether it is for a government agency, a cancer organization, a philanthropist or for the foundation of a bank. This also explains why I have not received a grant since 1996, and no matter where I apply, no matter if I request $13.4 million or $2,150, if there is no possibility to implement an open, public transparent scientific procedure where issues are addressed analytically, based on calculations and scientific evidence, the chances of making the scientific truth prevail in a world controlled by interest and money rather than professional ethics of scientists with integrity for pure science is very slim.

I met Tsui at a few IEEE-NSS-MIC Conferences and I remember very well our conversation at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Seoul, when we were walking between posters at the poster session I asked him if he considered sensitivity or spatial resolution more important in PET. His answer was: “it depends what you want, what you are looking for”. It seems to me that my answer was obvious and I was a little surprised for being asked. However, I promptly answered: “The one that you think would provide a more significant reduction in cancer deaths and cost”.

We carried on an interesting discussion where each of us would make a statement that made sense and had some reference to data, logic, and that could be supported by referring to some law of nature. I have been always convinced that two real scientists cannot disagree forever, the explanation of the other scientist should be logical and supported with calculations or scientific evidence. In the event the discussion gets to a point that logic and reasoning cannot be proven for sure with calculations, the two scientists should agree to conduct an experiment whose result will tell who is right and who is wrong.

To reform the peer-review system we could start from this example: “Why couldn’t Tsui and I conduct our technical and analytical discussion we had at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC in public?” After all, our task and role is to serve the public using our technical knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature to benefit the taxpayers and humanity. Why should they be excluded from the discussion, particularly when they are donors or taxpayers?

Ultimately, the person who had the mandate from taxpayers to handle their money and in their best interest are people like Michael Laurer and the leaders at funding agencies. The last words that I received from Laurer were that he wanted to be fair to all scientists, therefore, he could not listen to the advantages of my invention in reducing cancer deaths and cost. Now, after the facts reported in this document which prove that scientists are not fair to their colleagues and, more importantly, not fair to taxpayers because are deprive them of the benefits they could receive from innovations, I hope that Laurer will follow the most logical step of organizing a public review of the 3D-CBS and the Explorer because the ultimate goal is to reduce cancer deaths and cost and not to cover up corruption or serve the personal interests and agendas of some applicants or reviewers.

h.     My consideration in the 2505 Abstract/Summary to satisfy the comments/requests from previous rejections

When I prepared the 2505 abstract/summary this year I took into consideration the reviewers’ comments/requests of last year reported below (full text of the rejection claims by the 2015 reviewers is available on page 245 of the proposal):

“…I would like to hear a discussion about this to “once and for all” settle the question raised – is this approach any good? …Proposes that cancer will be effectively eliminated if low cost, high efficiency PET cameras are developed. No design parameters, hardware description, performance estimates, or technical supporting material …No tangible material is provided that could allow to assess the pertinence of this approach. Performance estimates compared to other approaches are highly speculative. Also the link to a previous submission is not clear.” 

I made sure this year the information was complete in the 300 word text abstract and two-page summary with one figure showing all components of the system with a link included in the abstract to the details whose feasibility is supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries. However, after all my papers have been rejected by IEEE-MIC for 16 years with the exception of 2003 when Ralph James was the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference and have now been rejected again this year with a comment sent by the Chairmen, which includes Surti, asking what kind of system is the «“ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS”. I think it is not expected that the reviewer starts a literature research to find the lacking information » after Surti explained in slides 3 and 4 what an ultra-sensitive PET is and in slide 5 provided a reference to my article, about the 3D-CBS. It is therefore evident that we have a rigged peer-review process that is damaging to taxpayers and breaches the professional ethics of scientists.

It is evident that the reviewers have not  given legitimate scientific reasons to reject funding all of my proposals since my last grant of $906,000 in 1995, and all my papers and presentations at IEEE-NSS-MIC since 2000 (with the exception of 2003 when Ralph James was the General Chairman), and for closing the door to the dialogue when I proposed two workshops in 2014 to allow young and senior scientists to briefly present their work and then question each other for hours in public and not just five minutes after a presentation.  Refusing the scientific dialogue in a public transparent scientific competition it is like the unfair action of not letting an athlete participate to the Olympics because has demonstrated higher skill than others who cut him/her off because otherwise will lose. However, the difference in this case is that the biggest damage and unfairness is not just to the inventor who is cut off, but advancements in science are delayed, progress and humanity are damaged for being deprived from the benefits of inventions that will provide well-being.

The excuse for rejection of my 2505 abstract because “I think it is not expected that the reviewer starts a literature research to find the lacking information” is not an appropriate reason because reviewers had all the information they needed in my 2505 abstract/summary and it is also clear that reviewers and leaders in the field knew about my inventions during the past two decades. Many have written letters of endorsement, or have worked to fix the peer-review unfairness of my papers such as the IEEE senior scientist Aaron Brill in 2000, the IEEE General Chairman Uwe Bratzler in 2008, and several others who were unsuccessful; however, until the rigged peer-review system is fixed for everyone, those in power with special personal interests or conflict of interests as in the case of Surti will take advantage of the system’s loopholes and crush innovations, waste millions of taxpayer money, and deprive humanity of benefits.

i.      Crosetto’s communication with Dimitri Visvikis, Chairman of the 2016 IEEE-Medical Imaging Conference (MIC)

After receiving an email from Ms. Julie Amodeo, Director of IEEE customer relations & operation who invited me to use their new developed tool (publicationrecommender.ieee.org) matching topics of several IEEE conferences with the title and/or abstract of a paper by an applicant, I used the new tool and provided feedback to the IEEE executive office of the President and a copy to Visvikis because the description of the topic he made for the 2016-IEEE-MIC did not match the key words related to the Medical Imaging field.

Following is an excerpt of my email to the office of the President of IEEE and Visvikis:

I verified the “Abstract” and “Summary” of my IEEE-MIC paper and I found many relevant words to the field of application such as: “effective early detection of cancer and other diseases, providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and the monitoring of treatments for diseases, radiation is related to biological processes, therefore by accurately extracting all valuable information from radiation (on spatial resolution, time resolution, energy and sensitivity) it allows a reduction in the radiation dose to the patient, reduces costs and provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and in biological processes.” I have addressed the objective of improving medical Imaging to reduce cancer deaths and healthcare cost using the word “reduce/reduction” 15 times in my abstract/summary and I have provided a procedure to measure results on a sample population, while in the “MIC Topic description” the ultimate objective of improving Medical Imaging is not specified once, which some professionals in the field might interpret as a goal to increase the cancer business, proving that a drug shrinks the tumor but in the end only extends the life of the patient for a few months.

The “MIC Topic Description” was not adequately written. This explains why there was not a good match although all professionals working in the same field, the main industries manufacturing, PET, PET/CT, PET/MRI, etc. will be attending the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in Strasbourg on October 29, 2016 because they consider this conference more important than any other. Here is a detailed explanation of why the “MIC Topic description” is not adequately written; please search for a specific word in the file of the “MIC Topics” and you can verify and/or find additional missing words. In the “MIC Topic description” the words: “early”, “detection”, “prognoses”, “biological”, “anomalies”, “tumor”, “cancer”, “isotope” do not appear even once.

I hope that this information is useful to improve the “MIC Topic Description” and perhaps IEEE could advise their chairmen on how to write the “Topic-Description” of their conference, making sure they use all the buzz-words to capture the relevant abstracts in the field.

26.  Quantitative data & technical merits of the project/research provided in the text of the 2505 Abstract

Excerpt from the abstract:

“The ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body screening) Medical Imaging device based on the 3D-Flow OPRA system (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation at the lowest cost per valid signal captured from tumor markers, saves lives by enabling an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases, providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and improve monitoring of diseases with the potential to save millions of lives while reducing healthcare costs.

…accurately extracting all valuable information from radiation (on spatial and time resolution, energy and sensitivity) it reduces the radiation dose to the patient, reduces cost, and provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and biological processes.

…The basic 3D-Flow invention …it was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and in two modular industrialized boards in 2003, suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size.

…but approved funding a similar project, the Explorer, even though it is ten times as expensive. 

This abstract contains extremely valuable quantitative data & technical merit of the project/research:

  1. The ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS has the capability of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation (on spatial and time resolution, energy and sensitivity) at the lowest cost per valid signal captured from tumor markers
  2. it reduces the radiation dose to the patient and provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and biological processes.
  3. enabling an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases
  4. providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and improve monitoring of diseases
  5. The basic 3D-Flow invention …it was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and in two modular industrialized boards in 2003, suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size

 

This abstract describes the features of the ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS Medical Imaging device based on the 3D-Flow OPRA which is capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation on spatial and time resolution, energy and sensitivity at the lowest cost per valid signal captured from tumor markers.

It is impossible to list all quantitative information in a 300 word abstract; however, the link (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) provided in the first line of the abstract or the two pages of the 2505 Abstract/Summary provided within this abstract will enable Visvikis, Surti and their reviewers, experts in the field of medical imaging, to extract quantitative data and technical merits and build Table 1. In particular, Surti who is also among the authors of the Explorer cannot ignore the clear picture in the last page of the 2505 Abstract/Summary showing how one 3D-Flow OPRA crate having nine data processing boards with 256-channels each can replace his 12 crates with 120 boards shown in slide 8 of his presentation.

All these are quantitative information that Surti, should be very familiar with as an author of the Explorer and after reading my 2505 Abstract should be able to compile the first twelve rows of Table 1.

