See the PDF of this document at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5c25sYmh1SnJTa00/view?usp=sharing. Dear Joel Butler, Thank you for your response and for your question.
My goal is to help you and CERN build the most powerful tools to uncover the unknown, beyond the imagination of future science, and create powerful very effective tools for early cancer detection to save millions of lives that are hundreds of times more efficient at identifying cancerous cells than any device currently on the market, requiring 1% radiation of the over 10,000 PET devices (Positron Emission Tomography) currently in use at an affordable examination cost. Because both types of tools are based on particle detection techniques which is your specialized field at CERN, I am respectfully requesting that you, Andy Lankford and Nadia Pastrone organize a public meeting to address my invention for the advancement in particle detection.
What matters in advancing science is to create very powerful tools for experimental physicists that show superiority in performance and cost-effectiveness compared to other approaches so as to advance science. This can be achieved first by providing analytical results and then experimental results that maximize the use of taxpayer money to benefit humanity and not merely the career and power of some physicists. These tools should provide very accurate measurements to confirm the existence of a particle predicted by theoretical physicists or leave very little room for uncertainty in proving its non-existence; they should also provide a means to discover new particles never before predicted. These powerful tools are an advancement in science that also benefit other fields including Medical Imaging for a cost-effective early cancer detection.
What matters, as stated by Nadia Pastrone in a phone call on June 3, 2016, is that if the 3D-Flow OPRA system could save money (and I added: “greatly increases performance”) it should be examined; she added that in our field the substance is important not the formality, which is no reason for leaders in the field to ignore it.
Therefore, we need to look at the evidence of the three pages relative to the 4,000 electronic data processing boards CERN CMS Level-1 Trigger system which show in slide 1 the timetable of the work plan over several years, starting in 1998, of this project, in slide 2 a short description of the installation and maintenance of the system, and in slide 3 the physical layout of the electronics (signed by the author, Wesley Smith) in a room approximately 22m x 16m. All this can be replaced by a single crate 0.5m x 0.8m with 9 electronic boards of the 3D-Flow OPRA system having a much higher performance, described in the 271-page proposal and proven to be feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries. The ER/DSU-16 unit described from page 149 to page 170 of my proposal would be a very important and useful instrumentation that every group developing a Level-1 Trigger system for any HEP experiment should have in their laboratory. The benefit to the experimental physicists is that this $40,000 unit in one VME crate can record and generate data up to 655 GB/sec over 8,192 channels (or a $120,000 ER/DSU-32 at twice the speed per channel), plus $10,000 in cables/probes can replace the functionality of the current LHC Collider and Detector apparatus costing billions of dollars (or for future LHC at higher energy and luminosity). This will allow to test in a controlled environment the efficiency of different Level-1 Trigger systems for CMS, for ATLAS and other HEP experiments. It would also allow the fine-tuning of the real-time algorithms that assures the best filtering of the background noise at high luminosity and extract the interesting events from data arriving at a very high speed.
The substance, as referred to by Pastrone, brings us to analyze the evidence that Smith’s 4,000 electronic data processing boards were replaced on February 26, 2016, with 100 data processing boards, as stated in the article presented at the 2016 IEEE Real-Time Conference in June 2016.
If the new 100 data processing boards were considered to be better than the 4,000 boards to justify their replacement, a proper dialogue/discussion on the substance could have avoided this huge difference in cost between a 4,000-board Trigger system version and a 100-board Trigger system.
We cannot change history but we can change the future.
It is not important when my 45-page peer-reviewed 3D-Flow article was published if today it is still the best technology (My article describing the basic 3D-Flow architecture for Level-1 -or Level-0- Trigger in High Energy Physics -HEP- experiments was published in 1999 on Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A Vol. 436 – 1999- pp.341-385). As you and Andy Lankford are aware from your letters in 1993 and 1995, my 3D-Flow system can execute several level-1 Trigger algorithms of different experiments.
As quite some time has passed since you have had the opportunity to consider my advances in this field, I would welcome the opportunity to present my new 3D-Flow OPRA invention at the CERN auditorium, in an open, public seminar inviting all experts in the field similar to the one you organized at Fermilab for my basic 3D-Flow invention on December 14, 1993. There, anyone who believes they have a more cost-effective Level-1 Trigger may express their objections so we can discuss which architectural approach and implementation are most advantageous. So that I can prepare a thoughtful response, I would be interested in any reference to alternative Level-1 Trigger systems currently used in any experiment or under design, including the ROI Level-1 Trigger for ATLAS and the ones planned for any future experiment that can execute several Level-1 Trigger algorithms of different experiments and that you believe have advantages over the 3D-Flow OPRA. These do not have to be only from peer-reviewed articles but from any document, slide, video, email, etc. I believe that I have the knowledge to understand the substance of the advantages or the limits of alternative Level-1 Trigger systems compared to my 3D-Flow OPRA system. If I do not understand some features in the material you provide I will ask for an explanation from the author.
This will ensure that the discussion on my 3D-Flow OPRA invention anticipated by CERN Director General will maximize the benefits to taxpayers. It would also satisfy what Nadia Pastrone told me on the phone on June 3, 2016, that if my 3D-Flow OPRA system could save money (and I am adding “it also greatly increases performance”), it should be examined …looking at the substance and not the formality.
A proper dialogue/discussion on the substance examining in detail my 3D-Flow OPRA system in 9 electronic data processing boards would prove a huge cost-saving compared to the CMS 4,000 electronic data processing boards and to the new CMS 100 electronic boards. It would provide a staggering performance improvement to the Atlas first level (L1) Trigger by providing an Object Pattern Recognition capability at 40 MHz on all data instead of using the current Region Of Interest (ROI) approach based on the information received from dedicated hardware making use of analog sums of calorimeter signals formed on the detector and of signals of dedicated muon trigger chambers (RPCs and TGCs). Consequently, current event selection at the ATLAS experiment is only possible on the basis of energy depositions in the calorimeters and of muon track segments. My 3D-Flow OPRA would also prove a staggering performance improvement compared to the current CERN CMS and ATLAS Level-1 Triggers and the ones planned for future upgrades to cope with higher luminosity at LHC that were presented at the most recent 2016 IEEE-NSS conference in November in Strasbourg, France.
