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

I RENEW THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS: To withdraw the negative conclusion “… the evaluation is negative and the final conclusions do not leave doubts regarding the opportunity to fund the project” written by Prof. Freccero is damaging taxpayers and humanity because it is based on false statements. To withdraw the negative conclusion, “This project is unlikely to be positively evaluated by any scientific referee, nor would it be funded by any national or European commission” by Pavia’s University and INFN, because it is based on the superficial reading of my document which was the cause of the unsubstantiated and unsupported claims of reviewers, as I have already pointed out and documented in Appendixes A-I and A-E.

To: Prof. Mauro Freccero

cc the Prosecutor Attorney of the Tribunal of Pavia of the Republic of Italy

July 5th, 2017

Dear Prof. Mauro Freccero,

The undersigned Dario B. Crosetto, born in Monasterolo di Savigliano on July 22, 1951, resides at 900 Hideaway Place in DeSoto, Texas 75115 (United States). C.F. xxx xxx xxxxx.




On June 12, 2017, I received a report titled: “Report about the 3D-Flow OPRA document signed by Dario B. Crosetto on December 22, 2015” ( that was prepared by Prof. Mauro Freccero, Scientific Referee at the University of Pavia, appointed by the Dean of the University, Prof. Fabio Rugge.


Prof. Freccero accompanied this report to Dean Prof. Rugge and others with a comment that states: “… thanks to the collaboration of my colleagues at the Department of Physics and the Director of INFN in Pavia, I received the first evaluation …“, (page 16 of “”) which prompts the reader of this review to think that the Department of Physics and INFN in Pavia are the signatories of the review of the 3D-Flow OPRA document.


The report regarding the review of the 3D-Flow OPRA (pages 3-16 of “”) sent by Prof. Freccero contains false statements and statements that are not supported by scientific arguments that are adverse to the advancement of science, taxpayers, and cancer patients.


False statements can be found on two levels: at the editor’s level where the task should have been to verify the existence or not of a word or item in the document that the reviewer claimed was missing (without addressing the content of the project/invention), and at the reviewers’ level whose task within the 264-page document was to determine whether the 3D-Flow OPRA invention provided greater advantages and benefits than alternative approaches.


Editor/Administrator, Prof. Freccero responsibilities to withdraw unsupported conclusion’s statement damaging taxpayers and cancer patients.

In fact, a simple word search of keywords in the 264-page document made by Prof. Mauro Freccero or his secretary would have easily disputed several of the reviewers’ claims.  For example, the claim that they could not find “the 3D-Flow processor” in the document (page 14 line 064-065 of “”) ― a word search would have found “3D-Flow” written 800 times.  Similarly, a search of the characters “nm” would have easily disputed their claim that the project presented an obsolete 350 nm technology of 1998, as it would have revealed on pages 137, 142 and 146 a description of the project using the 40 nm technology of 2015, the year when the document was written.  The reviewers also confused 73 times the number of processors with the 8,192 number of electronic channels in the system (page 13, line 061 of “”).  Missing 800 times the first item and 73 times the second proves reviewers did not read the document with attention. They incorrectly referred to Section II’s seven-page description of the equipment to test and measure the efficiency of any similar system as the section describing the project (they did not notice or comment on the 96-page Section VI which is the actual chapter that describes the project, both sections are correctly titled so there should have been no confusion if they read even the title carefully) (page 4, line 007 of “”).   All this confusion, complete lack of understanding and missing key words like “3D-Flow” show without doubt that these anonymous reviewers did not put forth the effort needed to read this detailed document.  It takes effort to read 264 pages, and if the reviewers were only willing to skim read, quickly and superficially, perhaps they should not have consented to be the reviewers.


Reviewers’ responsibilities to withdraw unsupported conclusion’s statement damaging taxpayers and cancer patients.