Specifically, Explorer vs 3D-CBS in:

  • 391,520 LYSO crystals (slide 9) vs. <3,000 BGO crystals;
  • 1,920 electronic channels (slide 7) vs. 2,304 electronic channels;
  • 16 channels/board (slide 8) vs. 256 channels/board;
  • 120 electronic boards (slide 8) vs. 9 electronic boards;
  • 12 crates (slide 8) vs. 1 crate;
  • capable of acquiring and processing 40 TB data each day (UC-Davis website) vs. capable of acquiring and processing >40,000 TB data each day;
  • the need of 40 TB data storage per day (UC-Davis website) vs. the need of 1 GB data storage per day;
  • 4 to 6 racks containing computers to process the acquired data (UC-Davis website) vs. zero racks;
  • 40 to 60 kW power consumption (UC-Davis website) vs. 3 to 4 kW power consumption;
  • The Explorer is less sensitive than the 3D-CBS;
  • costs 30 to 50 times that of current PET vs. 3D-CBS which is 2 to 3 times the cost of current PET;
  • an examination cost higher than current PET vs. an examination cost lower than current PET.

All the above are quantitative data easy to be extracted from the figure on the last page of the Abstract/Summary, and supported in great detail in the document available at the link (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) provided in the first line of the abstract whose construction of its components are proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries. Furthermore, the 3D-Flow innovative basic concept used in the 3D-CBS (3D-Complete Body Screening) was proven functional in hardware in two modular boards each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors.

27.  Innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text of the 2505 Abstract

Excerpt from the abstract:

“The ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body screening) Medical Imaging device based on the 3D-Flow OPRA system (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation at the lowest cost per valid signal captured from tumor markers, saves lives by enabling an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases, providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and improve monitoring of diseases with the potential to save millions of lives while reducing healthcare costs.

…it reduces radiation dose to the patient, reduces cost, and provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and biological processes.

The basic 3D-Flow invention was first acclaimed in 1992 in many letters from scientists. In 1993 it was recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers in a formal scientific review.

It was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and in two modular industrialized boards in 2003, suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size.

I have faced many adversities and obstacles these past years that have delayed implementation of my invention, and the resulting burden to taxpayers, not only monetarily but in avoidable deaths and suffering, calls for …a PUBLIC scientific review with funding agencies of my 3D-CBS invention – similar to the one I had in 1993 which recognized it valuable but where there were insufficient funds available for its completion”

 

This abstract contains extremely valuable innovations and significance of the project/research:

  1. The ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body screening) Medical Imaging device based on the 3D-Flow OPRA system capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation at the lowest cost per valid signal captured from tumor markers, saves lives by enabling an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases, providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and improve monitoring of diseases with the potential to save millions of lives while reducing healthcare costs
  2. it reduces radiation dose to the patient, reduces cost, and provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and biological processes
  3. The basic 3D-Flow invention was first acclaimed in 1992 in many letters from scientists. In 1993 it was recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers in a formal scientific review.
  4. It was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and in two modular industrialized boards in 2003, suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size.

 

This abstract describes the features of the ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS Medical Imaging device based on the 3D-Flow OPRA which because of its innovations has a very high significance in saving many lives by enabling an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases, providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and improve monitoring of diseases with the potential to save millions of lives while reducing healthcare costs. It provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and biological processes.

The significance in saving many lives and reducing healthcare costs is provided by my 1992 basic 3D-Flow invention and all subsequent inventions in detector assembly, topology, geometry, electronics, cable assembly, coupling the detector with the electronics, algorithms, etc., which created my 2015 invention of the 3D-CBS based on the 3D-Flow OPRA offering a staggering efficiency improvement at a very competitive price compared to other PET systems/approaches such as the Explorer.

The basic conceptual invention of the 3D-Flow in 1992 has evolved into several other inventions that now allow the 3D-CBS Medical Imaging device represented on the last page of the 2505 Abstract/Summary to be built.  Its significance is listed in the 300 words abstract supported in the two page summary and detailed in the document accessible at the link provided in the first line of the abstract. The 3D-Flow innovation capable of processing a frame (or data set acquired from the PET detector) for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive frames (or data sets) has the advantage in the new 3D-Flow OPRA design to minimize distance between components, minimize power consumption, optimize algorithm executions to capture and accurately measure all possible valid signals from the tumor markers at the lowest possible cost per each valid signal captured.

To give an idea of the staggering difference in performance of the 3D-CBS based on the 3D-Flow OPRA, it has the capability to acquire and process in real time over 40,000 TB data in one day compared to 40 TB data of the Explorer.

This performance capability of the 3D-CBS enables an effective early detection of minimum anomalies in biological processes which is valuable information to the doctors that no other device can provide. This information helps doctors diagnose health problems at the earliest and most curable stage. It requires very low radiation to the patient and a low examination cost because the processing capability of the 3D-Flow OPRA allows the use of economical crystals (e.g. BGO).

The innovations of the 3D-CBS offer unprecedented advantages that can provide a great significance in a more powerful diagnostic tool for doctors to save lives and reduce costs which other approaches cannot claim because the 12 crates of electronics for data acquisition, the 6 racks of computers and the 40 TB storage capability of the Explorer cannot acquire and process 40,000 TB in one day like the 3D-CBS can. Furthermore, Joel Karp, one of the authors of the Explorer, admitted in an email (see text of the email at this link) he sent me on August 19, 2002 that: “For LSO or GSO the cost seems prohibitive” (LYSO used in the Explorer has characteristics and costs similar to LSO). In fact, the LYSO crystals together with the electronics listed above consuming 60 kW (compared to the 4 kW of the 3D-CBS), makes the Explorer unsuitable to save many lives and reduce healthcare costs because it is not able to capture and process over 40,000 TB per day and because of its prohibitive cost.

The 3D-CBS innovations have solved these problems, and the last line of the first page of the 2505 Summary summarized the significance of this paper with the words: “This project plans to test 10,000 people (as detailed before) and achieve a 33% reduction of cancer deaths in 6 years and 50% in 10 years.”

The innovative merits and significance of the 3D-CBS based on the 3D-Flow system are supported by calculations, logical reasoning, scientific evidence, comparisons with other similar devices and its hardware implementation proven to be feasible in the 2505 Abstract/Summary It is supported in great detail in the document available at the link (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) found on the first line of my abstract, and the construction of its components have been proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries. Furthermore, the 3D-Flow innovative basic concept used in the 3D-CBS  was proven functional in hardware in two modular boards each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors.

28.  Supporting material to the quantitative data, technical merits, innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text and figures worth a thousand words in the 2505 Summary

The first page of the 2505 Summary describes the features and advantages of the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening), the usefulness of the new features to make a paradigm change in anatomical and molecular imaging enabling the detection and localization of minimal abnormal biological processes, providing accurate measurements, requiring minimum radiation dose safe to the patient, helping doctors to learn about the development of diseases such as cancer and other diseases at an early, highly curable stage.

Next is a list of the misconceptions that have driven the development of PET in the wrong direction of improving the spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity, using the traditional 16 cm Field of View (FOV) geometry with expensive crystals rather than my proposed long FOV (120 to 160 cm) with economical crystals. I have documented this wrong direction with the reference (at the bottom of the first page of the summary) to the rejection claims of ten proposals submitted to NIH in nine years. NIH reviewers also denied technological innovations in my proposals asking me to focus on improving the crystals rather than improving the electronics. These wrong directions are now being recognized as a mistake and have been reversed 15 years later as stated in the recent 2015 press release by Moses’: «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»

The last paragraph on the first page of the summary lays out a procedure that all researchers and leaders who want to maximize the reduction of cancer deaths and cost should be able to agree upon. This procedure sets objective results measured on a sample population that are fair to everyone who wants to achieve the goal of reducing cancer deaths and costs whether through a new drug, vaccine, medical imaging device, or healthy lifestyle promotion, etc. The procedure calls for all applicants to be responsible by requesting them to judge themselves by estimating the results they expect to attain in reducing cancer deaths and costs with their project (or combined with other existing techniques) when measured on a sample population, requesting they defend their claims with scientific arguments answering questions from colleagues and reviewers in an open, public review/forum.

The second page of the 2505 Summary in the title and subtitle summarizes the features of the 3D-CBS, its potential benefits and the detailed technical characteristics of the 3D-CBS unit with 14,400 x 3D-Flow processors in a volume of 16 cm cube of electronics executing up to 120 Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms Steps (OPRAS) on 64-bit data words per channel arriving in parallel from 2,304 detector channels at 20 MHz.

Next, there are six boxes posing six questions with their relative answers that address the problem to be solved, cancer, from the general problem of being the world’s most deadly and costly calamity to the practical solution through a series of logical steps. The steps identify the most cost-effective item (in this case technology) that will have the greatest impact in reducing cancer deaths and cost. The questions are:

  • What is the most deadly and costly calamity?
  • Do we know what does and doesn’t solve the problem?
  • Does data support these findings?
  • What is the best method for early detection?
  • Can we prove which method is the best?
  • What should we improve? What results should we expect?

For each question I provide an answer supported by data, calculations or scientific evidence. The logical reasoning continues in greater detail by answering two additional questions:

  • Why is extracting ALL valuable information from radiation important to improve early cancer detection?
  • How is ALL valuable information from radiation extracted?