If after examining my 3D-Flow OPRA system, no one can disprove its feasibility documented in detail in the 271-page proposal and 59 quotes from reputable industries and no one can refute my explanations and calculations proving the staggering performance advantages at a fraction of the cost in an oral presentation where I have the opportunity to answer specific questions, the arbitration of a disagreement on analytical results should be placed on experimental results and not on the opinion of scientists, even those holding over 700 peer-reviewed publications with high impact factor.
Any disagreements on analytical results should find scientists agreeing on experimental results using a ER/DSU-16 unit described on pages 149 to 170 of the proposal, to record for a few seconds raw data from the LHC-Detector apparatus and play them back in a controlled environment to the 3D-Flow OPRA Level-1 Trigger system, CMS, Atlas or several other Trigger systems to see which system is more effective (selecting events on the basis of energy deposition in the calorimeter or on the basis of Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms -OPRA?). The challenge is not only capturing events satisfying specific characteristics defined by physicists, but also filtering the background noise at high luminosity. If no theoretical objections can be found, a test in hardware should be the ultimate judge of the 3D-Flow OPRA capabilities.
Addressing this issue in particle physics will bring benefits in other fields such as medical imaging with the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technology that makes use of the 3D-Flow OPRA to increase the efficiency of current PET by hundreds of times, reducing radiation to the patient, reducing the examination cost and healthcare costs with the potential to save millions of lives through an effective early cancer detection.
Similarly, any disagreement on analytical results reviewing the 3D-CBS in another location with experts in medical imaging, from universities, hospitals and industry should find scientists agreeing on experimental results with a scientific procedure that should be fair to any other approach claiming reduction of cancer deaths. This procedure should first ask authors/inventors/researchers 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 their proposed solution 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 would quantify the success or failure of the proposed solution. Also in this case, the judge of the 3D-CBS must ultimately be the experimental results.
Besides the advantages of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention in lowering the cost of HEP experiments and providing higher performance, its application in the 3D-CBS has the potential to save over 50% of cancer deaths and reduce healthcare costs, with a cost-effective early detection, therefore addressing the issue of the improvement in particle physics with my inventions becomes extremely urgent.
Thank you for your consideration and for a prompt reply
- See Appendix for a more detailed answer to your question on peer-reviewed scientific journals
Table of Contents
- What is important is the substance and not the formality. 5
- I have done my best to serve the scientific community despite the conspiracy from the influential people in the field to suppress the scientific truth regarding the advantages and benefits of my inventions to humanity. 6
- I have done my best to serve the funding agencies to maximize the return for taxpayers and donation money to the public despite the fact that during the previous decades they have not requested transparency from scientists evaluating my project/idea who have suppressed the scientific truth regarding the advantages and benefits of my inventions to humanity. 8
- Some facts and events which occurred in 1999 that can explain the turn of events in suppressing the scientific truth regarding the advantages and benefits of my inventions to humanity. 10
1) The interests of influential scientists to control the use of taxpayer money assigned for research into the billion-dollar, world’s largest experiments in High Energy Physics and other interests triggered the suppression of my inventions and the scientific truth. 10
2) The interest from influential people who have created a market for an existing medical imaging device (PET) to mainly serve the pharmaceutical companies (to monitor the effect of their drugs) and other interests triggered the suppression of my inventions of a device for early cancer detection requiring low radiation dose and low examination cost to save lives and reduce healthcare costs. 11
- Events in1999 that started the suppression of the publication of my articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals which are considered a forum for expressing different approaches in this specific field used to decide which research receives funding with taxpayer money. 12
- Events in 2001 that started the suppression of the presentation of my inventions at conferences which are considered a forum for expressing different approaches in this specific field used to decide which research will be funded with taxpayer money. 12
- On behalf of taxpayers, donors and cancer patients who can benefit from my inventions, I respectfully submit a plea to you, Joel Butler, Andy Lankford and Nadia Pastrone to allow me to present my inventions at the CERN auditorium, and organize a follow up public scientific review by top experts in particle physics who would provide any opposition to my invention or reference other projects they believe more cost-effective. In the event of a disagreement, let experimental results using real LHC data sent to the Level-1 Trigger unit under test from an ER/DSU unit be the judge. 14
This introduction addresses the issue (in light of Pastrone’s statement) that in our field what is important is the substance and not the formality. I will also address specifically your question regarding the peer-reviewed scientific journals.
It is not an allegation or a limited accident by one reviewer or by one influential person in the field as there have been many who have rejected, obstructed, and suppressed my inventions. There are facts, testimonials that clearly prove a decisive turning point in the year 1999 which show a conspiracy by influential people in the scientific community that is not justified by scientific arguments. It was then the pattern of acceptance of my research and inventions changed after my 45-page article was approved for publication following a peer-review by one of the most prestigious scientific journals, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. Not only were peer-reviewed articles rejected but also papers presented at conferences in the field.
I submitted several valuable scientific contributions after 1999 including the last three papers submitted to the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in 2016. The paper submitted to the 2016 IEEE-NSS (Nuclear Science Symposium) summarizes in three figures, in two pages my entire project and how it compares to existing approaches providing a staggering performance improvement at 1/1000 the cost. However, they were all rejected and my point-to-point rebuttal proving the arguments made to reject my papers were not scientific did not reverse the opinion of the anonymous reviewers who rejected them. I spoke with all chairmen of the conference, including the two Presidents (ending in 2016 and starting in 2017) of the IEEE-NPSS, and no one could support the rejection claims of the anonymous reviewers, no one could deny that my rebuttal was appropriate and clearly answered the reviewers’ objections, but no one claimed to have the authority and responsibility to reverse the non-scientific, unsubstantiated opinions of the anonymous reviewers and I was prevented from presenting my papers at an official session of the conference, and my work was not included in the proceedings of the conference record.
