STOP SUPPRESSING CROSETTO'S LIFESAVING TECHNOLOGY: WE DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION
This petition had 35 supporters
STOP SUPPRESSING CROSETTO'S LIFESAVING TECHNOLOGY: WE DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION INTO THIS CASE
“I sign this petition because I did not walk away from my responsibilities: I faced them!”
Let’s support Crosetto’s cause in defense of the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity because we are tired of creating martyrs like Semmelweis to be venerated after they have died, together with all the lives they could have saved!
SUMMARY of the petition:
With my signature…
I am asking leaders in the world who handle taxpayer and donation money to request scientific experts in the field of particle detection (beginning with experts at CERN) and medical imaging to review (see video) publicly with scientific rigor, in the presence of Crosetto who would answer questions from his opponents, his 271-page proposal proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to build his 3D-Flow OPRA invention (2-page summary) that can replace 4,000 electronic data processing boards with only 9 electronic boards having much higher performance at one thousandth the cost and his 3D-CBS invention that can reduce cancer deaths by over 50% through an effective early detection while reducing healthcare costs.
A single 4-minute examination covering all organs of the body at 1/100 the radiation with respect to the over 10,000 PET/CT currently in use, replacing, with greater efficiency mammography, colonoscopy, PAP-test, PSA and other screening examinations. The 3D-CBS will also help doctors in the diagnosis, prognosis and the monitoring of treatments of several diseases because of more accurate information, and spot in cancer patients the presence of minimal residual tumors after radiotherapy or chemotherapy.
Could a situation similar to Semmelweis happen to Crosetto? Both had a breakthrough. For 20 years both were ostracized, shunned, their idea suppressed, refused a transparent public forum that would follow scientific procedures where they could answer questions from their opponents. Both could prove analytical irrefutable results and also experimental results to be superior to any other approach if their practice/invention/discovery gained wide acceptance. Why should we repeat the same error needlessly losing many lives and hold back advancements in science because we continue to deny a public scientific forum?
DETAILS OF THE PETITION:
The scientific community is behaving today as they did in the nineteenth century when they refused for 20 years a public forum that would follow scientific procedures where Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis could publicly answer all questions to his opponents who did not take seriously his claim that patients were dying needlessly and that he had discovered a simple solution.
Semmelweis claimed patients were dying needlessly because physicians were not washing their hands with chlorinated lime solution before entering the obstetrical clinics. Many of his colleagues were outraged by this claim which pointed the finger at themselves as the cause of the patients’ deaths, and consequently he was met with enormous resistance and criticism.
Semmelweis' observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time. He was forced to leave the hospital where he had worked many years because he was too outspoken when telling the scientific truth and for giving orders for handwashing without approval. A few years later he was committed to an insane asylum where he died two weeks later after being beaten by his guards. Only 20 years after his death did he receive the recognition he deserved when the scientific community looked into his research, calculations, observations and scientific evidence; they then erected a monument, statue, and University in his honor.
Why didn’t the scientific community grant Semmelweis a public forum that would follow scientific procedures to publicly answer questions from his opponents, which would have saved many lives that were instead needlessly lost for 40 years?
In the twenty-first century, the scientific community is making the same error today with Dario Crosetto.
After his invention was endorsed by top experts in the field and acclaimed by professionals and politicians supporting innovations for a better world (see testimonial letters), after it was formally and officially recognized valuable by a major public scientific review from academia, industry, and research centers in 1993 that was requested by the Director of the Supercollider, also Director of Fermilab and by several subsequent public scientific reviews, including winning the Leonardo da Vinci Prize in 2011 (see rules of the competition), after it was published in peer-review scientific journals, after it received initial support from DOE and DOD and was proven feasible and functional in hardware circuits, his opponents have impeded him for more than 20 years from answering publicly their non-scientific objections that have caused the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, the needless death of millions of people and prevented humanity from receiving the benefits of Crosetto’s inventions.