What follows is a figure worth a thousand words showing the entire 3D-CBS system with mechanical dimensions to scale:

  • Bottom left represents the whole 3D-CBS detector, the detector element coupled to PMT or SiPM and the type of signals generated that are sent to the bottom “FRONT-END ELECTRONICS, A/D converters” crate.
  • Two 400 pin-connectors carrying 256 signals per VME board through 256 Twinax cables from the “FRONT-END ELECTRONICS, A/D converters” crate to the “3D-Flow System” crate.
  • Each connector/cable assembly consists of two PCB boards 210 mm x 37.84 mm at both ends of 128-Twinax cables grouped in 4 x 16 ribbon on two sides of the small board. These ribbon cables are soldered onto the small boards with traces carrying the information to the 400-pin connectors. This assembly is described in detail on page 193 of the document at the link (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) found on the first line of the abstract.
  • Central left represents the “3D-FLOW SYSTEM” crate receiving the 256-signals per board from the lower “FRONT-END ELECTRONICS, A/D converters” crate.
  • Center figures represent the nine VME boards, 2 cm wide housed in the “3D-FLOW SYSTEM” crate connected through 2,304 Twinax ribbon cables to the “FRONT-END ELECTRONICS, A/D converters” crate.
  • The description of the VME 256 channels 3D-Flow data processing board is reported on page 154 and 155 of the document at the link (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) provided on the first line of the abstract.  Two reputable industries provided the quotes for the NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering), and for a small production of 32 of these boards.
  • The figure on the far right of the “3D-FLOW SYSTEM” crate shows the logical flow of the data from the detector to the 3D-Flow data processing system, through the 3D-Flow pyramid for data reduction and channel reduction. This figure has been published in several articles, starting from 2000 in Figure 16-1 on page 172 of the book that I sent on August 2002 to Surti’s colleague, Joel Karp, and he might still find the book in his laboratory.
  • The two figures below show on the left the two features of the 3D-CBS (anatomical and functional imaging) and on the right the concept of the 3D-Flow invention.
  • The figure below shows the Technological advantages of the 3D-CBS compared to the current over 6,000 PET devices in use in hospitals, which has been published in several articles as well as the figure on the bottom right of the last page of the 2505 Summary.

29.  Crosetto’s comments to Dimitris Visvikis and Suleman Surti responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject the 2505 paper

Dear Dimitri and Suleman,

I realize that we might have different views and approaches as to what constitutes the most valuable medical imaging device to greatly contribute to the defeat of the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, improve healthcare and reduce costs; however, with all my heart, on behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients, I am respectfully asking you to be fair to yourselves by referring to the ethics of scientists, and to be fair to taxpayers and cancer patients by submitting yourselves to the judgement of an analytical discussion, calculations, scientific evidence and ultimately the judgement of experimental results.

Facts reported herein prove that it is not true that chairmen and reviewers were unaware of the advantages of my 3D-CBS invention based on the 3D-Flow system because I extensively presented my innovations in peer review articles, at conferences, distributing 200 copies of my technical-scientific book at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference, talking to the joint authors of the Explorer project which includes you, Suleman Surti, who cited my work in slide 5 of your presentation.

I was surprised that Dimitri Visvikis, after answering my email on July 24 informing me that my Abstract/Summary 2505 was rejected, did not provide reasons or answer any additional emails, not even my contribution sent to him and Ms. Julie Amodeo, Director of IEEE customer relations & operations, to help him correct the “MIC Topic Description” by adding the buzz words: “early”, “detection”, “prognoses”, “biological”, “anomalies”, “tumor”, “cancer”, “isotope” to the descriptions which do not appear even once in his text. I had to disturb the President of IEEE, John Verboncoeur, to provide Visvikis’ reasons for his and his reviewers’ rejection of my Abstract/Summary 2505.

Now that I have proved that my Abstract/Summary 2505 contains quantitative information, does has technical merits, originality and innovation and significance in providing staggering benefits, and that the scientific community and by the authors of the competing Explorer project that copied many of my ideas knew of my inventions, it is the ethical professional duty of a scientist and only fair to the public who trust scientists, for the chairmen of the 2016 IEEE-MIC conference to provide an Abstract/Summary paper they approved that addresses technical merits, innovation and significance with a complete design from detailed quantitative data of the entire project in one figure to the innovations and its benefits as the Abstract/Summary 2505 does.

Likewise, it is time that Suleman Surti and all co-authors of the Explorer project take the courage to face a fair competition of ideas in a public scientific procedure by addressing analytically calculations and scientific evidence where we can question each other and compare in a public review and forum my 3D-CBS and 3D-Flow inventions with the Explorer approach by analyzing the description of the projects, data processing boards, components and technology data sheets.

To bring respect and to be fair to taxpayers and cancer patients who pay for the advancement in research, with all my heart, in defense of science, taxpayers and cancer patients, I respectfully invite you to reflect and resign if you cannot allow the science of medical imaging to proceed freely through fair, open, public competition.

W.  Conclusion of the response to the President of IEEE

Dear John Verboncoeur,

I understand that you do not have the power or the knowledge to interfere in the operation of conference technical programs. However, you and IEEE leaders can analyze whether organizers of conferences seeking IEEE endorsement comply with IEEE’s Statue and Mission statement as reported on their website: “IEEE is the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity”.

You and IEEE leaders can inform the leaders of the conference in Strasbourg on October 29 – November 6, 2016, that chairmen and deputies Eckhart Elsen, Susanne Kuehn, Dimitris Visvikis and Suleman Surti do not comply with the IEEE rules defined in the Statue and Mission published on IEEE’s website. Facts reported in this document prove that the chairmen were familiar with my technology (they even cited my invention in slide 5 of their presentation) and the drawings in the figures of the Summaries of my papers provided information showing my 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions are advancing technology for the benefit of humanity and are more advantageous in technical merits, innovation and significance with respect to other approved abstracts.

You and IEEE leaders can inform the leaders of the conference in Strasbourg to find other chairmen who can do their job by allowing me to present my breakthrough technology described in three Abstracts/Summaries 2493, 2484, 2505, replacing hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate providing staggering performance improvement at a fraction of the cost “for the benefit of humanity” that was proven feasible in 59 quotes by professionals in reputable industries who are IEEE members dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.

You and IEEE leaders can inform the leaders of the conference in Strasbourg that IEEE is in a difficult position as it cannot break the rules stated in the Statue and Mission of the IEEE organization as published on their website.

If the leaders of the Strasbourg conference cannot find a solution that will comply with the Mission and Statue of IEEE, then the logic and compliance with the scientific integrity would call for IEEE to disassociate itself from the Strasbourg’s conference organizers who are contrary to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity and remove its endorsement of the conference.

Thank you for copying your email to NPSS President-Elect Stefan Ritt for future continuity. Forgive me if I copy to other leaders in different areas who could help to resolve the problem of the independence of the peer-review process expressed by the National Academy of Science.

The above facts showing innovations suppressed causing millions of preventable deaths and billions of taxpayer dollars LOST and humanity deprived from the benefits of advancement in science clearly call for a reform of the peer-review process.

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

 

From: John Verboncoeur [mailto:johnv@egr.msu.edu] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:17 AM To: United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org> Cc: Ritt Stefan (PSI) <stefan.ritt@psi.ch> Subject: Re: per Your request I am resending the 3 questions. RE: Breakthrough invention: 3D-Flow OPRA -a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: advancing science, saving lives, fighting terrorism

Dario,

Although I understand these are not the reviews you were hoping for, I do not have the power nor the knowledge to interfere in the operation of conferences technical programs. These are staffed by volunteers with significant turnover each year. Hence, we should conclude that any anomaly in their decision process should be both topically and temporally localized.

 

It is not feasible for a conference of this size to engage each author whose abstract is rejected in a lengthy iteration in order to try to improve the abstract to make it acceptable. You should not take criticism of your abstract as criticism of the underlying work, and indeed here two key components of the reviews point to concerns over novelty, and concerns that the style is more marketing and less scientific. These are both remedied by ensuring your abstracts are substantially different from previous versions, and by focusing on quantitative details rather than qualitative assertions. You may speak to the various technical program chairs directly at the conference to better understand the concerns and how to address them.

 

At this point, I am not sure there is much more I can do beyond the above recommendations. I have copied NPSS President-Elect Stefan Ritt for future continuity.

 

Sincerely,

John P. Verboncoeur

President, IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society

Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering

Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering

Professor, Computational Mathematics, Science, and Engineering

Michigan State University

3410 Engineering Bldg

428 S. Shaw Lane

East Lansing, MI 48824-1226

517- 355-5133 johnv@egr.msu.edu

 

On 19-Sep-16 02:30, United To End Cancer wrote:

John,

The answers you received are not professional and not scientific.

It is like a scientists providing hundreds of pages of calculations, observation, scientific evidence that the Earth is not at the center of the Universe and the reviewers score: “Technical Merit     poor ,   Originality & Innovation     poor, Significance     poor”

Would you agree that the reviewers should go over the calculation provided by the scientist and invalidate them with their calculations which provide a different result, they should refute the scientific evidence provided by the scientist to support their “poor” score evaluation otherwise the reviewers might crush a discovery?

Could you please appoint someone who represents the IEEE mission and value of the world’s 400,000 members largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity who can provide professional scientific reasons?

I have provided three pages per each abstract/summary. I also provided the link www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf to 271 page supporting in detail the claims of the abstract and summary.

In my abstract/summary I am describing a 3D-Flow OPRA programmable system for Level-1 Trigger for 8,192 x 16-bit channels with the capability to extracts ALL valuable information from radiation using Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) from 80 million events/second (radiation) @ 1.3TB/second transfer rate from over a billion collisions/second, using 43,008 x 3D-FLOW processors @ $1 each in a single VXI crate with zero dead-time costing approximately $100,000.