The quality of my research work was not less valuable after 1999 compared to before when I had several articles accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences in the specific field, but instead it always improved, becoming more compelling and valuable, supported by many scientists, by General Chairmen of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences, by CERN Director of Research, by CERN Division leaders, CERN group leaders, by Brookhaven National Laboratory, supported by proofs of concept of my inventions tested to be functional in hardware and described in detail in five books, some technical-scientific, and others, including videos with a simpler language to explain the innovative concepts and their benefits to a larger audience. See the summary of my work from 1992 to 2013 in the poster and 32-page article presented at the 2013 IEEE-RTSD conference in Seoul, South Korea.
During the past two decades, no one could deny with scientific arguments the advantages of my inventions, my research work and their superiority compared to other approaches. They received the endorsement of top scientific experts in the field (see links to a few full letters). One invention, the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete body Screening which is based on the 3D-Flow architecture) received the Leonardo da Vinci Prize for the most efficient solution in particle detection for early cancer diagnosis. This open competition was advertised with several Press Releases by Business Wire to over 6,000 media outlets and was held at the University of Pavia, Italy, between January and June 2011. It implemented a transparent scientific procedure in defining the rules of the competition and examining the different projects in a public session streamed in real-time on the internet with simultaneous translation into English and Italian.
A. I have done my best to serve the scientific community despite the conspiracy from the influential people in the field to suppress the scientific truth regarding the advantages and benefits of my inventions to humanity
I spent great effort for more than two decades to inform the scientific community about my invention that was officially, formally approved and found valuable at a major international public scientific review held at Fermilab in 1993. In the following, as an example, I am providing an excerpt of six months in 2008 out of the 23 years of effort to inform the scientific community of my inventions. Overall, I am comparing my approach to other approaches in particle detection for the advancement in science and other fields such as early cancer detection. My invention can drastically reduce to 1% the radiation received by the patient during PET examinations and provide an unprecedented early cancer detection at an affordable examination cost:
- On 03/27/2008, following a request by Prof. Antonio Zichichi, Director of the World Laboratory in Erice, Italy, I had a long meeting at CERN with the former CERN Director of Research, Horst Wenninger, and his experts who evaluated my work. They found my inventions and research work valuable, asked for a copy of my technical-scientific book “400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” to be included in the CERN library and after subsequent email exchanges, prof. Zichichi invited me to give a presentation at the International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies in Erice, fully covering all expenses for a week, including travel from Dallas, Texas.
- On 04/29/2008, I gave a presentation in Toronto, Canada, to physicians, radiologists, experts from industry, including the Director of General Electric for medical devices in Canada.
- On 05/07/2008, I gave a seminar at the radiology department of Southwestern Medical Center, the largest hospital in Dallas.
- On 06/23/2008 an international public scientific review of my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention was held at the Order of Physicians in Rome, Italy. Members of the review panel included physicians form Italy and Canada, a pathologist from the Institute of Tumor in Milan, a physicist from Canada, entrepreneurs from Canada and the U.S., and a member of the Superior Institute of Health of Italy. All presentations, discussions, questions and answers lasted one day, with simultaneous translation into English and Italian and streamed on the internet in real-time. Members of the panel filled out a questionnaire. The results from the questionnaire were positive and showed that they found my claims of a staggering improvement of the efficiency of current PET to be sound and feasible, and recognized the 3D-CBS as a valuable invention that would greatly benefit humanity.
- On 08/23/2008, I gave a seminar in Erice, Italy, before Nobel Laureates and World Leaders at the International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies. My presentation was published in the proceedings of the event in World Scientific (not peer-reviewed by anonymous reviewers).
- On 08/25/2008, I gave a seminar at the Radiology Department of the hospital Regina Elena in Rome, Italy.
- On 08/26/2008, I gave a seminar from the CMS conference room at CERN, also broadcast on the internet via an EVO system. This was the result of the planned public forum that the General Chairman of the 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC attempted to organize, but all influential people in the field that he contacted refused the public forum. None of the Trigger leaders of the major experiments at CERN attended my seminar. The next day I visit them in their offices, including Wesley Smith. I showed my modular IBM PC board with 68 x 3D-Flow processors. None of them could refute that my 3D-Flow architecture could execute programmable Level-1 Trigger algorithms of different experiments; however, they were not interested.
- On 08/29/2008, I gave a seminar at the Radiology Department of the Istituto Tumori in Milan, Italy, which was well received and appreciated by the experts.
- On 09/03/2008, I gave a seminar followed by a discussion at the hospital S. Maria in Reggio Emilia before the President of Nuclear Medical Physics for Italy and other experts in the field, including Gianni Borasi. After my seminar, the discussion triggered an 18-page article on my 3D-CBS invention with 184 references on the subject by Gianni Borasi that was published in the February 2009 issue of the Journal “Notiziario di Medicina Nucleare ed Imaging Molecolare”. I replied point-by-point to Borasi’s article with 58 references of my work. This generated another 43-page article reporting our discussion that was published in the May 2009 issue of the same journal. Following this discussion, Borasi, with the President of Nuclear medicine in Italy and other colleagues published an article in 2010 that gave an overview of all existing PET systems in the European Journal of Nuclear Molecular Imaging (March 26, 2010) 37:1629-1632 which stated on page 1630: «The first proposal for a truly “total-body” PET system (120–160 cm AFOV) came from an Italian physicist, Crosetto » citing my article presented at the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Lyon (France) in 2000. However, in 2015 the National Institute of Health assigned $15.5 million to the authors of the project Explorer which is a PET with a long field of view, but less efficient and more than ten times as expensive as my 3D-CBS. Furthermore, some authors of the Explorer have been rejecting my articles on the 3D-CBS and now several of my ideas that they rejected have been copied by them and are used by them to describe the advantages to receive the $15.5 million grant, including copying the analogy that I used on the cover of my technical-scientific book first published in 2000. A public presentation and review at CERN will also inform the scientific community and people like Marco Pizzichemi who works on the CERN project Crystal Clear, and wrote in 2016 an article entitled: “Positron Emission Tomography: state of the art and future developments”, making an overview in the field of PET similar to the one made by Borasi in 2010 without mentioning any of my articles or books. He refers to the “block detector” of other authors, but no word on the 3×3, 4×4, 5×5 clustering of my 3D-CBS approach that provides better accuracy in calculating the photon’s total energy which is useful for rejecting scattering and reducing false positives and responsible for making the “bloc detector approach” obsolete. Pizzichemi does not mention my “first proposal for a truly ‘total body’ PET with a long field of view”, nor has he grasped that my 3D-CBS is the first design to make a change in molecular imaging because it can achieve all three objectives at once: a) ultra-high sensitivity, b) low radiation to the patient, and c) a low examination cost.