Like Semmelweis, year after year Crosetto’s claims prove to be correct as opponents recant their statements made sometimes years before where they rejected Crosetto’s approach; also opponents who rejected his articles and his request for funding are copying his ideas and approving funds to themselves among a circle of friends of scientists with the same claims and features they rejected with Crosetto in previous years. Their objective however was mainly to increase the profit for pharmaceutical companies instead of serving the interests of the people by maximizing reduction of cancer deaths and costs as is Crosetto’s objective.
During the past 20 years, despite the polite, respectful, legitimate, professional, scientific approach of Crosetto, who with patience and humility continued to submit to the attention of the opponents and the leaders in the field the advantages and benefits to humanity of his inventions, his opponents rejected his articles (he had to publish elsewhere) and his request for funding. They refused or boycotted public forums where they could express their objections and answer why they approve less efficient and more costly approaches.
They did not allow Crosetto to present his work at conferences.
They took the microphone from him on four occasions while he was asking questions to the keynote speakers at conferences and workshops. Official documents showing advantages of his inventions with respect to other approaches and reporting answers to questions from opponents that he submitted to Government agencies in the U.S. and in Italy, disappeared from official records although they had been given a protocol/certified number. Government agencies, to avoid addressing contradictory statements made in official emails by their agents assigning grants, have blocked Crosetto’s emails to impede communication. None of the procedures suggested in the rules, regulations, job description of this government agency (for example the U.S. Department of Energy -DOE-) such as to have the Agency’s “Inspector General” investigate, or to request that the “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)” retrieve the official documents that apparently had disappeared, submitting an “Appeal procedure”, etc., have worked out. Crosetto received threats and non-scientific comments rather than scientific evaluations of his research and scientific answers to his legitimate questions.
During the last two decades, besides the lost benefits from Crosetto’s inventions in many possible applications, besides the lost benefits for all these years in the specific applications of a) providing a powerful tool for the discovery of new subatomic particles and b) providing a medical imaging device effective for early cancer detection that could have already saved many lives, now the far superior performance at a lower cost of his inventions is proving the following advantages compared to other approaches:
- In the field of physics, Crosetto’s 3D-Flow OPRA invention can replace 4,000 electronic data processing boards with only 9 electronic boards with much higher performance at one thousandth the cost.
- In the field of medical imaging, Crosetto’s 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) device, hundreds of time more efficient than the over 10,000 PET/CT in use, and more efficient and ten times less expensive than the Explorer project, could have already saved millions of lives, instead went unfunded and the Explorer, without the capability to save many lives, is funded by government agencies. 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, b) a radiation dose 1/100 of current PET and c) a very low examination cost that will cover all organs of the body. This will render individual screenings on specific parts of the body like mammograms, PAP-tests, colonoscopies and PSA unnecessary. The 3D-CBS invention that can reduce cancer deaths by over 50% through an effective early detection while reducing healthcare costs.
Why isn’t the scientific community granting Crosetto a public forum that follows a scientific procedure where he can present his inventions proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries and where he can answer the questions from his opponents? Why should we continue to needlessly lose millions of lives that could be saved and hundreds of millions of dollars in projects less efficient and more costly?
Why do world leaders continue to make the same mistake as in the nineteenth century of not defending the institutions such as governments’ missions, research centers’ missions and advancement in science, but rather chose to protect and cover up the mistakes of influential scientists? Why do world leaders protect influential scientists who do not want to follow transparent scientific procedures as ethical scientists should, and take responsibility for their statements, and be judged by the results from calculations, observations, and experiments rather than crush science by their actions to refuse public debates and suppress innovations?
