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

We are guests on this planet only for a few decades and cannot take with us the money we have accumulated or the positions of power achieved, used by some to take advantage of, to oppress or simply to bully others; however, we can be remembered and leave a legacy of being some or all of these: compassionate, sensible, kind, generous, loving, humanitarian, responsible, respectful, having integrity, ethical, for having shared a meal and joyful experiences with others and for standing up for what is right!

How_to_win_the_war_on_Cancer_2As the man in the photo at Tiananmen Square on June 5, 1989 was using legal means – by standing on the zebra crossing before the tanks – in defense of a few thousand people who died and to send a message that everyone should stand up against oppression, so Crosetto is using legal means – by asking for TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE – in defense of millions of people who die needlessly and of billions of taxpayers who fund research and are being deceived when their money is wasted.

Was the government going to break its own rules by not only being careless regarding the man standing on the zebra crossing, but more importantly by crushing the human rights of that man and many others in Tiananmen Square and in their country? For a moment the tanks stopped and considered the human life in front of them, but then they moved on and continued to oppress because there was not a strong enough support for human rights. How many onlookers of the Tank Man believed in his ideology but regarded his action as foolish? How many looked on admiring his courage, but believed he could never accomplish anything against the tanks and the powers that they represent?  However, what would have happened if hundreds had joined him on the zebra crossing?
Even though so many believed in what he was trying to accomplish, how many were willing then to stick their necks out in defense of human rights?

You can take action without risk from the comfort of your home or office

In the case of Tiananmen Square it was not possible for the majority of you watching from home to go there and support human rights, but in the case of people dying needlessly because there are those who deny transparency in science when innovations exist that if funded would save millions of lives, you can do something about it at no risk from the comfort of your home or office. (See the two paragraphs below for actions you can take).

How many leaders and media need to be informed before they apply pressure on those who are crushing science, the rule of law and the golden rule?

Take the time to read the words spoken by S. Bertolucci, Director of Research at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research, and by those who deny TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE, and think about all the people who are needlessly dying now and in future generations, and all your wasted money, because people in key positions of responsibility have insulted human intelligence and deliberately ignored the evidence of scientific advantages which were invented and formally recognized valuable by their colleagues 22 years ago. An invention which would greatly benefit humanity has been proven feasible and functional in hardware and its concept shown to be understandable by high school students and laymen.

What does it take for you to act after reading the words spoken by CERN Director of Research and by those who deny transparency in science? How many leaders and media outlets who have the trust of the public need to be informed before they put pressure on those who are crushing science (the laws of nature), the rule of law, the golden rule, the ethics of their profession, and the rules of the institution they represent. When do they decide to stand up for transparency or resign from their position because they have repeatedly, for months and years refused to address the issue? (The golden rule is not to be confused with the “rule of gold” where money buys everything. It is hoped that beyond the money there is a good heart and an intelligent mind that supports what is best for humanity).

Bertolucci responds with arrogance and disrespect after two years of patient, legitimate requests for transparency in science

For over two years, out of prudence and respect for those who placed Bertolucci in the position of CERN Director of Research and other leaders in high positions of responsibility in the field, Crosetto, a cardio surgeon, a cancer patient (who has now succumbed to cancer and to whom Crosetto made a promise) and people who care for the advancement in science for the benefit of humanity, have tried unsuccessfully to address issues beneficial in advancing science, reducing suffering and costs to society with leaders at CERN,  only to receive arrogant, sometimes contradictory and inconsistent answers to legitimate questions that are damaging taxpayers and cancer patients.

What action can you take action against oppression, in defense of needless deaths, suffering and wasted tax money?

Write to the leaders and/or organizations and media that you trust asking them to pressure these leaders who are obstructing advancement in science, denying transparency in science, and ignoring evidence, to resign if they do not want to address and fix these problems. (The leaders you trust might be on the list provided at this link; if not, please forward their names and contacts to: so they can be added to our list. In either case, please send a copy of your email to the address above to be published, so your voice and those of many others can be heard, and together we can gain the strength to make a difference for a better world).

