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

This document is available in PDF at Google Drive at

Dear Joel, Please could you respond to this email, to the one reported below and to the two letters that I sent on March 10, 2017 ( and on May 15, 2017 (

See below the last email sent on May 22, 2017

…Let me make a simple example.

Let suppose your niece, nephew, or grandchildren are asking you some tutoring in physics or mathematics and they ask you if 2+2 = 4, or the result of a division. I am sure that you will tell what you think is correct and will not say that you need to ask someone at a higher level although you know that 2+2 = 4.

This analogy is similar to our case:

You recognized on writing that my 3D-Flow invention was the only detailed study demonstrating the feasibility of executing several level-1 trigger algorithms of different experiments. After 22 years you cannot provide the reference to any approach/project for which you can make the same statement and compare the performance with my newest 3D-Flow OPRA proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries. You know that a SCIENTIST IMPOSES TWO THINGS upon himself and upon other scientists, NAMELY TRUTH AND SINCERITY. As you are not telling your grandchild that he needs to receive the answer if 2+2 = 4 is correct from a higher level because you understand to be correct, it will be inappropriate for you to tell that I should receive an answer from a higher level because you have shown to understand the advantage of my invention and you cannot provide the references to any other approach/project more performant and cost-effective than my 3D-CBS OPRA that can be compared publicly with their authors at CERN.


To be sincere to the taxpayers that you are pursuing the scientific truth for their benefit, in your position of Spokesperson of the CMS collaboration representing over 5,000 physicists and engineers, it is fair and a responsibility to the taxpayers to organize a discussion/review of my invention at CERN so those who have received taxpayer money to build or plan to build a system less efficient and more costly can take direct responsibility to compare the performance of their system with my 3D-Flow OPRA rather than you covering up their mistakes.






From: Crosetto Dario [] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 12:46 AM To: ‘’ <> Subject: I hope you had a safe trip back from China…

Dear Joel,

I hope you had a safe trip back from China.

I was a kind of surprised by your answer on the phone [in regard the response to my letters dated March 10, 2017 and May 15, 2017 that you do not have anything to say to me, that our communication can only be formally in writing and that is handled above your level].


By being the spokesperson of CMS I do not see who has more responsibility for the overall spending of CMS and if there is something that you understand is more cost-effective isn’t your responsibility to demand group leaders below your level to be open and consider other approaches and ultimately organize a discussion/review as you did at Fermilab to give the possibility to all your collaborators to listen my presentation and ask questions? Isn’t your role as a scientist to tell what you think is scientifically correct and advantageous?

Let me make a simple example.

Let suppose your niece, nephew, or grandchildren are asking you some tutoring in physics or mathematics and they ask you if 2+2 = 4, or the result of a division. I am sure that you will tell what you think is correct and will not say that you need to ask someone at a higher level although you know that 2+2 = 4.

You can organize a review as you did at Fermilab where I would be allowed to present my project/invention and you and your colleague would be allowed to express your ideas, discuss, etc.

I do not see the reason why you ask me a question on February 28, 2017, I provide a very thorough answer and you do not let me know what you did with my answer. If it was satisfactory, then we should move on to what you stated in your February 28 email, if not, you should give me a chance to address what you think it is not satisfactory. …As Pastrone stated correctly that what matters in our field is the substance and not the formality.

I hope we can move on soon and collaborate. As I said before CERN survived the gaffe of someone measuring neutrino faster than speed of light and those people resigned, now and in the future CERN will survive although many other people will make mistakes and resign.  Protecting those who make mistakes is what it might damage CERN and the entire scientific community.

Kind Regards,




There is solid proof that over 50% of cancer deaths can be avoided with early detection as there are many treatment options when cancer is detected early and most have great success. Treatments, however, do not work when detected in cancer’s later stages. Take for example colon cancer: If caught early it has a 91% survival rate, versus 11% if caught too late. Breast cancer has a 98% survival rate when detected at an early stage and 27% when detected late. What is missing is a non-invasive diagnostic device effective for early cancer detection.

A solution providing effective early cancer detection has existed for 17 years. It is the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) life-saving technology based on the 3D-Flow OPRA invention. I can help investigative journalists working for this cause to inform them and the public, but I do not have your experience and your connections to the public.

We cannot let the public down on these two important issues.  You should give them a high priority because of the number of lives they affect and who will benefit. (Please sign the Petition at:

What is missing is a non-invasive diagnostic device, effective for early cancer detection in all organs of the body that can capture the most relevant and reliable signals related to the mutation of the very first normal cells into cancerous cells. Among the change in odor, temperature, conductivity, fluorescence, density, metabolism etc. of normal cells into cancerous cells, the most reliable signal is the one related to a change in metabolism. Cancerous cells eat from 5 to 70 times more nutrient than normal cells because they grow faster than normal cells -the more aggressive the tumor is, the more nutrient it eats. The technique to track the nutrient delivered by the blood stream to the trillion cells in our body is called Positron Emission Technology (PET). It works by tagging the molecules of the nutrient to the body cells such as oxygen, glucose etc. with a radioisotope (radiation) that is emitting two 511 keV photons in opposite direction with an energy that can pass through flesh and bones and exit the body of the patient. The PET technique was invented in 1953 and today we have over 10,000 PET devices in use in hospitals. However, these PET devices are not useful for early detection because of their inefficiency of capturing only about 1 out of 10,000 pairs of good photons, requiring a high radiation dose to the patient. Because the basic technology is related to the efficiency in detecting specific subatomic particles among a huge number of signals received from the radiation, the breakthrough must come from the field of particle physics and should be in the Level-1 Trigger unit (or “The Trap”). My 3D-Flow invention that breaks the speed barrier in real-time application provides this breakthrough and has been recognized as valuable by academia, industries and research centers at a major public, scientific, international review (, endorsed by top experts in the field ( and, published in a 45-page article by a prestigious scientific journal (, and proven feasible and functional in hardware ( The 3D-Flow provides unprecedented advantages in capturing all possible good signals from radiation related to a rare particle in physics experiments and related to the tumor markers (511 keV photons) for medical imaging applications, at the lowest cost per valid signal captured compared to other approaches”.

My 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) based on the 3D-Flow (see trifold”, and overview at “”) is hundreds of times more efficient than the current over 10,000 PET devices. The 3D-Flow invention is technology-independent and can migrate to the most cost-effective technology. Both inventions 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern Recognition Algorithm) and 3D-CBS have been proven feasible with current technology by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

  • The 3D-Flow OPRA invention can replace 4,000 CMS electronic data processing boards ( in physics experiments with 9 electronic data processing” detailed at “” while providing an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost.
  • The 3D-CBS can claim to be the first true paradigm change in molecular imaging because it offers at once the three advantages of a) an effective early detection of diseases at a highly curable stage, improved diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring treatments effectively, b) a radiation dose that is 1% of current PET and c) a 4-minute, very low examination cost that will cover all organs of the body. Therefore, individual screening on specific parts of the body, such as mammograms, PAP-tests, colonoscopies and PSA, will not be necessary. (See also the comparison at “” of the 3D-CBS the “Explorer Project”: “” or at “”, funded by NIH for $15.5 million although less efficient, without the ability to save many lives and is more than ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS). The 3D-CBS invention can reduce cancer deaths by over 50% through an effective early detection while reducing healthcare costs.


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 *