For the above reasons, and to avoid a similar situation as occurred in Semmelweis’ time when thousands of needless deaths occurred over a 40-year period because his opponents did not allow a public debate following a scientific procedures, and to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity prevail, with my signature
I am requesting:
- A public scientific review of Crosetto’s new 3D-Flow OPRA invention, similar to the one held at FERMILAB in 1993 for Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention, where he presents his invention at CERN auditorium and has the possibility to publicly answer questions from his opponents. Because the benefits from Crosetto’s inventions in several fields are related to a revolutionary improvement of the tools for particle detection, and because the indisputable most advanced research center in the world in particle detection is CERN, the first review should be conducted at CERN. We are grateful to CERN Director General, Dr Fabiola Gianotti, who gave her blessing on February 3, 2017 to hold this review at CERN, nominating top experts in the field to organize such a discussion, and we hope that her example will be followed by other leaders in the field of medical imaging as well as government agencies in Europe and the U.S. who fund both particle detection and medical imaging. Specifically, the review should address Crosetto’s 271-page proposal proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries showing how 4,000 electronic data processing boards of the CERN CMS Level-1 Trigger can be replaced with only 9 electronic boards of the 3D-Flow OPRA system with much higher performance at one thousandth the cost. Similarly, the 3D-Flow OPRA system can replace electronics for the Atlas experiment and other physics experiments at a fraction of the cost and provide a much more powerful tool for them to discover new particles.
- At least two public hearings in Europe and in the U.S. where Crosetto can present his 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention targeted to early cancer detection, that makes use of the 3D-Flow system and has the highest potential to significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs compared to other approaches. Scientists who opposed Crosetto’s inventions by rejecting articles, rejecting funding and refused to provide calculations and scientific evidence defending their claims when compared to Crosetto’s claims and calculations should be invited.
- a. In Europe the ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) European Union Committee in Brussels and/or the STOA (Science and Technology Options Assessment) under the “Thematic priority area: Health and new technologies in the life sciences”, need to organize such a hearing inviting experts from European countries who spend the most money on fighting cancer (Italy, France, Germany, etc.). The audio, video and documentation of this hearing translated into 24 languages and posted as usual on the European Union website, will inform the European community. This will help accelerate the transfer the benefits of Crosetto’s inventions to the bed of the patient.
- b. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the Cancer Moonshot Project, and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT-Nelson) need to organize a combined hearing inviting their experts in particle detection and medical imaging who opposed Crosetto’s inventions, rejected his articles and his requests for funding, and in particular those who received $15.5 million funding from NCI to build the Explorer device which is less efficient and ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS. It would be appropriate to organize this combined hearing at DOE, or separate hearings starting with the DOE followed by the others. (Dr. Jim Siegrist, Director of the Office of High Energy Physics of DOE already promised Crosetto in emails and phone conversations in the summer 2015 to hold a presentation at DOE).
At all these public reviews and hearings that would follow scientific procedures of Crosetto’s 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions, it is utmost important that Dr. Stefan Ritt, President of IEEE-NPSS, the world’s largest technical professional organization with over 400,000 members dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity would attend or person(s) appointed by him. On November 5, 2016, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Strasbourg, France, Crosetto had a meeting lasting almost two hours with Dr. Ritt and the previous IEEE-NPSS President, John Verboncoeur, where they could not point out flaws with Crosetto’s inventions and where they stated they had never heard of anything like his inventions before.
I am requesting the above to the following leaders:
- Dr. Fabiola Gianotti, CERN General Director; Dr. Joel Butler, Spokesperson for the CMS experiment at CERN; Dr. Andrew Lankford, Deputy Spokesman of the Atlas experiment at CERN. Dr. Butler and Dr. Lankford have known Crosetto since the 1993 Fermilab review which they organized and defined the charges to the reviewers; and Dr. Nadia Pastrone, responsible for CMS Italian scientists at CERN, who has known Crosetto for more than 35 years when they both worked at the University of Torino. Dr. Gianotti already appointed the three persons above as experts to organize such a scientific discussion. Crosetto provided the 271 pages of his invention/proposal/project on several occasions in 2016 to Butler, Lankford and Pastrone.