- On 09/04/2008, I was invited by Prof. Tirelli and Prof. Grigoletto to give a seminar at the Hospital CRO in Aviano, Italy.
This six-month period in 2008 is representative of more than two decades of my efforts to make the scientific truth prevail for the benefit of humanity. The rate of approval of my inventions is witnessed in the video-recording, approved by the audience, of all the above presentations.
Besides the acclaims and endorsements of my inventions in testimonial letters by top experts in the field and those who care about transparency for maximizing advancement in science and reducing cancer deaths, in the videos you will see the acclaims, endorsements and enthusiasm directly expressed by several professionals after hearing my presentations. No one during my presentations could provide references to any other projects or approaches in physics or medical imaging with higher performance or more cost-effective; however, funding continues to go to other projects and anonymous reviewers continue to reject my papers, even just for presentation at conferences in the specific field of high energy physics and medical imaging such as IEEE-NSS-MIC.
I had several articles and presentations approved during the past decades in other conferences and journals that are not peer-reviewed by anonymous reviewers who handle taxpayer money and decide the direction research should take. Besides the invitation in 2008 to give a seminar at the Planetary Emergencies at the E. Majorana Center in Erice, I was invited to be session keynote speaker at the 2015 conference on Energy Challenges and Mechanics. I presented my research at the ICATPP conferences in 2003, 2005, and 2007, and my contributions were published in the proceedings by World Scientific. I presented at several other conferences (e.g.: “Physics for Health”); however, when I submitted many years to the IEEE-NSS-MIC, considered a forum of different approaches in this specific field used to decide which research receives funding , it wasn’t until 2003 when Ralph James was general chairman that all my three of papers were approved, and again in 2013 when he was chairman of the IEEE-RTSD conference, while my other two papers submitted to IEEE-NSS-MIC were rejected as in previous years.
1999 marked the year when none of my peer-reviewed articles were approved by anonymous reviewers; 2001 marked the year when my papers to IEEE-NSS-MIC were all rejected with the exception in 2003 and 2013 when Ralph James was Chairman. However, in 2008, the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference, Uwe Bratzler, who supported my work, was not able to receive a reason from his reviewers for rejecting of my papers.
1999 and 2001 marked the years when my papers were boycotted by the conference which is considered a forum of different approaches in this specific field to be used to decide which research will be funded with taxpayer money. At that time any funding from all sources stopped. Before 1999, I received $1 million from the department of Energy and a grant from the Department of Defense; after 1999 all my submissions for funding were rejected.
I have used all the tools made available by scientific institutions and government agencies to guarantee fairness and the proper conduct of their agents, all to no avail. With IEEE, for example, I explained the inconsistencies with science in face-to-face meetings with chairmen of the conferences and also with leaders in the field, including an almost two-hour meeting with two presidents of IEEE-NPSS (one ending in 2016 and the other starting in 2017) in Strasbourg on November 5, 2016. I have talked on the phone with top scientific leaders and leaders at government funding agencies responsible for handling taxpayer money to maximize benefits. I correspond with them and explained the rejection of my papers and the funding of anonymous reviewers who were inconsistent with science when they stated that my 3D-Flow architecture is flawed. I have shown that it is not flawed with a simple explanation that a high school student would understand. I have simulated and proven that my 3D-Flow chip with four processors is functional in hardware in 2001 in two large FPGA and in 2003 I have proven in two modular electronic boards, each with 68 processors implemented in FPGA that a 3D-Flow system for detectors of any size is feasible. I have responded in writing to the rejection of the last three papers submitted to the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTDS conference in 2016 by proving how the anonymous reviewers’ rejections were non-scientific and flawed.
I have used the accountability tools made available by the government funding agencies to assure proper conduct of their agent in pursuing the publicly declared objectives of their institution in a one-on-one meeting with DOE and with NIH, and I used other tools provided by the agencies such as Appeals, submission of a formal complaint to the DOE Inspector General describing clearly the contradictory and self-incriminating eight-line email of a DOE employee who refers to non-existent rules and laws among other things, and contradicting at the end of a sentence what the DOE employee stated at the beginning of a sentence, or in the lines before. Seven months after my enquiry to the DOE Inspector General I still have not received a response, while my appeal to the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) report confirming that important scientific documents regarding my inventions have been suppressed at the DOE. All these inconsistencies can be fixed by making the scientific truth prevail in an open, transparent public discussion where scientists cannot hide behind anonymity but take responsibility for their statements and actions instead of putting in difficulty the institutions, damaging their colleagues and denigrating the integrity of the entire category of scientists, putting at risk their public trust.
B. I have done my best to serve the funding agencies to maximize the return for taxpayers and donation money to the public despite the fact that during the previous decades they have not requested transparency from scientists evaluating my project/idea who have suppressed the scientific truth regarding the advantages and benefits of my inventions to humanity
Following is a list of some rejections for funding I encountered after 1999 which marked a turning point since the $1 million and $100,000 grant received before 1999.