This 3D-Flow OPRA system in one crate has the capability to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with 4,000 data processing boards, 40 computers running 200 tasks of the Smith’s CMS Level-1 Trigger.

My basic 3D-Flow invention has been endorsed by hundreds of scientists, the concept has been proven feasible and functional in hardware, providing staggering performance improvements as confirmed in a public scientific review conducted in December 1993 (see pp. 56-74) where I answered objections from other scientists. Now, my new 3D-Flow OPRA is proven to be feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

Please let me know the names of the professionals appointed by you so we can address any question/concern related to the document provided in the abstract.

Looking forward to your reply

Sincerely,

Dario

 

From: John Verboncoeur [mailto:johnv@egr.msu.edu] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 12:23 PM To: United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org> Subject: Re: per Your request I am resending the 3 questions. RE: Breakthrough invention: 3D-Flow OPRA -a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: advancing science, saving lives, fighting

Dario,

Here is what we have been able to obtain on the other two submissions:

 

The 2 of 3 reviewers suggest to reject both 2493 and 2484.

 

The score for 2484 is very low with 5.0 and same for 2493 with 5.0.

They are judged by different reviewers and all give:

Technical Merit     poor ,   Originality & Innovation     poor, Significance     poor .

In addition for 2484 the comments are:     this is pure nonsense. duplicate with #2493 

And from a second reviewer: The last several sentences does a lot of damage to the credibility of this abstract.

The architecture seems like a standard parallel algorithm, with pipes that feed multiple CPU’s – so I’m missing the innovation here.

 

 

For 2493:

I do not understand how 3D flow differs to various standard network topologies currently used in HEP (this is after reading a poster or two on his website).”

As you can see, there are specific concerns that can be addressed. In particular, a more convincing case is needed for identifying the innovation in your work. Note that with the new CrossCheck software being required by IEEE, abstracts get compared with all publications in the IEEE database for duplication, so that significant duplication gets flagged for manual investigation; there are of course cases where description of an apparatus is significantly the same for different projects, so this is not automatically disqualifying. One good tactic mightbe a single paper focusing on the innovations and comparison with existing technology, as that seems to be a recurring theme in the reviews.

Are you encountering similar challenges in submissions to other conferences? While NSS-MIC rejects hundreds of papers each year, I am not aware of others raising concerns.

Cheers,

John P. Verboncoeur

President, IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society

Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering

Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering

Professor, Computational Mathematics, Science, and Engineering

Michigan State University

3410 Engineering Bldg

428 S. Shaw Lane

East Lansing, MI 48824-1226

517- 355-5133 johnv@egr.msu.edu

 

From: John Verboncoeur [mailto:johnv@egr.msu.edu] Sent: Monday, September 5, 2016 2:27 PM To: United To End Cancer <volunteers@u2ec.org> Cc: Marie Hunter <m.m.hunter@ieee.org>; Julie Amodeo <julie.amodeo@ieee.org> Subject: Re: per Your request I am resending the 3 questions. RE: Breakthrough invention: 3D-Flow OPRA -a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: advancing science, saving lives, fighting terrorism

Dario,

Thus far I have obtained the review summary from 2505:

scored all categories as poor, because: The text of this “so-called” abstract might be appropriate for a newspaper. But even for such a purpose there is insufficient information for the reader. For me it is totally unclear – even after having looked at the summary, which is of ultimately bad quality – what kind of system is the “ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS”. I think it is not expected that the reviewer starts a literature research to find the lacking information.

Once again, the abstract and supporting data emphasize the difficulties in getting the project funded rather than submitting scientific material (as he’s been told in the past). VERY strong reject!

As you can see, this review does not leave much room for recovery for this conference. I think the challenge is that the reviewers are looking for more summary scientific information rather than funding concerns. I suggest looking at the accepted abstracts for the conference to see the way they present scientific information; in your case comparative performance data and a brief summary of the device itself might address the concerns.

I will keep you posted on the other reviews when I receive them.

Cheers,

John P. Verboncoeur

President, IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society

Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering

Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering

Professor, Computational Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Michigan State University

3410 Engineering Bldg

428 S. Shaw Lane

East Lansing, MI  48824-1226

Tel. 517-355-5133, johnv@egr.msu.edu

  XI.        As Galileo could not make science and justice prevail alone and the benefits of his discoveries were delayed for years after his death and he was recognized to be right by the Church only 350 years later, Crosetto cannot make science and justice prevail by himself but media and everyone need to pass on this information and stand up for the interest of their children, grandchildren and loved ones

The consequences to taxpayers and cancer patients because scientists do not take responsibility by standing up for science and for what is right are wasted money, lives lost needlessly and being deprived of benefits.

Be the change you want to see in a world of reason and respect for your children and future generations by supporting the constant consistent work of Crosetto.

During these past 25 years Crosetto has been very active in informing the decision makers about his work/inventions by submitting articles to scientific conferences and to scientific journals. He has written five books, published several documents online, sent emails to key people in the field and submitted requests for funding the NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) to implement his 3D-Flow Processor into an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit having 4x, 16x, or 64 x 3D-Flow processors per ASIC) to be used as the building blocks for several other applications benefitting many fields. In particular, he made detailed designs of powerful tools (systems) for applications in physics research to discover new subatomic particles and in medical imaging to provide lifesaving 3D-CBS devices for early cancer detection.

He also submitted requests for funding to implement several other inventions/projects, some related to the 3D-Flow ASIC and others not related such as A/D, DAQ analog-to-digital and data acquisition electronic boards.

Documents show that all Crosetto’s designs that he developed during the past 30 years have been thought out analytically in great detail before construction. They are both technologically superior and more cost-effectiveness than the technology available at the time of development. An example: his modular TRAM FDPP processing module that he designed, built and tested at CERN in 1989 using leading-edge technology, the very first 7 nanosecond PAL (Programmable Array Logic) where he packed components on both sides of the printed circuit board without leftover space, not even to drill a hole for a via. The FDPP is the processing node of a parallel-processing system with two memory banks and two processors on each node, a Transputer and a DSP. The Transputer handles communication between neighboring nodes while it fetches results and loads new input data onto a memory bank; the DSP number crunches data onto the other memory bank. Memory banks are swapped in less than 10 nanoseconds when both processors terminate their tasks.

His designs also include provisions for testing, monitoring functionality during operation, and features that will help technicians diagnose and repair failures due to external factors that damage the unit. An example: his modular 3D-Flow DSP IBM PC board with 68 x 3D-Flow processors implemented in FPGA where he provided 64 LED to visually check the functionality of the board and provide over 100 test points for testing fast signals to facilitate monitoring functionality and maintenance/repair.

He uses analytical thinking to think ahead, not only to satisfy the doubts or questions from his colleagues about the performance of his design to solve a specific problem but also how to obtain measurable, reproducible results proving his invention/project/instrument works as claimed. He achieves this by designing additional instrumentation having the capability of testing the performance of his primary invention because the ultimate judge is the experiment and not limited to the reviews of colleagues. An example: his recent design/proposal of the Level-1 Trigger system for LHC. The superiority of his 3D-Flow OPRA Level-1 Trigger system at 1.3TB/sec, with 8,192 channels in one crate (see pp. 1-45 & 125-144 & 180-238) which would outperform and replace at 1/1000 the cost Smith’s CERN-CMS Level-1 Trigger made of hundreds of crates of electronics, is not an unsupported claim, as its feasibility has been proven by 59 quotes from reputable industries.  He subsequently designed a TER/DSU instrument costing $50,000 (see pp. 149-170) that allows the performance of his 3D-Flow OPRA system to be tested on a test bench by generating the functionality of the $50 billion LHC apparatus.

Had Smith would have thought how to test his claims regarding the performance of his Level-1 Trigger system on a test bench with an instrument similar to the TER/DSU event data recorder and simulator rather than focusing on preventing competing projects such as Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention from being presented at conferences or being adopted by experiments, he would not have wasted $100 million and 20 years of work by thousands of scientists but seen the failure of his design much earlier from experimental results.

Although Crosetto faced obstacles since 1992 from influential scientists who prefer power/money over reason/science, the majority of the time reason/science was the victor.  However, around 1995-98 the odds began to change as several facts, documents and data will prove (see below the list of events). Among the reasons why power/money began triumphing over reason/science were the billions of dollars per year involved in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet, and the huge amount of money spent every year on cancer research, which at NCI alone totaled $6 billion per year. As the amount of money involved began to increase, so the number of scientists who were willing to give up ethics and reason/science for power/money increased.

Still one would assume that cancer funding agencies and individual philanthropists wanting to make a difference in the world would have their own independent scientific review panel that would follow a world of reason/science, making a contribution to a project which provides the biggest bang for their buck. Instead, funding from other sources, including those who make an individual $10 donation, trust and refer to the earlier honesty of the scientific community where members followed the ethics of a scientist and therefore conclude that if Crosetto’s articles are not approved by IEEE, the world’s largest association of over 400,000 technical professionals dedicated to the advancement of technology for the benefit of humanity and he does not receive grants from large government funding agencies such as NIH, NCI, DOE, NSF, CPRIT, etc. the explanation must be because his invention/project is no good.

However, the reality is different. The scientific world has changed from how it used to be. The several billions of dollars per year used to fund research has affected members of the scientific community, so many are no longer these incorruptible, honest, pure members of society advertised by the media, but have now become scientists who deceive funding agencies, philanthropists, cancer and other humanitarian organizations and ultimately the laymen who trust the judgement of scientists when selecting a project.