- IEEE President Dr. Karen Bartleson, and IEEE-NPSS President, Dr. Stefan Ritt. On November 2016, Crosetto showed Stefan Ritt at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Strasbourg, France, the 271-page invention/proposal/project and the 59 quotes from reputable industries proving its feasibility.
- The Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation at the European Union, Dr. Carlos Moedas, the President of the Committee for Environment, Health and Food Safety (ENVI) at the European Union, Dr. Adina Ioana Valean, the Vice-President of the European Parliament, responsible for “Science and Technology Options Assessment” (STOA) at the European Union, Dr. Mairead McGuinness, Chairman of STOA, Dr. Paul Rubig. Crosetto already met the previous President of ENVI on June 23, 2016, and provided extensive documentation about his 3D-CBS invention and how it compares to other approaches.
- The Director of the Office of Science at the Department of Energy (DOE), Dr. Cherry Murray, Deputy Director for Science Programs, Dr. Patricia Dehmer, Director of the Office of High Energy Physics at DOE, Dr. Jim Siegrist, who was Crosetto’s supervisor when they both worked at the Superconducting Super Collider in 1991-94 and Siegriest knew Crosetto’s invention which he supported and included in a book edited by him. On December 22, 2015, Crosetto submitted a formal proposal to DOE; however, apparently most of the documentation submitted by Crosetto (including the formal proposal and the 59 quotes from industries proving its feasibility) disappeared from the official record of DOE.
- The U.S. Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Francis Collins, The U.S. Director of National Cancer Institute (NCI), Dr. Douglas Lowy, the U.S. Deputy Director of Extramural Research at NIH, Dr. Michael Lauer. Crosetto provided on several occasions to all the leaders at NIH and NCI the 271-page proposal and the 59 quotes from industries proving feasibility of his invention.
- The former U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden, head of the Cancer Moonshot project who received $1.8 billion on December 2016 to eradicate cancer. On January 22, 2016, Crosetto hand-delivered to the hotel where he and the American delegation were staying while attending the World Economic Congress in Davos, Switzerland, a paper copy of his invention/proposal/project described in 271 pages and the 59 quotes from industries proving feasibility. He sent an additional copy of the same material, certified U.S. mail to the office of the Vice-President in Washington D.C.
- The honorable Texas State Senator Jane Nelson who has known Crosetto since 1998, when she and hundreds of Texans benefitted for more than ten years of a cultural exchange organized by Crosetto with his home town in Italy, implementing the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (see video). Senator Nelson raised $3 billion for financing CPRIT to eradicate cancer and has prepared the 2017 annual Texas State Budget of $200 billion. She is in the position to ask scientists handling the $3 billion committed to eradicate cancer, to compare publicly, scientifically, in a fair review with no favoritism to any project, Crosetto’s breakthrough invention with respect to other projects funded by CPRIT, determining analytically which project has higher potential to significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs. (Crosetto already submitted a proposal to CPRIT in 2009). On December 13, 2016, Crosetto hand-delivered to the office of Senator Nelson in Austin, the Capitol of Texas, a paper copy of the 271-page invention/proposal/project and the 59 quotes from industries proving its feasibility.
With my signature
I am also requesting
investigative journalists and television and radio programs
open an investigation into this case
to identify and remove the obstacles that have already caused the loss of millions of lives and trillions of dollars.
To contribute to this cause to accelerate the transfer of the benefits from Crosetto’s inventions to the bed of the patient, a tax-exempt donation can be made to Crosetto foundation 501(c)(3) non-profit organization:
- · By credit card or PayPal at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?page_id=185
- To the bank account at Frost Bank, 3801 Matlock Rd, Arlington, TX 76015 – ABA: 114000093 – SWIFT: FRSTUS44 – Account: Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths cc. 98-2046679.
Today: United to End is counting on you
United to End Cancer needs your help with “Cardio-surgeon who supports the scientific truth Dr. Vincenzo Vigna: STOP SUPPRESSING CROSETTO'S LIFESAVING TECHNOLOGY: WE DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION 1”. Join United to End and 34 supporters today.