- 1995-2003 Ten $100,000 grants were rejected for nine years when NIH rejected all my proposals. I 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 my basic 3D-Flow invention held on December 14, 1993, at FERMILAB. The answer received from NIH executives, directors and employees to me or anyone enquiring on my behalf was 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. 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 me during the past decades.
- 2003 Several NSF-DOE-NIH $100,000 grants were rejected. 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 all rejected funding my $100,000 proposals to build the proof of concept of the 3D-Flow system in two modular boards, each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors implemented in FPGA hardware or denied funding any other component of the advanced PET system such as A/D and DAQ boards. Therefore, I spent my own money to prove that my 3D-Flow system architecture invention was feasible and functional in FPGA hardware.
- 2009 CPRIT (Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas) rejected a $4 M grant. Despite CPRIT CEO’s promise that my proposal would receive rigorous scientific review, it was extremely disappointing as well as heartbreaking when I was notified that my 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.
- 2013 Fondazione San Paolo Grant for $2,500 was rejected. 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 my 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 for $147,852 was rejected. I was introduced to WOKC (Wipe Out Kids Cancer) by a cancer survivor who was affected as a child and who encouraged me to submit a proposal. Then on December 11, 2014, I received an email from their CEO rejecting the grant without giving any reason.
- 2015 CRS-Italy 3D-CBS Grant for 3,000 Euro was rejected. I submitted a proposal to the Cassa di Risparmio di Savigliano (the bank at the village where I was born) for 3000 Euros and it was rejected whereas in the past the same bank approved grants for my initiative on the cultural exchange between Texas and my native town in Italy.
- 2016 The Rockefeller Foundation 3D-CBS Grant for $2,150 was rejected in less than 24 hours from submission.
A public scientific review at the most important research center in the world in particle physics will put an end to the 1999 turn of events of blocking the approval of my papers from any peer-review article in scientific journals or presentations at conferences which are considered a forum of different approaches in this specific field to be used to decide which research will be funded with taxpayer money and consequently blocking the funding from agencies. My peer-reviewed articles and papers to conferences would not be blocked by non-scientific, unsubstantiated opinions by anonymous reviewers who claim that my 3D-Flow architecture is flawed (in fact it has been proven sound and feasible in hardware), or the non-scientific rejection claims of my three papers submitted at IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conferences in 2016, in 2014, the two submitted in 2013, the five submitted in 2008, in 2007 (Eric Frey), … in 2002, 1999, etc., because this public forum from the most prestigious research center in the world could put an end to this conspiracy and allow me to answer the opponents of my invention and those who do not believe my inventions to be sound, feasible and cost-effective for CERN or elsewhere.
I have facts to prove that even after three reviewers appointed by senior scientists at IEEE agreed for my paper to be published in the peer-reviewed journal Transaction in Nuclear Science (see below), the paper was not published because two anonymous reviewers claimed the 3D-Flow architecture was flawed and the IEEE editor was unable to reverse this false statement. And despite my satisfactory rebuttal to the reviewers’ rejection claims of my papers submitted to IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD in 2016 and 2014, and after discussing them with the chairmen of the conferences and even the two Presidents of IEEE-NPSS, and not receiving any scientific support for the rejection claims of the anonymous reviewers, no one claimed to have the authority and the responsibility to reverse the non-scientific claims of the anonymous reviewers.
At this point, what needs to be done to explain the reason of the calculated, coordinated effort by the scientific community to undermine my work and inventions is to analyze facts that can explain this. What happened in the field of High Energy Physics and in the field of Medical Imaging around the year 1999?
Here are some facts to help answer this question, however, a deeper investigation is required.
C. Some facts and events which occurred in 1999 that can explain the turn of events in suppressing the scientific truth regarding the advantages and benefits of my inventions to humanity
Among many, two different events occurred around this time: one relating to the field of research to fund billion dollar experiments in High Energy Physics, and the other to start a new market for Positron Emission Tomography medical imaging devices for which the U.S. legislation agreed to approve the reimbursement of the examination costs, which helps to create a new business.
In the following I address in separate sections these events; however, an investigation could reveal more facts and reasons why my inventions were suppressed in both cases.
1) The interests of influential scientists to control the use of taxpayer money assigned for research into the billion-dollar, world’s largest experiments in High Energy Physics and other interests triggered the suppression of my inventions and the scientific truth
My 3D-Flow breakthrough invention which breaks the speed barrier in real-time applications received recognition in a formal, official, public, scientific review held at Fermilab on December 14, 1993.
On January 31, 1994, this recognition and approval was stated in an official written report and I received $150,000 and an extension of my employment of nine months during the closeout phase of the Superconducting, Super Collider to document my invention so that it could reopen when funds would become available for other HEP projects. In 1995, I received a $1 million grant to continue the development of my invention which I developed to the phase of sending the RTL files to the silicon foundry that would manufacture the 3D-Flow ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit).
With the million dollar grant, I also developed several software tools (system simulator, ASIC simulator, processor simulator, editor, assembler of the 3D-Flow programs, test vector generator at system level and RTL level, etc.).
I published a 45-page peer review article detailing the construction of any Level-1 Trigger system for detectors of any size, using a modular 3D-Flow, technology independent implementation satisfying the need of the most stringent requirements of experimental physicists in executing complex, programmable Level-1 Trigger algorithms. As an example, a programmable Level-1 Trigger system for CMS or ATLAS would require six 9U VME crates.
At the same time, CMS and ATLAS designed and published their implementation of the level-1 Trigger system which could not offer the same programmability and low cost as my 3D-Flow system could.
The planning of the CMS Level-1 Trigger system is reported in the timeline published on page 589 of CERN/LHC 2000-38, CMS TDR 6.1, on December 15, 2000. The timeline shows the project starting in 199 and ending in 2005. However, it took more than ten years, ended up producing 4,000 electronic data processing boards, housed in hundreds of crates, costing over $100 million which were trashed on February 26, 2016, and replaced by 100 data processing boards.