There exists a simple, fair, logical, scientific method that cannot be refuted by honest scientists that would protect the ethics and good name of the scientific community and would greatly slash corruption if adopted: Ask each scientist to judge himself/herself before having colleagues evaluate their idea/invention/project by comparing their idea/invention/project with other prominent projects in the field claiming similar advantages/benefits.  Each scientist should provide an estimate of results they would expect to attain if their project were funded and provide a plan on how to measure these results that could be applied to other proposed solutions that must be fair to all of them and to taxpayers who are paying for the research and expect to receive benefits.

For example,

  • in the application of physics experiments to build the TER/DSU ultra-high speed data recorder and hardware simulator so that different Level-1 Trigger projects can be tested and their performance compared. This would avoid wasting additional money on building devices that perform much less than expected or even a complete failure;
  • in cancer research the authors/inventors would be asked to 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, to test 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 would quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution.

The scientific integrity of scientists who refuse to agree with their colleagues on a fair, objective methodology and rules to compare projects based on calculations and scientific evidence and then on how to measure results should be questioned. The rules should first of all protect the interests of the taxpayers before other scientists and comply with their professional ethics. If scientists cannot agree it would be like the organizers and jury of the Olympics who cannot agree on the rules and parameters to judge the athletes or where to set the finish line of the marathon. The jury would not be able to analyze objectively parameters of time or performance but the winning athlete would be determined by who endorses the athlete and how much money an athlete has for advertising their skill; those who do not have a sponsor or money to advertise their skill would not be allowed to enter the competition.

Here are provided some specific examples of events, facts, documents and data supporting the above statements and showing how the reality of the scientific world has changed from a world of reason/science to a world of power/money corrupted by the money.