If 29 deaths and thousands of deaths received media and public attention, then millions of deaths that could be saved every year should receive even more attention

If you find it outrageous that General Motors (GM) management knew there was a defect with their ignition switch yet did nothing to correct it, spending more time and effort covering up the problem when it came under the scrutiny of the media than it would have taken to fix the problem………

If you find it outrageous that some leaders of the Chinese Government ordered the killing of hundreds of students and civilians protesting peacefully in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, blocking all western media (the tank man image was smuggled out of China), spending more time and effort suppressing the truth and punishing, often with their life, those students, civilians and even leaders who they believed posed the biggest threats to their authoritarian rule ……………

If 29 people died as a result of a faulty GM switch when they could have been saved because those responsible knew how to save them but instead chose to let them die gained public and media attention; if a few hundred (or thousand) people in Tiananmen Square died as a result of a government crackdown who could have been saved because those responsible knew how to save them but instead chose to let them die gained public and media attention; if millions of people die every year from cancer who could be saved if TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE were implemented but those responsible instead choose not to implement transparency and let them die (and waste an additional $30 billion over the next 10 years), this should receive even more attention.

Some stories are more likely to strike an emotional nerve than millions of silent deaths from cancer

Perhaps the reason why these deaths receive so much attention from the media and the public is because they have a greater impact emotionally than the millions of silent deaths from cancer that we have year after year. In fact, the 2006 FRONTLINE film of the Tiananmen massacre warns of graphic scenes that might be emotionally disturbing to the viewer. We see the tanks, we see the weapons, we see the blood, and it hits an emotional nerve.  It is immediately clear who is causing this bloody violence against peaceful demonstrators and we are outraged by the mass killing of innocent lives. The graphic images strike us emotionally and make it easy for the viewers to recognize the injustice against dignity and human rights and to take the side of the victims.

Instead, in the case of the decisions by leaders who are aware of a scientific truth that can save millions of lives and reduce costs, yet choose to let them die by increasing their power and profiting a few people to the detriment of others who lose their lives, their responsibility is much greater, because their choice leads to the needless deaths of millions.  An even greater responsibility is held by those leaders who may not be knowledgeable in all technical details on how to solve a problem, but deliberately obstruct TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE with the full knowledge that it would make scientific truth for the benefit of mankind prevail. In either case, although there are no immediate graphic pictures with weapons generating blood, the damage and outrageous actions by these leaders is even worse because their actions are killing millions of people, now and in the future, without having the disturbance of seeing blood on their hands.  And since these leaders have the public trust and the deaths happen silently “behind the scenes” and without blood or violence to strike the viewer emotionally, so many people take the side of these leaders rather than the side of those who are requesting TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE to make the scientific truth prevail for the benefit of mankind.

How many respond with arrogance and disrespect to those who identify the cause of inconsistencies and the tools to eliminate them and take the side of those who increase the damage?

Unfortunately, many people who do not find the time or take the time to discover the truth behind the enormous amount of money being continuously spent on cancer and the lack of any significant results in cancer death reduction, take the side of leaders who deny transparency in science.

Some just do not understand that Crosetto’s actions are in their best interest; others, even some of Crosetto’s friends, would prefer to deny the evidence rather than believe that leaders in whom they have put their trust would act in any way against their best interest; still others regard Crosetto’s legitimate questions aimed at maximizing the reduction of cancer deaths and cost as a disturbance to the work of the leaders who they believe to be competent, do not need to be accountable to anyone, and should be trusted just for the positions they hold.  Crosetto’s kindest friends who understand the benefits to humanity of Transparency in Science and who have repeatedly tried in the past to help, now tell him they sympathize with his Charlie Brown character, but are powerless against the giants.