It is understandable that if my invention was not suppressed and an analytical study and a comparison was made between the 4,000 CMS data processing boards costing over $100 million and my 3D-Flow system that in 1994 could have been built in a cylinder 1.8m tall x 1m in diameter, and in 1999 in six 9U VME crates with much higher performance, then the 4,000 CMS data processing boards would have been difficult to justify.
This explains why Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp, co-chairmen at the Workshop on Electronics for LHC experiments held in 1999 in Snowmass, Colorado, prevented me from presenting my invention and why my article submitted to IEEE-TNS in 1999 for peer-review, although three reviewers were in favor and two anonymous reviewers were not, never was published and thereafter not even my papers for presentations to IEEE-NSS-MIC Conferences were accepted.
While Wesley Smith and his colleagues were preparing and implementing the timeline for the development of the CERN CMS Level-1 Trigger from 1998 to 2005, it got extended for several years bringing the cost just for the personnel to over $100 million. To this we must add the cost of the development and manufacturing of the 4,000 boards, crates, racks, power supplies, etc., I had a major 45-page article of my invention/project accepted for publication on April 1999, less than one month after submission with no request of content modification by the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nuclear Instrument and Methods in Physics Research. It is rare to find a 45-page article by a single author approved by such a prestigious scientific journal.
The leaders in the field of managing taxpayer money for the advancement of science instead of addressing in a proper dialogue/discussion on the substance of my article and invention in a public forum to rebut my analytical results with calculations and scientific evidence, boycotted, suppressed and ignored all my subsequent articles and requests for funding. The exception to this was a few chairmen of IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conferences such as Ralph James who approved the presentation of my articles in the conference when he was chairman. This happened not only in the field of application for experiments in High Energy Physics but also in Medical Imaging. There is a long list of facts, actions and testimonials substantiating this statement. Another example is the applications to Medical Imaging. For example, after Joel Karp, General Chairman of the 2002 IEEE-MIC conference rejected all my papers on the 3D-CBS in 2002, he applied for a grant with his colleagues to NIH and received $15.5 million for the Explorer project making many of the same claims that he had rejected in my application.
2) The interest from influential people who have created a market for an existing medical imaging device (PET) to mainly serve the pharmaceutical companies (to monitor the effect of their drugs) and other interests triggered the suppression of my inventions of a device for early cancer detection requiring low radiation dose and low examination cost to save lives and reduce healthcare costs
In 1998, Michael Phelps received the Enrico Fermi award “For his invention of the Positron Emission Tomography (PET)…” . This turned out not to be true because it was invented by Gordon Brownell from Massachusetts General Hospital in 1953 when Michael Phelps was 11 years old. However, this award served Phelps, his colleagues and business partners to receive funding and create a new market for a PET with a short Field of View that would mainly serve the pharmaceutical companies to provide information on the effect of their drugs to shrink the tumor, which later proved these drugs were not saving lives because the tumor was developing resistance to the drug and new types of tumors were developed.
The website of UCLA University where is working Michael Phelps, despite he did not invent the PET states the following “Priest, boxer, scientist … Michael Phelps tried them all before settling on the field of medicine. And the world is lucky he did. Phelps invented the positron emission tomography (PET) scanner…” The chemist Michael Phelps had some chemistry with his friend Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, chair of the appropriations committee that controls CMS’s purse strings. This explains that the current PET market was not created by “Phelps’ invention” but by what the article on the Washington Post is reporting.
There is much more to this, but I will stop here.
D. Events in1999 that started the suppression of the publication of my articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals which are considered a forum for expressing different approaches in this specific field used to decide which research receives funding with taxpayer money
Rather than defend the superiority of their trigger system with calculations and scientific arguments, or being open to adopting new ideas that would benefit their collaboration, the advancement in science and humanity, Wesley Smith and his colleagues suppressed my new ideas treating me as a competitor. Chairman Wesley Smith and Co-chairman Peter Sharp, prohibited me from attending and presenting my innovation for the Level-1 Trigger at the Workshop on Electronics for LHC Experiments at Snowmass, Colorado, in 1999, after I arrived. This was a few months after my 45-page major article had been approved by a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
A few colleagues told me to write clearly in a paper the differences and advantages of my approach compared to Smith’s approach. I submitted a paper to IEEE-TNS, Transaction on Nuclear Science in 1999, pointing out in Figure 6 some specific advantages of my Level-1 Trigger compared to the CMS Level-1 Trigger implementation shown in Figure 5. Despite the intervention of Aaron Brill, a Senior IEEE scientist, who asked for an open review of my TNS article, the IEEE anonymous reviewers prevented its publication. Les Rogers, a physics professor and recipient of an award at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon, France, was appointed by Aaron Brill to review my article. He had difficulty at first understanding the basic concept as can be seen in our conspicuous email exchange. He referred to classical pipelining and other architectures, but after he expressed his viewpoint, I was able to point out the difference between my invention and his viewpoint and then progress was made in understanding my innovations. Please consider the following documentation of this exchange:
At the end of the review process qualified reviewers were in favor of publishing my 8-page TNS article. I was able to clarify senior IEEE scientist Les Rogers’s misconception regarding my invention, starting with his view point. Our email correspondence enabled Les Rogers to make progress in understanding my innovations. However, despite three reviewers accepted my paper for publication, my paper was never published because two anonymous reviewers claimed that my 3D-Flow concept was flawed.
E. Events in 2001 that started the suppression of the presentation of my inventions at conferences which are considered a forum for expressing different approaches in this specific field used to decide which research will be funded with taxpayer money
The suppression of my innovations was even harsher than suppressing my articles with peer-review. All my papers were also rejected from presentations at conferences with the exception of when Ralph James was General Chairman as already mentioned, Uwe Bratzler, General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD in 2008, encouraged me to resubmit my abstracts and tried to organize a public forum to discuss my invention but he was unable to receive a reason for the rejection of my papers and all the people he contacted refused a public forum to discuss my invention compared to other approaches.