  • 1992 IEEE Moses-DeRenzo (world of power/money). In 1992 Crosetto faced the first time the difficulty of addressing scientific arguments based on calculation and scientific evidence when he was working at the Superconducting Super Collider and he communicated with two among the most influential scientists in the field, Bill Moses and Steve DeRenzo who worked at the same place at Berkeley National Laboratory. It made no difference talking to one or the other because he was receiving the same unsupported rejections and arguments that would only stand by their position of power. Moses has been for very long time in the IEEE advisory committee (Director EMC Society, Chairman Conferences Committee)and DeRenzo was considered the guru and the reference point about the characteristics of crystal detectors and he certainly is, however, Crosetto was trying to explain that experimental apparatus detecting particles are not only made of crystals but there are other components in an experimental apparatus for physics research and for PET medical imaging and scientists should be open to innovations. For example, electronics is a very important component in an experimental apparatus, as well as the detector assembly, the coupling of the detector with the electronics, etc.
  • 1992 IEEE-CHEP92-NIM 3D-Flow invention (world of reason/science)
  • 1993 DOE-SSC-CERN Crosetto invention endorsed by hundreds of scientists (world of reason/science)
  • 1993 DOE-CERN Wesley Smith (world of power/money). In 1993 Crosetto faced a strong opposition from Wesley Smith who, contrary to hundreds of scientists from all over the world, even those working in competing experiments who recognized the value and endorsed Crosetto’s 3D-Flow, programmable Level-1 Trigger, he stated that programmability at level-1 Trigger was not necessary.
  • 1993 DOE-SSC; 3D-Flow-GEM (world of reason/science): Crosetto’s basic invention was recognize valuable and adopted by GEM experiment, Gamma, Electron and Muon (GEM) collaboration at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). It was included in their detector technical design report from page 7-10 to 7-13 with references at page 7-86 of GEM-TN-93-262, SSCL-SR-1219, Jul 31, 1993.
  • 1993 DOE-FERMILAB-CERN-URA-Industries Crosetto’s invention reviewed at FERMILAB (world of reason/science): major review of Crosetto invention. On December 14, 1993, luckily the balance between a world of power and a world of reason was still in favor of the latter and those like Moses, DeRenzo, Smith and others could not stop implementing transparent scientific procedures such as the open, public, major scientific review of Crosetto 3D-Flow invention requested by the Director of the SSC and held at FERMILAB in 1993. Crosetto invention was approved, recognized valuable and he received all what was available during the closeout of the SSC laboratory. Crosetto receives a DOE grant of $150,000.
  • 1994 IEEE Computer Society (world of reason/science) Crosetto’s article “Massively Parallel-Processing System with 3D-Flow Processors. 0-81816-6322-7194, pp. 355-396.
  • 1995-1998 DOE-Grant (world of reason/science). In 1995-98 Crosetto received a DOD grant of $100,000 and a DOE grant of $906,000, however, not sufficient to build a complete 3D-Flow system as it was endorsed in many letters from many scientists. Funding were not even sufficient to pay the NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) of the 3D-Flow ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) with 4x, 16x, or 64 x 3D-Flow processors per ASIC which will be the building block to implement several applications.
  • 1995 DOE-CERN, 3D-Flow-LHCb (world of reason/science) adopted by LHCb Letter Of Intent (LOI) 1995 adopted the 3D-Flow for the calorimeter and muon level-0 trigger
  • 1995 IEEE Real-Time Conference, TNS 3D-Flow (world of reason/science). S. Conetti and D. Crosetto: “Implementing the Level-1 trigger algorithms for Beauty particle detector at LHC-b in real-time on a 3D-Flow system. Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE Conference on Real-Time Computer Applications in Nuclear Particle and Plasma Physics. Michigan State University, May 24-28, 1995, East Lancing. Pp. 44-48.
  • After 1995-1998, or around those years, the circle of friends of scientists who have control of the taxpayer and donation money by rejecting/approving articles in secret communications among themselves and approving/rejecting funding in meetings behind closed doors to split taxpayer money among themselves with no transparency and accountability to science and taxpayers, took irrefutable actions against Crosetto in rejecting articles and funding without scientific reasons, and more. They are implementing a world of power/money instead of a world of reason/science. They were able to impede any official formal, public scientific review for a world of reason similar the one held at FERMILAB in 1993, where the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity would emerge through the open, public dialogue among experts in the field.
  • 1998 DOE-CERN Workshop Electronics for LHC, 3D-Flow (world of reason/science). Crosetto’s article pp. 527-522. Cited by Eric Eisenhandler in his overview of all hardware processors at LHC at page 53.
  • 1998 LHCb Technical Proposal 3D-Flow (world of reason/science) that change into a (world of power/money)
  • 1999 – 45-page NIM article (world of reason/science) Crosetto’s work was appreciated by Tom Ypsilantis from CERN, the Chief Editor of the peer-review scientific journal Nuclear Instrument and Methods in Physics Research and published in less than one month in a 45-page article
  • 1999 IEEE-NPSS Real-Time (world of reason/science) D. Crosetto: “Real-Time system design environment for multichannel high-speed data acquisition system and pattern-recognition.” IEEE Real Time conference, Santa Fe, (NM) June 14-18, 1999.
  • 1999 IEEE-NSS article (world of reason/science) pp.329-337 D. Crosetto: “System Design and Verification Process for LHC Programmable Trigger Electronics” IEEE NSS-MIC. Seattle (WA) Oct. 24-30, 1999.
  • 1999 CERN – LHCb 3D-Flow Presentation also on CERN website (world of reason/science) that change into a (world of power/money)
  • TURN OF EVENTS – (world of reason/science) turned into (world of power/money). Although you will see several articles and presentation by Crosetto in the following years, the ones that are important are presented and discussed at IEEE-NSS-MIC. This is the place where the players, or influential leaders in the field decide which electronics, technology, trend (e.g. focusing in PET spatial resolution or sensitivity) will be going research in physics (CERN) and in Medical Imaging.
  • 1999 DOE-CERN Workshop Electronics for LHC, 3D-Flow (world of power/money) Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp prevented Crosetto from presenting at the 1999 Workshop on Electronics for LHC experiment at Snowmass, Colorado the results of his work from the $906,000 grant he received from DOE 1995-1998 (). Crosetto did not receive additional funding to translate into silicon his 3D-Flow processor, instead $50 million went to the alternative project by Smith (which has shown later to be a failure).
  • 1999 DOE 3D-Flow Presentation On September 2, 1999 Crosetto presented to DOE Office of High Energy Physics in Washington D.C. the high performance programmable, object pattern recognition Level-1 Trigger implemented with the 3D-Flow.
  • 1999 IEEE-NSS article (world of power/money) Crosetto’s paper rejected for publication in IEEE Transaction in Nuclear Science (TNS). Communications with IEEE senior reviewer Les Rogers, who was referring to the classical pipelining and to other architectures, having difficulties to understand Crosetto’s invention. Only after Les Rogers expressed his view point and Crosetto pointed out the difference between his invention and Les Rogers viewpoint progress was made in understanding Crosetto’s innovations. The majority of the reviewers approved the article for publication, two anonymous reviewers claimed the 3D-Flow architecture was flawed without providing any scientific reason and Crosetto’s paper was never published. The 3D-Flow architecture was not flawed, it was proven feasible and functional in hardware.
  • 1995-2003 Ten NIH $100,000 Grants rejection (world of power/money) for nine years NIH rejected all Crosetto’s proposals. Crosetto used all available means provided by NIH such as appeals, talking to and exchanging emails with leaders at NIH and NCI, meeting NIH and NIBIB Directors at a press conference on Medical Imaging, requesting the help of U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas State Senator Jane Nelson, Senator John Cornyn, U.S. Congressman Michael Burgess, U.S. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, and many others to request transparency in science by having a fair public scientific procedure similar to the one given for his basic 3D-Flow invention held on December 14, 1993, at FERMILAB. The answer received from NIH executives, directors and employees to Crosetto or anyone enquiring on his behalf was that Crosetto should follow the reviewers’ guidance and modify his research, approach, objectives toward improving spatial resolution (to the detriment of sensitivity), and improve crystals rather than electronics, essentially giving up on his invention. This turned out to be wrong because it has been recanted by influential leaders in the field who are now receiving $15.5 million from NIH to build the Explorer. Several authors of the Explorer are the same people who obstructed Crosetto during the past decades.
  • 2000 IEEE CERN (world of reason/science) two articles approved at the IEEE conference. D. Crosetto: “A modular VME or IBM PC based data acquisition system for multi-modality PET/CT scanners of different sizes and detector types.” Presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, Lyon, France, 2000, IEEE-2000-563. D. Crosetto: “Real-time, programmable, digital signal-processing electronics for extracting the information from a detector module for multi-modality PET/SPECT/CT scanners.” Presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, Lyon, France, 2000, IEEE-2000-567
  • 2000 IEEE CERN 3D-CBS Book (world of reason/science). Book on the 3D-CBS distributed free of charge in 200 copies to the leaders in the field at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference. D. Crosetto: “400+ time improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower cost cancer screening.” Technical-scientific book presented at the IEEE Nuclear Science Sympos. and Medical Imaging Conf., Lyon, France, 2000: ISBN 0-9702897-0-7. 2000
  • 2000 CERN Hospital LABs – Review of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS book by scientist. Public on Amazon (world of reason/science)
  • 2000 IEEE Book review 3D-CBS (world of power/money) by DeRenzo appointed by Terry Jones stating in the year 2000 “We do not view the electronics as a problem, either in terms of performance or cost”. DeRenzo claim was reversed by the same leaders in the field in the recent 2015 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».
  • 2000 IEEE Book review 3D-CBS (world of power/money) by Del Guerra claims it is not necessary to increase the FOV, the sensitivity, he assumes that the radiation dose to the patient is not a problem he claims that it is not necessary to build a PET longer than 16 cm because that is the size of the larges organ in the body. See also later rejections by Alberto del Guerra (http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363
  • 2000 IEEE-CERN Crosetto’s invention proven with simulation (world of reason/science) Chris Parkman from CERN, who was Chairman of the Industrial Exhibition of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in 2000 in Lyon, France, gave Crosetto a booth at the Exhibition free of charge where he could demonstrate on the computer a simulation of the 3D-Flow system made of thousands of 3D-Flow processors.
  • 2001 IEEE-CERN Crosetto’s invention proven in hardware (world of reason/science) At the same Industrial Exhibition of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in 2001 San Diego, California, Parkman gave a free booth to Crosetto where he could setup two Altera prototype boards with his 3D-Flow system of 8 processors implemented in two FPGAs proving the concept of his invention working in hardware. Visitors who stopped by Crosetto’s booth could select a desired pattern of clusters on switches; the results were displayed on LED and the oscilloscope provided the waveform of the signals with the speed of the system.
  • 2001 CHEP01 Japan (world of reason/science) Crosetto’s article “Fast Cluster finding System for Future HEP Experiments” Presented at the Conference Computing in High Energy Physics. Tsukuba, Japan.
  • 2001 CERN – University of Geneva (world of reason/science). D. Crosetto: “Saving lives through early cancer detection: Breaking the current PET efficiency barrier with the 3D-CBS.” Presented on May 16, 2001 at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, on May 18 at the University of Turin, Italy and on May 21, 2001 at the University hospital of Geneva.
  • 2001 letter from U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to NIH.
  • 2001 letter from Texas Senator Jane Nelson to NIH. Senator Nelson raised $3 billion for cancer research, however, Crosetto’s 3D-CBS was triaged out and not even reviewed
  • 2002 IEEE Joel Karp (world of power/money) General Chairman at the 2020 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference rejected all Crosetto’s papers
  • 2002 Siemens (world of reason/science) that change into a (world of power/money). Meeting with Siemens in 2002 stating that they have built 31 prototypes of PET and could not improve the efficiency of their PET by improving the electronics. Five years after the meeting with Crosetto Siemens announcement on their web site that they improved PET efficiency by 70% by improving the electronics.
  • 2003 3D-CBS Dallas international review (world of reason/science) passed a major public scientific review. See the final report by the review panel.
  • 2003, ICATPP, 3D-CBS. D. Crosetto: “Development of an Innovative Three-Dimensional Complete Body Screening Device – 3D-CBS” Book: Astroparticle, Particle and Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Physics Applications. Editor: World Scientific, 2004, pp. 350-359.
  • 2003 IEEE MIC (world of reason/science) Three articles by Crosetto were approved at the conference. D. Crosetto: “The 3-D Complete Body Screening (3D-CBS) Features and Implementation” IEEE-NSS-MIC-2003. Conference Record. M7-129.  “3D-FlowTM DAQ-DSP IBM PC board for Photon Detection in PET and PET/CT. Conference Record. M7-130.