Crosetto’s questions to leaders are always prudent, patient, polite, and respectful.  They invite leaders to comply with their role of responsibility that they freely chose to hold before the public. Crosetto waits weeks or months between requests, always asking when he might expect an answer. When their promised deadline expires and he asks for a second time, he is sometimes accused of harassment.

By not taking the time to understand a solution that it is understandable to high-school students and allowing leaders to continue without accountability, people need to realize they are doing themselves an injustice.

Everyone instead should support Crosetto’s request for TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE and support his questions aimed at maximizing the reduction of cancer deaths and cost. Who might not want it?

How do you identify the approach that saves more lives prematurely lost from cancer and lowers its cost?

To reduce cancer deaths and cost it is necessary to implement the approach that saves more lives at the lowest cost. A few facts, experimental result data and an analogy might shed light in which direction this problem should be approached.

Facts show that for more than 68 years it has been widely established as well as published in various scientific journals and popular magazines like National Geographic (See their October 1946 issue) that early cancer detection could save 50% of all cancer deaths.

Data from experimental results recorded by several Government Agencies (e.g. SEER) for several years have shown that the “lucky” ones who had cancer diagnosed at an early stage (fortunately for them, because there does not exist yet a low cost screening for an effective early cancer detection of all organs of the body) have a probability of 90% to 98% that their lives will be saved from the three big killers: prostate, breast and colon cancer, and 50% from the biggest killer, lung cancer. In spite of the huge investment in drugs, powerful and famous people continue to die, demonstrating that a solution has not yet been found regardless of the money available from patients. One of the best chemotherapy drugs, Avastin, in a 10 year study has shown to have prolonged life on average only 4.4 months at a cost to the recipient of over $10,000 per month.

As an analogy, let’s take the case of a winding road up the side of a mountain that forms a large piece of ice from time to time during the winter that drivers cannot see because it is behind a big rock on a curve. When drivers reach that curve, their cars slide on the ice and fall down the cliff. The accidents are so frequent that a lot of money has been invested in placing a first aid tent down the cliff.  Doctors and paramedics work organized shifts, the best, most expensive medical equipment has been purchased, and the doctors and staff are doing all they can to save the lives of the unfortunate who fall off the cliff. The local hospital is equipped with a helicopter to urgently transport those with serious injuries to a better equipped hospital. Doctors are putting their heart and soul into saving their patients’ lives, but in many cases they are powerless to help and can only watch their patients die, and are not informed that there is a better way to solve the problem. The information does not flow between different groups of professionals and experts. Some do not want the DIALOGUE among them, do not want TRANSPARENCY on all aspects of the problem that would shed light on the REAL problem, the obstacles, and what it takes to solve it. Who does not want to solve the real problem and for what reason? Perhaps the drug companies who want to sell their products? The manufacturers of medical equipment? The helicopter company? etc. The problem could be solved if all parties were brought to the table for a discussion – the Mayor (the Governor of the region, if the problem gets very big), the civil engineers, the experts on ice formation, the regional weather experts, the drivers, the doctors, the paramedics, etc. – and allowed to talk, allowed to question each other in a transparent way, allowed access to all aspects of the problem of how to reduce or eliminate the accidents of drivers going down the cliff.  The goal should not be just to ask doctors how they can CURE serious injuries, but to do whatever it takes to save people from dying prematurely.

Why do many cancer organizations focus solely on the CURE and not have clearly stated in their mission statement the goal of “reducing cancer deaths”, and are not ready and willing to support whatever it takes to reduce cancer death? We have known for over 68 years that EARLY DETECTION SAVES LIVES yet investments continue to be made on a CURE AT THE LATE DETECTION stage and inventions for an effective, low cost early detection device that could have already saved millions of lives continue to be crushed now for 14 years.