To inform the scientific community about the lost opportunities for the advancement in science, reduce the cost of HEP experiments with my 3D-Flow invention and saving many lives and reducing healthcare costs with an effective early cancer detection with my 3D-CBS invention, when Ralph James approved my paper at the 2013 IEEE-RTSD Conference in Seoul, South Korea (my other two papers to IEEE-NSS-MIC were rejected in the previous years), I prepared a poster, which was associated to a 32-page article, summarizing my work during the past twenty years. I provided a list of documents, the references to five books explaining my inventions and the main submission of articles, and requests for grants during the past twenty years. The poster presented my inventions/work in a timeline form and the article presented in a tables the milestones of my inventions, the advantages when compared to alternative approaches in High Energy Physics and in Medical Imaging for PET and how they were ignored or suppressed. The content of this poster and article continued to be ignored, my papers and funding continued to be rejected without providing scientific arguments and less efficient and more costly approaches continued to be funded.
Herein I just mentioned the rejection of the most recent years 2014 and 2016.
At the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference, I proposed with other colleagues two workshops where young scientists, PhD students and senior scientists could present their ideas and question each other publicly. The two Chairmen of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences rejected our workshops refusing this open, public analytical, scientific discussion. The title of the workshop submitted on May 2, 2014 was: “How does your project/idea/invention compare to other projects in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?” (see full submission of the workshop at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5Z0p5Ni1xWEhmaUU/edit?usp=sharing).
All my papers submitted to the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference were again rejected as for the previous years.
One of the reviewers of my paper stated: “This is one of those topics ‘that won’t go away’. I would like to hear a discussion about this to ‘once for all’ settle the question raised – is this approach any good?” The public review at CERN of my invention would also satisfy the request of this reviewer.
Another reviewer the same year stated: “There are a lot of future outstanding goals without clearly say where it is the idea turning point [sic] with respect to more traditional real time trigger and daq.” Also this is not true, because I have described my invention in many details in books, documents, articles, given many seminars, presented in video available on the web, built the proof of concept in hardware in two modular electronic boards, each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors implemented in FPGA.
In 2016, all my papers submitted to the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD were rejected again with non-scientific arguments. Below are a few comments from the reviewers for rejecting my papers and my short answer. However, I provided more detailed answers that I discussed with several leaders and chairmen of the conference and in an almost two-hour meeting on November 5, 2016, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Strasbourg with the acting President of IEEE-NPSS, John Verboncoeur, and the newly elected 2017 President, Stefan Ritt, and not one of them could make sense of or support the rejection claims, but rather found my explanations pertinent, and exhaustive.
One reviewer, 20 years after my invention was endorsed by many scientists, and found valuable during a major formal scientific review that recognized its advantages compared to other approaches wrote: “I do not understand how 3D flow differs from various standard network topologies currently used in HEP …”
My answer is written in the next paragraph; however, perhaps my answer never reached the anonymous reviewer and next year I may receive similar rejection comments. A public scientific review will give me the opportunity to answer directly all opponents and all critics, and then if they should still have any doubts, we could mutually agree to setup an experiment where the results would settle the disagreements. Here is my answer:
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).
Another comment from reviewers rejecting my paper: “The architecture seems like a standard parallel algorithm, with pipes that feed multiple CPU’s – so I’m missing the innovation here.”
My short answer:
“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.”
II. On behalf of taxpayers, donors and cancer patients who can benefit from my inventions, I respectfully submit a plea to you, Joel Butler, Andy Lankford and Nadia Pastrone to allow me to present my inventions at the CERN auditorium, and organize a follow up public scientific review by top experts in particle physics who would provide any opposition to my invention or reference other projects they believe more cost-effective. In the event of a disagreement, let experimental results using real LHC data sent to the Level-1 Trigger unit under test from an ER/DSU unit be the judge
Transparency in science that would address scientifically, responsibly and fairly my innovations that could have already benefitted humanity in many fields is long overdue. The funding of my inventions is long overdue. The benefits to taxpayers from my inventions are long overdue. The needless lives lost that could be saved with my inventions are already too many.
The fear that revealing wrong doing or some mistakes among some leaders in science, within some institution such as CERN could lose public trust therefore one should cover them up, is a flawed concept because sooner or later mistakes in science will be revealed after they fill the history books not only with mistakes, but far worse with deliberate suppression of innovations that prove such mistakes.
CERN survived the scandal in 2011 when Antonio Ereditato, Spokesperson of OPRA experiment measured the neutrino travelling faster than the speed of light (See my letter to Ereditato answering to his appeal for help to understand what he did wrong and my explanation about the faulty conceptual design of the measurement of the speed of the neutrino). Instead of covering up and suppressing those who claimed that OPRA experiment was not performing accurate measurements (as it was published in the CERN bulletin), CERN chose transparency, and those who made the mistake resigned and CERN came out with a stronger trust from the public because it supported the scientific truth and not some leader who made a mistake.
This is the time to act in a similar way and …let science happen! (And let the people who made the mistake take responsibility like in the case of Antonio Ereditato and not defending them)
My basic 3D-Flow invention was recognized valuable from a major formal, official, public, scientific review on December 14, 1993, by experts from academia, industry and research centers. After that recognition, funding went to other less efficient and more costly approaches.
Year after year, opponents were telling me that my 3D-Flow invention was too old, that new technology had evolved and it was obsolete; however, they never wanted to look at the details which showed that my inventions had always been superior to other approaches in offering higher efficiency at a lower cost and they could never provide any reference to a more cost-effective approach. The only reason why my inventions were not funded is because influential people had access to the funding and I did not, and influential scientists were not ethical in following scientific procedures to make the scientific truth emerge.
In the field of High Energy Physics:
- In 1994, I could build a programmable Level-1 Trigger in a cylinder 1m tall x 1.8m in diameter with a 3D-Flow processor speed at 60 MHz. (See at page 106-109 of the proposal).