  • 2003 NSF-DOE-NIH Grants $100,000 rejections (world of power/money). National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2002, the NIH on 8/1/2002, 3/31/2003, 7/31/2003 and the DOE on 1/13/2003 rejected funding Crosetto’s $100,000 proposals to build the proof of concept in FPGA hardware or any other component of the advanced PET system such as A/D and DAQ boards. Crosetto therefore had to spend his own money to prove his invention was feasible and functional in FPGA hardware.
  • 2004 CSS-ITALY 3D-CBS (world of power/money) The Italian Consiglio Superiore della Sanita’ rejected the 3D-CBS project with no scientific reasons. Crosetto replied point-by-point to reviewers’ remarks and objections, his responses were filed in the CSS dossier related to the 3D-CBS. However, two years later, Crosetto passed by the office of CSS in Rome, asked to view the dossier relative to the 3D-CBS and realized that his point-by-point responses to the reviewers were removed from the folder. The documentation provided and presented by Crosetto on 11/17/2004 to the CSS, clearly demonstrates that the 3D-CBS is hundreds of times more efficient than the current PET, with a safe radiation level of less than 1 mSv. Garibaldi and other reviewers from the CSS are responsible for preventing the construction of more efficient 3D-CBS devices that could have already saved many lives. They did not accept the dialogue that would alleviate their doubts in regard to improving PET efficiency to enable effective early detection that would save lives. The disappearance of one million Euros, the disappearance of protocolled documents with Crosetto’s answers to the committee from the file relative to the review of the 3D-CBS project at the office of the Minister of Health, the rejection of Crosetto’s project based on the committee’s statements that were later proven by calculations and experimental results from other scientists to be incorrect, calls for an investigation.
  • 2004 NIH Crosetto. Intensive correspondence between Crosetto and leaders at NIH and NCI. Letters are available upon request.
  • 2004 U.S. Senator Cornyn wrote a letter to NIH supporting the 3D-CBS project and inquiring why was not funded
  • 2005 Friends from Monasterolo raised $6,500 (world of reason/science) for the 3D-CBS project in one evening. The money was used to pay the company Peteja to perform hardware tests and write drivers for the two 3D-Flow DSP, IBM PC boards each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors and for the development of algorithms for different applications.
  • 2005 Rotary Alba and Friends from Monasterolo raised $64,000 donation (world of reason/science). Thanks to the initiative of Avv. Pier Mario Morra President of the Rotary Club in Alba and the Committee supporting the 3D-CBS project in Monasterolo, $64,000 were raised to support its development. The money was used to pay the company Peteja to perform hardware tests and write drivers for the two 3D-Flow DSP, IBM PC boards each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors and for the development of algorithms for different applications.
  • 2005 ICATPP 3D-CBS Crosetto’s article “Rethinking Positron emission Technology for Early Cancer Detection” (world of reason/science). Published on the Book: Astroparticle, Particle and Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Physics Applications. Editor: World Scientific, 2006, pp. 692-696.
  • 2006 NIH Press-Conference (world of power/money) delegation to Washington to the press conference on Medical Imaging organized by NIH Director.
  • 2007 IEEE Frey General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC (world of power/money) rejected all Crosetto’s papers without providing any scientific reason.
  • 2007 ICATPP 3D-CBS (world of reason/science) Crosetto’s article: “Ignored Discovery Now Proven Capable of Saving Millions of Lives from Premature Cancer Death Demands Rethinking the Direction of Research” Book: Astroparticle, Particle and Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Physics Applications. Editor: World Scientific, pp.624-639 – 2008
  • 2008 CERN-World-Lab-Hospitals-Seminars (world of reason/science) that change into a (world of power/money) Crosetto gave several seminars at research center, CERN, World Laboratory, Hospitals, public events in Italy and Switzerland. D. Crosetto: “Logical Reasoning and Reasonable Answers Consistent with Declared Objectives for the Benefit of Mankind” International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies 40th Session, Erice, 19-24 August 2008. Editor: World Scientific 2009, pp. 531-560
  • 2008 IEEE Bratzler (world of reason/science) that change into a (world of power/money). Uwe Bratzler, General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference invited Crosetto to submit papers to the conference promising scientific reasons from his reviewers in the event Crosetto’s papers were again rejected as during the previous years, All Crosetto’s papers were rejected and Bratzler was unable to receive scientific reasons from his reviewers. He also kindly attempted to organize a forum where Crosetto and the leaders in the field could discuss analytically the issues based on calculations and scientific evidence. All leaders he contacted refused such open, transparent scientific procedure.
  • 2008 3D-CBS Rome international review (world of reason/science) that change into a (world of power/money) of the 3D-CBS held at the Ordine dei Medici del Lazio in Rome, Italy. Simultaneously translate in English and broadcasted via internet streaming in two languages.
  • 2008 UTSWMED – 3D-CBS seminar by Crosetto at Southwest Medical Center in Dallas, TX
  • 2008 Toronto 3D-CBS seminar by Crosetto
  • 2008 CERN 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS seminar by Crosetto in Teleconference from CERN-CMS EVO conference room
  • 2008 Regina Elena Hospital in Rome, Italy, 3D-CBS seminar by Crosetto
  • 2008 CRO hospital in Aviano, Italy. 3D-CBS seminar by Crosetto
  • 2008 Ist. Tumori Hospital in Milan, Italy. 3D-CBS seminar by Crosetto
  • 2008 S. Maria Nuova Hospital in Reggio Emilia, Italy. 3D-CBS seminar by Crosetto
  • 2009 CPRIT Grant $4 M rejection (world of power/money) from CPRIT based on the title. Despite CPRIT CEO’s promise that his proposal would receive rigorous scientific review, it was extremely disappointing as well as heartbreaking when Crosetto was notified that his proposal was not even examined. It was “triaged out” with 400 other proposals out of 800 submitted based on the Title of the proposal “3D Complete Body Screening (3D‐CBS) for Early Cancer Detection Targeted to Reduce Premature Cancer Death at a Lower Cost per Life Saved Compared to Current Cost”  and the 235 word abstract and significance.
  • 2009 Nuclear Med 3D-CBS Crosetto’s 42-page article. As a follow up to a presentation Crosetto gave of his 3D-CBS innovation in 2008 to Borasi and his colleagues at the S. Maria Nuova hospital in Reggio Emilia, an article/discussion between Crosetto and Borasi et al. was published from page 26 to 68 in May 2009 in the “Notiziario di Medicina Nucleare ed Imaging Molecolare”). This article reveal that the breakthrough was provided by the 3D-CBS. (The cited article by Borasi et al. is in fact an overview of several PET, including the 3D-CBS, and does not describe any other cost-effective true total body PET that can make a paradigm shift in Medical Imaging while is recognizing «The first proposal for a truly “total body” PET system (120-160 cm AFOV) came from an Italian physicist, Crosetto[6]»).
  • 2009 Pavia exhibition of Crosetto’s inventions lasted a week at the Sala Salome’ downtown Pavia. It followed for a few days at the main building of the University of Pavia, Italy.
  • 2010 CERN Physics for Health (world of reason/science) that change into a (world of power/money). Crosetto presented a paper with 14 co-authors and approximately 1,000 cosigners at the Workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN in Geneva. The title of the paper is: “Progress in the domain of physics applications in life science with an invention for substantial reduction of premature cancer deaths: The need for a PARADIGM CHANGE in oncology research”. The abstract of the article was translated in 10 languages, including Japanese, Chinese and Russian.
  • 2010 CERN Physics for Health. Del Guerra takes away the microphone from Crosetto while he is asking a question to a speaker at the Physics for Health workshop.
  • 2010 CERN 7000 Petition Signatures (world of power/money). A delegation from the Crosetto Foundation delivered in a meeting with CERN Director General and Director of Research, over 7000 signature on paper of a petition requesting a public scientific review of Crosetto’s inventions.
  • 2011 Leonardo da Vinci Prize 3D-CBS (world of reason/science). Crosetto won the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for his 3D-CBS invention for early cancer detection.
  • 2012 UICC-WCC world Cancer congress (world of reason/science) that change into a (world of power/money) Crosetto presentation was accepted at the World Cancer Congress on August 27-30, 2012 in Montreal, Canada. He translated his power point presentation in six languages.
  • 2013 Crowdfunding from friends $5,300 donation (world of reason/science). Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths pursued the crowd-funding initiative, however, checks from the Crosetto foundation were counterfeited causing the Foundation to close the account and the Foundations website and email received cyber-attacks.
  • 2013 Cyber Attacks Crosetto Foundation website
  • 2013 Counterfeited Checks of Crosetto Foundation
  • 2013 Cyber Attacks Crosetto Foundation emails
  • 2013 IEEE NSS-MIC rejection (world of power/money) also this year Crosetto’s papers to IEEE-NSS-MIC have been rejected.
  • 2013 IEEE RTSD (world of reason/science). D. Crosetto: “Breaking the Speed Barrier in Real-Time Applications to Make Advances in Particle Detection, Medical Imaging and Astrophysics.” Poster presentation R05-52 at 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference
  • 2013 Fondazione San Paolo Grant $2,500 rejected (world of power/money) Giorgio Palestro, the referee for science at the Foundation Compagnia did not even consider a grant of approximately $2,500 that would have served to further assess the value of Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention in an international forum of the IEEE Life Science Grand Challenges Conference in Singapore on December 2-3, 2013, where projects with the same objective were presented.
  • 2014 WOKC 3D-CBS Grant $147,852 rejected (world of power/money) A survivor that was affected by cancer at childhood introduced Crosetto to WOKC and encourage him to submitted a proposal. Regretfully on December 11, 2014, Crosetto receive an email from Evelyn Costolo, CEO of WOKC stating: “Thank you for your application to the WOKC Medical Grant Program.  We have carefully reviewed each application and are unable to fund your request at this time.” No reasons were ever provided for the rejection.
  • 2014 IEEE-MIC Moses (world of power/money). Crosetto meets several authors of the Explorer (Bill Moses, Simon Cherry, etc.) at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference describing them the features of the 3D-CBS and asking if they believed it was more important sensitivity or spatial resolution in a PET. In 2015 the authors of the Explorer submitted a request for funding to NIH for $15.5 million, using in the abstract of their submission many ideas, features claims important to be develop, that Crosetto published in his book of the year 2000 and in subsequent articles (and they rejected for decades), even describing the same analogy of reducing the radiation in the Explore equivalent to the dose absorbed during a round trip intercontinental flight as shown in the cover page of Crosetto’s 2000 book. In the year 2016, the Deputy Chairman of the IEEE-MIC conference, Suleman Surti, who is one of the authors of the Explorer rejected Crosetto’s paper asking what it is an Ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS, and claiming he cannot search in the literature what is the 3D-CBS. Surti and his colleagues power point presentation of the Explorer in 2013 was titled “An Ultra-Sensitive Total Body PET Scanner for Biomedical Research” and in slide 5 titled “Not a New Idea!” cited Crosetto’s article. Therefore, Surti knew the meaning of “Ultra-Sensitive PET” and was aware of Crosetto’s work.
  • 2014 IEEE-NSS the chairman takes away the microphone from Crosetto while he is asking a question to the NSS keynote speaker.
  • 2014 IEEE-MIC, the chairman takes away the microphone from Crosetto while he is asking a question to the MIC keynote speaker.
  • 2015 CRS-Italy 3D-CBS Grant 3,000 Euro rejected (world of power/money) submitted a proposal to the Cassa di Risparmio di Savigliano (the bank at his village where he was born) for 3000 Euros and was rejected while in the past approved grants for Crosetto’s initiative on the cultural exchange between Texas and his native town in Italy.
  • 2015 DOE Siegrist (world of reason/science) that change into a (world of power/money). Since May 5, 2015, Crosetto was solicited both verbally and in writing to formally submit a proposal of his inventions to the Department of Energy by his former supervisor at the Superconducting Super Collider, Dr. Jim Siegrist, who is now Director for the Office of High Energy Physics -HEP- at the Office of Science of the Department of Energy. During this time, Dr. Siegrist and several DOE employees told Crosetto he would need to communicate with Glenn Crawford as he is responsible for Research and Technology.  However, Crowford never once answered Crosetto’s technical emails, phone calls, or addressed/discussed any scientific issues with Crosetto.
  • 2015 EU Parliament interrogation (world of power/money). Following the activity by the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction in Cancer Deaths on May 27-28, 2015, in front of the building of the European Commission in Brussels that raised the issue in the press of the need for TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE and in the assignment of funds for research, particularly in cancer, Hon. Alessia Mosca, a member of the European Parliament on May 29, 2015 filed a formal Priority Question to the European Commission with the request of a written answer. See the interrogation P-009063-15. It was received on June 4, 2015, published on the European Union website in English on June 11, 2015, with the Protocol Number P-009063/2015. See the written answer P-009063-15. Hon. Mosca commented the answer: “It doesn’t seem really helpful to clarify our doubts. We will continue to following the issue.”
  • 2016 INFN 3D-Flow, 3D-CBS (a world of reason/science) that change into a (world of power/money).