Crosetto has received answers from some cancer organizations discouraging him from applying for funds because they consider funding only projects for the CURE of cancer and not for reducing cancer deaths and cost that do not involve a cure. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for these cancer organizations to modify their Statue and/or Mission to the goal of reducing cancer deaths and cost? Isn’t this the goal? It would be like wanting only to fund curing the injuries of drivers falling off the cliff and not wanting to prevent them from falling off in the first place.   A transparent dialogue would identify the best solution to prevent ice from forming, to modifying the road, or simply place a warning sign to slow down for possible ice on the curve.  Experimental data results prove a high survival rate when cancer is detected early (SEER).  This is because there exists many effective weapons to cure cancer when detected at an early stage (surgery, radiation therapy, drugs, and more effective approaches may be forthcoming). What does not exist is an effective cure for later stages of cancer, and for those who do survive it is usually a long, hard, expensive, miserable battle with a high likelihood of recurrence.  What we need then is a low cost effective screening device suitable for early detection for all organs of the body. Such a device is not on the market, but the technology exists.  TRANSPARENCY in the dialogue would lead to identify those that exist, but leaders are trying to preventing this from happening.


Because the best Medical Imaging technique at the molecular level, PET technology, is based on particle detection, a significant improvement in early cancer detection requires a breakthrough invention advancing the field of particle detection.

This explains the importance of addressing the breakthrough in particle detection first, because an efficient solution in particle detection will lower the radiation to the patient, lower the examination cost and enable an effective early cancer detection in all organs of the body with a single examination.

These improvements in early cancer detection in all organs of the body with a single examination could not be envisioned before the basic 3D-Flow invention which is the breakthrough invention which advanced the field of particle detection.  When used together with the additional inventions of the 3D-CBS technology specific to the medical imaging applications, it provides an effective early cancer detection.

1.1  To cure the problem at the root of FUNDING INVENTIONS that allow advancements in particle detection, it is necessary to eliminate the inconsistencies by implementing TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE in the field of particle detection. This will provide a powerful tool to discover new particles, accurately measure all their characteristics and prevent wasting an additional $30 billion with the FPGA-OPRT for the upgrade of the Level-1 Trigger of Atlas and CMS as their leaders are building now, and will benefit humanity in many other fields of application of the inventions referenced herein.

1.1.1  If CERN Director of Research, Sergio Bertolucci, does not resign voluntarily in order to avoid embarrassment of those who placed their trust in him, the media should broadcast his words which show his arrogance, and his contradictory and inconsistent answers to polite, legitimate As Program Manager of the Axial-PET Medical Imaging project he should not have been leading the CERN committee assigning prizes to the best Medical Imaging device, and yet he did. Not only that, but In his own words he declares his incompetence in Medical Imaging, after assigning first prize to the Axial-PET project – essentially assigning himself the prize. This can only have been to deceive cancer associations like Marie Curie that funded his project after winning first prize. Rather than providing scientific answers about the inconsistency of wasting money to build the Axial-PET module which improves spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity and cost, he first blames Joram, chief engineer of the Axial-PET project, then the doctors from Marseille who requested the characteristics of the Axial-PET. After taxpayers and cancer patients are informed by the media of Bertolucci’s actions and his vulgar language, they can decide whether to give him their trust or to ask for his resignation

1.1.2  U.S. Department of Energy, Office of High Energy Physics James Siegrist could stop funding to all DOE projects for LHC and Medical Imaging until American scientists (e.g. Adam Bernstein and U.S. experts in Level-1 Trigger & DAQ) who claim FPGA-OPRT is more cost effective than the 3D-Flow-OPRT do not agree to a public workshop where scientists and Crosetto can ask questions of each other on different projects, implementing Transparency in Science as it was implemented by SSC Director on December 14, 1993 in regard to the 3D-Flow invention. Jim Siegrist was the first leader who supported Crosetto’s invention in 1992 when both were working at the SSC. While over 2,000 scientists are attending the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, it would be convenient and save money if J. Siegrist could write a public letter to the General Chairman of this conference, asking to kindly host Crosetto’s workshop for Transparency in Science in the specific field of particle detection that he requested in May 4, 2014;