Reviewers’ claims that the 264-page document is unscientific, that there are no objective references, that I am making statements regarding LHC of dubious truth, are disrespectful to science because the 264-page document is very scientific, describing proven feasible electronics that can achieve the claimed results, there are several objective references also to similar systems at CERN, the statements regarding LHC are truthful because they can be found in CERN’s official documents. Accusations that I am self-referencing (page 8, line 036 of “”) are proven false in their previous statements when they acknowledge my 3D-Flow invention received several letters of endorsement by top experts in the field (page 5, line 018-019 of “”).  Claims that the experts who wrote these letters (pages 49-53 and 73-81 of “”) do not show a scientific approach to the problem is a direct attack on them and disrespectful to colleagues who supported their endorsements with scientific arguments, while the reviewers themselves did not use any scientific arguments to support their claims. Reviewers’ claims that the 3D-Flow processor and system architecture are out of date (page 10, line 042-043 of “”) are simply not true as it is up to date and very competitive compared to other approaches.  Its feasibility has been proven with the recent 59 quotes I received from reputable industries which show that it can replace the 4,000 boards of the Level-1 Trigger of the CMS experiment as well as of other experiments at CERN (, with nine 3D-Flow OPRA boards (  This would provide an enormous performance improvement at one thousandth the cost. Their claim that optical fiber connections would improve performance is incorrect (page 11, line 045 of “”) because if optical fiber connections were to be used in the section indicated by the reviewers, the system performance would be lowered as I also explained in an article to the general public ( Finally, their assertion (page 12, lines 048-052 of “”) that if some research center such as the INFN and industries specialized in supercomputers which use massive parallel-processing systems cannot propose a solution to the Level-1 Trigger system and do not make claims of saving lives from cancer, then it is not possible that the 3D-Flow OPRA architecture can make these claims, is an unsubstantiated, unsupported, argument.  I explained the difference between the supercomputers and my 3D-Flow parallel-processing system in an article on FDN for the generic public which is available at “


The above incorrect statements by anonymous reviewers may be part of a plan to denigrate and suppress the scientific truth, misusing taxpayer money and damaging humanity to protect other programs and reach other objectives.


On June 27, 2017, I responded professionally with pertinent and scientific point-to-point answers at I was asked to do, and requested the immediate withdrawal of these unsupported conclusions, both by the reviewers, and by the scientific referee, Prof. Freccero, in his role as administrator and editor of the review, since both conclusions were based as outlined above on the superficial reading of my 264-page document, as I have extensively proven in Appendix A-E” and in Appendix A-I “”.


I did this with prudence, respect, patience and diplomacy, appealing to the professionalism of the referees, their responsibility to taxpayers who place trust in them, the scientific procedure and the content. I followed up with a phone call to Prof. Freccero detailed later, and the Assistant to the Dean of the University of Pavia to make sure that my June 27, 2017, response to their review was received, and to arrive at an agreement so that their two conclusive statements that damage the advancement of science, taxpayers, cancer patients, and humanity are withdrawn as soon as possible. I also asked that the researchers at the Department of Physics and the INFN in Pavia would have the opportunity to confirm or disassociate themselves from the content of the review. This is because Dr. Freccero indicated they were the signatories of the review. The Dean’s assistant indicated that I should address the issue with Prof. Freccero who is in charge of the review, and the Department of Physics and the administration of the INFN of Pavia as interlocutors for the request to inform the researchers about whether or not they share the content of this review.


I had personally sent the request to confirm or disassociate their signature from this review in Appendix A-I and A-E to the following Pavia researchers. However, since I was informed that many did not receive my email, I would like to ask the secretary of the Department of Physics and of the INFN to officially resubmit Appendix A-I and A-E to them including any Pavia researchers who do not appear on the list.


The list of researchers/scientists from Pavia indicated as signatories in Prof. Freccero’s statement is as follows: Dr. Saverio Altieri, Dr. Lucio Andreani, Dr. Alessandro Bacchetta, Dr. Giorgio Baiocco, Dr. Francesca Ballarini, Dr. Vittorio Bellani, Dr. Gianluigi Boca, Dr. Silva Bortolussi, Dr. Giuseppe Bozzi, Dr. Mauro Carfora, Dr. Pietro Carretta, Dr. Maurizio Corti, Dr. Giacomo Dariano, Dr. Claudio Dappiaggi, Dr. Anna Deambrosis Vigna, Dr. Antonio Debari, Dr. Lidia Falomo Bernarduzzi, Dr. Fregonese, Dr. Pietro Galinetto, Dr. Matteo Galli, Dr. Mario Geddo, Dr. Dario Gerace, Dr. Elio Giroletti, Dr. Enrico Virgilio Giulotto, Dr. Carlotta Giusti, Dr. Gianluca Introzzi, Dr. Marco Liscidini, Dr. Michele Livan, Dr. Chiara Macchiavello, Dr. Lorenzo Maccone, Dr. Franco Marabelli, Dr. Manuel Mariani, Dr. Alessandro Menegolli, Dr. Luigi Mihich, Dr. Guido Montagna, Dr. Paolo Montagna, Dr. Andrea Negri, Dr. Andrea Ottolenghi, Dr. Barbara Pasquini, Dr. Maddalena Patrini, Dr. Paolo Perinotti, Dr. Daniela Rebuzzi, Dr. Cristina Riccardi, Dr. Adele Rimoldi, Dr. Silvano Romano, Dr. Alberto Rotondi, Dr. Paolo Vitulo, Dr. Bruno Bertotti, Dr. Sigfrido Boffi, Dr. Gianni Bonera, Dr. Giorgio Guizzetti, Dr. Adalberto Piazzoli, Dr. Attilio Rigamonti, Dr. Angiolino Stella, Dr. Alessandro Braghieri, Dr. Paolo Cattaneo, Dr. Deluca, Dr. Angelica Facoetti, Dr. Andrea Fontana, Dr. Marco Guagnelli, Dr. Alessandro Lascialfari, Dr. Paolo Mascheretti, Dr. Oreste Nicrosini, Dr. Paolo Pedroni, Dr. Fulvio Piccinini, Dr. Marco Radici, Dr. Sacchi, Dr. Paola Salvini, Dr. Carlo Carloni, Dr. Claudio Conta, Dr. Carlo DeVecchi, Dr. Roberto Ferrari, Dr. Gabriella Gaudio, Dr. Agostino Lanza, Dr. Claudio Montanari, Dr. Giacomo Polesello, Dr. Andrea Rappoldi, Dr. Gianluca Raselli, Dr. Marco Roncadelli, Dr. Massimo Rosells, Dr. Valerio Vercesi.