- In 1999, I could build a programmable Level-1 Trigger in six 9U VME crates with a 3D-Flow processor speed at approximately 120 MHz. (See at page 114 of the proposal).
- In 2015, I could build a programmable Level-1 Trigger in one VXI crate with 9 electronic boards with a processor speed of 400 MHz, offering a staggering performance at 1/1000 the cost of the CMS 4000 electronic data processing boards accommodated in hundreds of crates. (See the summary of the paper submitted at the 2016 IEEE-NSS Conference, which summarizes in two pages the 217-page proposal).
In the field of medical imaging:
- In 2000, I could build the 3D-CBS, hundreds of times more efficient than the over 3,000 PET devices operating in the hospitals and clinics. I detailed the project in a 225-page book distributed for free to the leaders in the field at the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon, France, where I also presented two articles. I submitted ten proposals, each for $100,000 to NIH in 9 years. I submitted proposals to 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. All were rejected with the request to improve PET spatial resolution and not sensitivity, to keep the FOV short to reduce the cost of the device and not the cost of the examination, etc.
- In 2015, I could build an improved 3D-CBS making use of the new 3D-Flow OPRA that is more efficient than the Explorer and ten times less expensive. The same authors of the Explorer who rejected my papers for presentation at the conferences, claiming that a 3D-CBS with long FOV is not viable, copied many of my ideas, submitted a PET/Explorer with a 2-meter FOV and assigned NIH taxpayer funding among themselves of $15.5 million. However, the Explorer does not have the capability to save many lives, while the 3D-CBS does.
In order to provide additional performance, I had to come up with several new inventions. However, as an excuse for not funding it, the opponents of my invention continued to repeat that my 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS were old ideas, almost blaming me for having built yet. A more objective analysis of the facts and reality should make clear to history that the mistake was made by influential people who funded less efficient and more expensive projects that did not solve the level-1 Trigger problem and did not solve the cancer problem.
In the 271-page proposal there are several new inventions.
- For example, the ER/DSU unit can be viewed as a data recorder and a pulse generator that can generate in parallel on 8,192 electronic channels, 16-bit stream per channel every LHC bunch crossing of 25 nanoseconds. It is built in 16 x 6U VME boards housed in a 8U crate for a total cost of $40,000, or $4.88/channel. This instrument is an invention in itself, independent of the other 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions. As a comparison, a 2-channel pulse generator costs $47,300, or $23,650/channel. (See costs at Table 3 on page 12 and the details of the ER/DSU design from page 149 to 170 of the proposal)
My ER/DSU unit provides a significant cost reduction of $4.88/channel and an instrument that allows to test in a laboratory the efficiency of an entire Level-1 Trigger system before installing it in the application field. This avoids wasting money on systems that do not work in the field because could not be tested in the laboratory.
If experiments at CERN would have built this instrument 20 years ago and provided one to each group building a Level-1 Trigger system, taxpayers would not have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on several Level-1 Trigger systems that did not have the capability to filter the sought after particle from a high level of background noise. Costs can be significantly reduced in the future by pursuing and re-instating my inventions.
I worked for four months from August to November 2015 to design the ER/DSU; I received three quotes from different companies showing that the development cost would be $350,000 to include two units and additional units would cost $40,000 each. However, so far, after more than one year, no one (funding agencies or people who build the Level-1 Trigger) has shown any interest in looking at the design, and also this idea/project has been rejected from presentation at IEEE conferences. Meanwhile new Level-1 Trigger systems continue to be built without having an instrument to test them thoroughly in a laboratory before installing them in the field.
Joel Butler, your statement in the letter you wrote in 1995: “The 3D-Flow project is the only detailed study demonstrating the feasibility of executing several level-1 trigger algorithms of different experiments… I would like to strongly endorse funding… it would undoubtedly be of interest to the scientific community” is correct and is still valid today.
Andy Lankford, your statement in the letter you wrote in 1993: “The ‘3D-Flow’ concept has potential for applications in nearly any future high energy physics experiment. …thank you for your consideration and supporting this interesting and very important project” is correct and is still valid today because no one can provide a reference to a superior concept for level-1 trigger whose efficiency can be calculated analytically and then tested experimentally using the ER/DSU to generate raw data.
Nadia Pastrone, what you stated during our phone call on June 3, 2016, that if the 3D-Flow OPRA system could save money and increase performance it should be examined; and that in our field the substance is important not the formality, and it is not a good reason for leaders in the field to ignore my inventions, are golden words that must be supported and put into practice.
Let’s all work together to support and build the vision you all have expressed.
I trust that you will allow me to present my inventions at the CERN auditorium and give me the possibility to answer the concerns of all opponents, following up with a public, scientific review of my invention similar to the one Joel and Andy organized on December 14, 1993, at Fermilab for my basic 3D-Flow invention.
I thank you kindly for your consideration in this important matter.
Note: As you may have noticed in the last email sent to all of you from Dr. Vigna who forwarded my letter, there are several people who would like to be informed of new developments regarding this issue; therefore, I am making this document available to them. In future communication, if there is any information in your email that you do not want to be shared with the public, please let me know and I will make sure to respect your wishes.
########### End of the Document #############
Original message, request for information
From: Joel Butler [mailto: email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 5:13 AM To: crosetto <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com; Vincenzo VIGNA; Nadia Pastrone; Andrew James Lankford; CERN DG Office Subject: Request for information
Dear Dario Crosetto,
In order to determine what sort of meeting, if any, would be appropriate, could you please point us to recent publications of your project in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
Many thanks and kind regards,
Joel Butler —
Joel Butler CMS Spokesperson;
Fermilab: Senior Research ScientistEMAIL:
Business: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
SKYPE name: joel_butlerMobile
Phones: Europe: +41 75 411 4981 (Preferred) or (+1) 630 651 4619US: (+1) 630-651-4619