1.1.3  European Commission, Department of High Energy Physics and all CERN member and observer countries could stop funding CERN LHC and Medical Imaging until scientists of CERN member and associated countries do not permit Crosetto and other scientists to ask questions of each other in a public workshop where the claimed cost-effectiveness of the FPGA-OPRT by I. Gregor, A. Bernstein and other leaders from CMS and Atlas experiments are compared with the 3D-Flow and other proposals from other scientists. This will avoid wasting an additional $30 billion and 10 years work from 10,000 scientists to find out 10 year from now that FPGA-OPRT was not adequate.

1.2  To cure the problem of funding applications of the invention in particle detection combined with inventions in Medical Imaging that can benefit saving millions of lives it is necessary to eliminate the inconsistencies by implementing TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE in the field of early cancer detection. This is achievable through ultrasensitive, low examination cost 3D-CBS devices that can accurately detect minimum, abnormal biological processes, effective for early cancer detection for a safe screening of asymptomatic people, for monitoring the recurrence in cancer survivors and for improving prognosis during treatment as well as avoiding wasting money and time in the development of new PET which increases spatial and time resolution to the detriment of sensitivity and examination cost, or wasting money in the development of the EXPLORER device, less sensitive and ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS.

1.2.1  If scientists who receive taxpayers money to implement medical imaging devices that should be effective to reduce cancer deaths and cost do not accept the implementation of open, public scientific procedures to understand the laws of nature and make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail, and use their power and/or money instead, to repress, suppress and obstruct advancement in science and to oppress people, then media should inform taxpayers their name, about their actions, and voice their inconsistencies. If they are not willing to cooperate to clarify their inconsistencies through logical reasoning in a public dialogue or by accepting to perform a small experiment that would prove them right or wrong, media should ask taxpayers and cancer patients to express their opinion whether they should give them their trust or ask for their resignations.

1.2.2  The U.S. National Institutes of Health, Director Francis Collins and the NIH-NCI Director, Harold Varmus, could stop funding all NIH Medical Imaging projects until American scientists do not agree to have a public workshop where scientists and Crosetto ask questions of each other on different projects. These scientists should provide scientific evidence supporting their claim that PET medical imaging devices with high spatial and time resolution (or high sensitivity, but extremely expensive as is the EXPLORER), have higher potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost compared to the ultrasensitive, low examination cost 3D-CBS technology. At the public workshop, it will be important that people could hear the responses regarding the inconsistencies directly from the American scientists, including Georges Elfakhri and all those who decide the approval of papers and the funding of projects or who have received NIH Grant money for Medical Imaging.  While over 2,000 scientists are attending the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, it would be convenient and save money if F. Collins and H. Varmus could write a public letter to the General Chairman of this conference, asking to kindly host Crosetto’s workshop for Transparency in Science in the specific field of Medical Imaging that he had requested in May 9, 2014.

1.2.3  The European Commission, Department of Health, Cancer Research and Medical Imaging, the Director for Innovation, Peter DROELL and the Director of the new diagnostic tools and technologies, Alexandru-Sorin Costescu could stop funding all Medical Imaging projects until scientists of EU who approve papers and handle EU taxpayers money do not permit Crosetto and other scientists to ask questions of each other in a public workshop where the claimed benefits in improving PET spatial and time resolution to the detriment of high sensitivity and low examination cost (or the claimed benefits of the high sensitivity, extremely expensive EXPLORER) are compared with the ultrasensitive, low examination cost 3D-CBS technology. This will avoid wasting millions of dollars in developing new PET with high spatial and time resolution to the detriment of high sensitivity and low examination cost, wasting billions of dollars in the market of over 5,000 PET that have demonstrated in the past 20 years which could not reduce cancer deaths and cost and will avoid letting millions of people die prematurely who could have been saved with the 3D-CBS effective, early cancer detection

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 *