During my phone conversation with Prof. Freccero he was adamant that as editor of the review he must keep the reviewers’ name(s) secret and report the conclusions of the review “… the review is negative, and the final conclusions do not leave any doubt as to whether or not to finance the project”; adding that he would only change his concluding statement if he receives a different review.


I argued that any person, even a non-expert in the subject, like an editor or a secretary, could have checked the validity of the reviewers’ comments with a simple google search and realized the reviewers had missed the word “3D-Flow” 800 times, confused the number of processors with the number of channels of the system 73 times, etc. My attempts to convince him that the reviewers’ judgement was unreliable as it was based on a superficial reading, uncorroborated statements and falsehoods were to no avail, and he would not take back his damaging conclusion.


For prudence, respect, and diplomacy, on June 30, 2017, I sent the email of Appendix B “” to Prof. Freccero, and copies to Dean Prof. Rugge, his assistant, the Administration of the Department of Physics and its Director Prof. Rotondi, and to the Director of the INFN Section of Pavia, Prof. Valerio Vercesi.


However, Prof. Freccero’s total refusal to address any scientific issue or address any comment by the reviewers unrelated to my document is baffling.  If the only requirement of the editor of the comments is to accept them at face value and pass them on to everyone then why is it necessary to have a scientist of his stature? Freccero’s excuse was that he should limit his role as editor without addressing the subject because he is a chemist and the subject was physics, computing and electronics.


Prof. Freccero is using this excuse but in reality it has always been my experience that I can readily explain my basic invention.  For example, I was able to explain it to hundreds of scientists at the FERMILAB auditorium in a public scientific review (pages 54-69 of “”) and to several others who understood its advantages, endorsed it and requested it be funded (pages 49-53 and 73-81 of “”). I have also explained with analogies the concept of my 3D-Flow invention to laymen in several conferences and to different groups, including middle school Montessori students and their teachers with whom I wrote a book. I also had success explaining it to high school students where we made a video ( showing at minute 7:48, how to solve the basic problem using the analogy of analyzing for 30 seconds all envelopes which arrive at six- second intervals without missing an envelope. I am certain that if Prof. Freccero would have listened I would have been able to explain my invention to him, even though his field of specialty is chemistry.


Because of this total refusal received directly from Prof. Freccero orally to discuss science and after not receiving any response to my last email (, I am compelled to send one more time the following formal requests.




  1. To withdraw the negative conclusion “… the evaluation is negative and the final conclusions do not leave doubts regarding the opportunity to fund the projectwritten by Prof. Freccero because is damaging taxpayers and humanity because it is based on false statements. A search of the 264-page document by the editor or any non-expert in the field would easily verify that statements made by the reviewers are grossly inaccurate.


  1. To withdraw the negative conclusion,This project is unlikely to be positively evaluated by any scientific referee, nor would it be funded by any national or European commissionby Pavia’s University and INFN, because it is based on the superficial reading of my document which was the cause of the unsubstantiated and unsupported claims of reviewers already pointed out and documented in Appendix A-E” and in Appendix A-I “”.


  1. To refrain from making any further reviews by anonymous reviewers of my project/invention without my explicit written consent because under the cover of anonymity they use unscientific procedures and false claims which suppress innovations, slander the work and reputation of other scientists, and damage advancements in science which would benefit humanity.


It is well established and part of most professional code of conducts that the role and responsibility of a scientist is to be truthful to himself and to other scientists and to pursue the truth for the benefit of humanity.   Truth is obtained by supporting the results of calculations, logical reasoning, observations and interpretation of the laws of nature, and not by using anonymity to suppress advancements in science and slander colleagues’ reputations.