On January 20, 2016, Crosetto gave a seminar (available in a video) of his project/proposal to the Director of the National Institute of Physics (INFN) of Turin, Amedeo Staiano and his colleagues.

No one refuted conceptually or the feasibility of Crosetto’s proposal and he satisfactorily answered the two questions:

  1. a) where is made the time alignment of the information arriving from different subdetectors and
  2. b) where are examples of 3D-Flow real-time trigger algorithms for the identification of new particles.

Crosetto’s answers to:

  1. a) the time alignment of trigger information arriving from several subdetectors that is packed in a single word 262,144-bit wide sent over 8,192 electronic channels every 25 nanoseconds to the 3D-Flow system is assembled in the Patch Panel Regrouping Associates Ideas (PRAI) board described in figures at pages 3, 4, 15, 19, 36, 159, 160, 200, 201 and 223 of the proposal, and
  2. b) example of 3D-Flow real-time algorithms to identify different particles suitable to process data arriving from different detector assembly from different experiments (e.g. CMS 3 x 3, Atlas 4 x 4, etc.) approved and recognized feasible by a majors public scientific review and endorsed by many experts that the 3D-Flow system has the capability to execute all of them and in addition can execute many algorithms that experimenters might think of in the future are reported in slides 36, 39, 40 of Crosetto’s presentation on January 20, 2016 at the INFN in Turin, Italy. Other examples of real-time algorithms that can be executed by the 3D-Flow are also available in several publications by Crosetto such as: at page 557, 558, 562 in 1992 World Scientific, at page 804 and 806 in 1992 CHEP, at page 48 in 1995, IEEE-RT with Sergio Conetti, at page 114 and 116 of the 2000 book, at page 3 and 6 of the 2000 IEEE-563 article, at page 93 of the 2005 book, at page 18 of the 2013 IEEE

Staiano then wrote an email to the member of the management and executive boards of the CERN-CMS experiment, also Trigger coordinator, Roberto Carlin who did not take responsibility.

Therefore, Crosetto referred to the President of the INFN (Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare) in Rome, Italy, Prof. Fernando Ferroni.  After several email exchange and phone calls with his representatives from February to May 2016, Ferroni’s representatives told Crosetto that the person responsible was Nadia Pastrone from Turin, President of the Italian National Scientific Committee for particle physics and responsible for the Italian physicists who worked at the CERN-CMS experiment.

Crosetto knew Pastrone for more than 30 years when he was also working at the INFN in Turin. At first Pastrone was very nice on the phone on June 3, 2016, promising to read Crosetto’s proposal and provide her feedback within a week.

Because Crosetto did not receive Pastrone’s promised feedback after a week, in order to get started and facilitate Pastrone’s job, Crosetto requested a phone meeting before June 14, 2016, when they could spend some time starting the discussion by analyzing and commenting two slides and the first page of the paper presented by her colleagues the week before at the IEEE Real-Time Conference in Padova, Italy. This could make it easier for Pastrone instead of facing immediately Crosetto’s 271-page proposal. Crosetto also requested to set a meeting at the University of Turin between June 24-28 because Crosetto was travelling from Dallas to Turin in those days.

Pastrone agreed that two scientists could read a scientific article and/or slides and express what they understand from it, therefore she approved the planning to read two slides and the first page of the paper of her colleagues and also expressed that it was not appropriate for Roberto Carlin not taking responsibility to address Crosetto’s proposal/project describing the 3D-Flow OPRA invention proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to replace hundreds of crates of electronics of the CMS Level-1 Trigger with one crated at a fraction of the cost and providing staggering improvement in performance. So far the discussion was still within the domain of a world of reason/science however, soon after it changed into a world of power/money.

Pastrone did not keep what promised, she did not set a phone appointment, nor a time for a meeting at the University of physics in Turin between June 24 to 28. On June 14, 2016, she wrote an email to Crosetto stating: “When I will have the time and opportunity to examine the documentation you sent me, if I will find it appropriate I will contact you or will ask someone to contact you.”

Because Pastrone did not contact Crosetto to address these important issues saving taxpayer money and providing them and cancer patients great benefits in saving lives and costs, in light of the promises that Pastrone made to Crosetto to be respectful to taxpayer and cancer patients who are trusting her professional ethics and scientific integrity, it would be appropriate for her to reflect and resign in order to send the right message to those who do not respect her position and authority in doing what she admitted to Crosetto it is appropriate for a scientist to work for of a world of reason/science rather than a world of power/money.

  • 2016 EU ENVI Meeting with the President of the ENVI, Abrami, Crosetto and Tamburini request for an audition to President Giovanni La Via, Chair of the ENVI Committee at the European Parliament who is in charge of Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. On June 23, 2016, they present him their innovations benefitting humanity: effective tools to protect the environment, improve public health and food safety.
  • 2016 NIH Laurer review rejected (world of power/money). The Director of extramural Research of the National Institute of Health (NIH), Michael Laurer, still does not want to hear Crosetto’s inventions, does not want to organize a public scientific review to maximize results for taxpayers which would eliminate corruption because he believes this would not be fair to all scientists and does not give the same importance to be fair to the public. The last information that Crosetto received from the office of the Director of NIH, Dr. Collins, was that they had a meeting on July 19, 2016, to find a person at NIH responsible to address scientific issues justifying the giving of $15.5 million for the Explorer project which is less efficient, it does not have the capability to save many lives, it is over ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS device, which has instead the highest capabilities to save many lives because it can acquire and process over 40,000 TB data every day using the 3D-Flow OPRA. The office of the Director of NIH, promised that Crosetto would receive an answer late afternoon on July 19, 2016, or on the following day; however, to date Crosetto has not receive an answer.
  • 2016 DOE, 3D-Flow Grant $13.4 M Crawford’s self-incriminating 8-line email (world of power/money) Jim Siegrist starting to address issues for a world of reason, however, they have changed into a world of power by Glen Crawford who was in charge to address scientific issues complying with DOE rules. Crawford’s 8-line email dated May 19, 2016 and the information provided in this document reveal the path of abuse of power, stating one thing and the opposite in the next or following lines of his email, inventing and/or referring to non-existent DOE rules serving his plan of corruption, and demonstrating that if an innovation conflicts with his own plans or those of his circle of friends, it can never be funded at DOE
  • 2016 DOE THREAT. Why didn’t the DOE provide any calculations or scientific evidence to show how they came to their conclusion that Crosetto’s invention to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost and provide staggering performance improvement was not sound and feasible (which would mean that all scientists who endorsed Crosetto’s inventions, the FERMILAB international review panel and engineers and industries who wrote the 59 quotes showing feasibility, are all foolish and incompetent), but instead appointed Security to threaten Crosetto into never contacting any DOE employee regarding this issue?
  • 2016 Citigroup Grant rejected Grant $40,000 rejected (world of power/money) Crosetto’s request to Citigroup for a grant of $40,000 per year (and/or a break on financial interests) until he will able to make the scientific truth prevail, benefitting humanity, clearly explained in this document with the funding agencies responsible to fund his innovations seemed legitimate and pertinent.

It was also suggested by several people during Crosetto’s seminars to ask for contributions to decision makers who make a public commitment to contribute to make a better world and who have significant budgets. These expectations from several people who attended Crosetto’s seminar are legitimate because Citigroup have resources to access experts in the field of the technology of Crosetto’s invention that laymen do not have. Experts appointed by Citigroup can ask question to Crosetto and assess the superiority of Crosetto’s approach or pointing out another approach with higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and costs so that many people who want to contribute in a small way to a technology/project that can make a positive difference in the world. Citigroup is announcing on their website to be sensitive, attentive and supportive of projects that foster world’s growth and progress. It should be legitimate to submit innovations proving to achieve Citigroup’s objective and expect a scientific reason accepting or refuting them.

  • 2016 Citigroup THREAT (world of power/money). Ms. Jodi Lang on July 6, 2016, on behalf of Citigroup CEO, Dr. Michael Corbat, Citigroup President, Dr. James Forese and Citigroup Board of Directors threatened Crosetto over the phone to involve the Citigroup Security Team if he sends information about the scientific procedure that identifies the projects that provide the highest return in benefits to humanity for their contribution and information about how his lifesaving invention compares to other projects.

Crosetto immediately asked Citigroup to withdraw the threat. On July 7, 2016 he wrote an email to Ms. Jamie Torres, senior executive assistant for the Citi Chief Information Security Officer, who was involved by Ms. Lang, asking what will be the consequences he will encounter if he did not follow Ms. Lang’s orders. Crosetto requested again to remove the threat publicly on July 20, 2016 in the blog at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1815.  No answer was provided so far.

  • 2016 The Rockefeller Foundation Grant $2,150 rejected (world of power/money). The Rockefeller Foundation rejected a request of a mere amount of $2,150 that would help document in more detail, his inventions.  His request on July 27, 2016 for a $2,150 grant was justified to be within the Mission of the Rockefeller Foundation, answering to the Foundation’s specific questions.

A few hours after submitting his request for a grant for $2,150, Crosetto received the answer from Judith Rodin stating: “…your inquiry has been reviewed by Foundation staff. Unfortunately, at this time, we were not able to consider providing funding.” No reason was provided for the rejection.

The Rockefeller Foundation can compare data in Crosetto’s 2011 book and compare data of Table I between the Explorer and the 3D-CBS and determine in an analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence, the best combination of a device for early cancer detection and the existing cures proven to work when cancer is detected at an early stage. They could also estimate the money this will save on the current annual cancer economic burden of over $1.4 trillion per year that could be used to solve the malnutrition problem in the world, which is stated to be an important objective on the Rockefeller Foundation website.

  • 2016 IEEE NSS-MIC (world of power/money). The role of IEEE, the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity to solve the inconsistencies reported in Crosetto’s Response to the President of IEEE, are essential to implement IEEE Mission they stated on the their website.
  • 2016 IEEE CERN – DOE – NIH – CPRIT – Cancer Organizations – Laymen. Crosetto prepared a 2-page summary and a trifold summarizing his inventions proviing also some example of their benefits to humanity.

It is respectfully requested to investigate why innovations are suppressed, its inventor is threatened to involve security instead of providing scientific and economic REASONS why hundreds of crates of electronics that do not provide powerful tools to save lives and discover new subatomic particles are funded, knowing that the breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions, which have been recognized valuable by a formal, official majors public scientific review, endorsed by many experts in the field, proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries can replace them in one chassis, providing powerful tools to save lives and to discover new subatomic particles at a fraction of the cost.

 

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 *