My breakthrough inventions have been recognized formally and officially as creating a giant leap in technological advantages in the field.  Since taxpayers give billions of dollars to CERN every year, it is time for their scientists to take responsibility and address my inventions in an open, public and transparent way, comparing them to other approaches.  They should also address why during the past twenty-five years less efficient and more costly projects that were inadequate to solve the Level-1 Trigger problem were funded and finally trashed while my inventions that were officially recognized to have the capability to  solve the problem remained unfunded.


Now my 3D-Flow OPRA project/invention that would provide disruptive advantages to science and benefits in saving lives continues to be suppressed. My 3D-Flow OPRA system was proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries and would replace hundreds of crates containing 4,000 electronic boards (, of the CERN CMS Level-1 Trigger with one crate containing nine 3D-Flow OPRA boards ( providing an enormous advantage in performance at one thousandth the cost.


Because the role and responsibility of scientists is to collaborate and provide the most cost-effective solution to advance science and provide benefits to taxpayers and humanity, instead of asking me to ―


  1. write articles, documents, answer anonymous reviewers (who do not read with attention my documents or my response to their questions, and then a few years later I receive the same questions from other anonymous reviewers);


  1. submit proposals for funding where reviewers do not consider the advantages of my innovations but instead ask me to follow the traditional approach, or do not even read my proposal;


  1. formally submit a proposal, then have it disappear along with all correspondence with the funding agency, as occurred in 2016 with the DOE (pages 17-18 of “”);


we need to address the advantages and benefits of my inventions publicly, live, face-to-face with experts in the field who develop similar systems at CERN where most taxpayer money in this field is spent. I should be allowed to present my two pages of Appendix C ( at CERN, followed by a presentation of all its components “”, answer questions from the experts who have built Level-1 Trigger systems during the past two decades, and then verify together my calculations, data, and scientific arguments to validate my claims regarding the technological advantages and benefits.


After this presentation at CERN, I should be allowed to make a similar presentation of my two pages of Appendix D ( at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), etc. followed by a presentation of all its components, answer questions from the experts building medical imaging devices such as PET devices (Positron Emission Tomography), compare my 3D-CBS technology (3-D Complete Body Screening) with other projects such as the Explorer (, and then verify together my calculations, data, and scientific arguments to validate my claims regarding the technological advantages and benefits of the 3D-CBS.


The comments received from Pavia’s reviewers’ outlined in Appendix A-E” and in Appendix A-I “”, are an example of the unsubstantiated, false claims that are not supported by calculations and/or scientific arguments, similar to those I received  during the past 20 years from anonymous reviewers of my proposals, reviews, articles or abstracts/summaries that I submitted to several funding agencies and to the IEEE-NSS-MIC in 2016, 2014 and previous years. IEEE is the world’s largest technical professional organization with over 400,000 members dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. For brevity, I am not providing references to similar reviews for the years 1999, 2002, 2007, 2008, etc., and limit to those for the years 2014 and 2016. For the year 2014 the references can be found from page 238 to 245 of “”. For the year 2016 anonymous reviewers’ comments and my answers are available at “”. In this regard, on November 5, 2016, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference in Strasbourg, France, I had a meeting lasting almost two hours with IEEE-NPSS President, John Verboncoeur, and the newly elect President Stefan Ritt, in charge from January 2017. During our meeting they could not support anonymous reviewers’ rejection claims of my abstracts/summaries and could not point out flaws in my inventions, who also stated they had never heard of anything like my inventions before.


Either my documents were not read with attention or the anonymous reviewers had another agenda which resulted in the suppression of my inventions and the funding of less efficient and more expensive approaches/projects.


A presentation of my inventions at CERN in a review similar to the one held at Fermilab on December 14, 1993 (pages 54-69 of “”), is long overdue. An open, public transparent dialogue with top experts in this field would save taxpayers a great deal of money and ultimately save many lives from cancer.


I am giving you, Prof. Freccero 30 days from the date you will receive this letter to respond to the three items above: 1. Withdrawing the negative conclusion by Prof. Freccero, 2. Withdrawing the negative conclusion by Pavia’s reviewers, and 3. Refrain from making any review by anonymous reviewers of my project/invention without my explicit written consent. This letter has also been sent with appropriate information to the Prosecutor Attorney of the Tribunal of Pavia of the Republic of Italy, and I reserve the right to take action in defense of taxpayers and cancer patients.




Dario Crosetto


900 Hideaway Pl

DeSoto, TX 75115 – USA




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

This post is also available in: Italian

Leave a Reply

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